Best ever, Nate

Ph.D material.

The Money quote:

"Subsequent research has also shown that deprivation of an addicted substance even further steepens a subject’s preference for immediate consumption over delayed gratification."

I like this definition of the MPP:

The Maximum Power Principle states that all open systems (Bernard cells, ecosystems, people, societies, etc.) evolve to degrade as much energy as possible while allowing for the continued existence of the larger systems they are part of. [[1]]

And that we are natural born liars:

NATURAL-BORN LIARS

"Nor did a prince ever lack legitimate reasons by which to color his bad faith. One could cite a host of modern examples and list the many peace treaties, the many promises that were made null and void by princes who broke faith, with the advantage going to the one who best knew how to play the fox. But one must know how to mask this nature skillfully and be a great dissembler. Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions."
-- Niccolò Machiavelli

Studies have shown that people are not "rational" (in the Bayesian sense). Although the notion that people are "rational utility maximizers" was common a hundred years ago, only economists are still taught it. Scientists now know that human behavior is driven by "irrational" brain chemistry and then "rationalized" after the fact:

"When a split brain subject is subjected to tests where the left half of their brain does not know the correct answer, it will often make something up based on the information it does have." [[11]]

In the late 50s, the social scientist Erving Goffman made a stir with a book that stressed how much time we all spend on stage, playing to one audience or another. Goffman marveled that sometimes a person is "sincerely convinced that the impression of reality which he stages is the real reality."

What modern evolution theory brings to Goffman's observation is an explanation of the practical function of self-deception: we deceive ourselves in order to deceive others better. In his foreword to Richard Dawkins' THE SELFISH GENE, Robert Trivers noted Dawkins' emphasis on the role of deception in animal life and added, in a much-cited passage, that if indeed "deceit is fundamental to animal communication, then there must be strong selection to spot deception and this ought, in turn, to select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray -- by the subtle signs of self-knowledge -- the deception being practiced." Thus, "the conventional view that natural selection favors nervous systems which produce ever more accurate images of the world must be a very naive view of mental evolution." [[12]]

http://dieoff.org/page193.htm

In banking circles, a 20% drop in housing values is almost unheard of. Just about every house sold in the last ten years could come under the axe.

"As long as trillions in losses remain concealed or unresolved, the basic system for deploying capital will remain paralyzed.-Kunstler

Should the Saudi’s effectively decouple their oil from the US Dollar, the United States, for all practical purposes will cease to be a World power as it economy will collapse completely as the US Dollar has no value in and of itself due to the staggering debt of the Americans. Without oil they are nothing.

Re: Without oil they are nothing.

So the new god is oil? I often here Christians say: "Without God they are nothing." Nice to know Peak Oil thinkers are so rational. End of sarcasm. I suspect that Americans will survive better than most if the Saudi's decouple from the dollar. So what will they accept? The Euro dosen't even have a country behind it; it is pure fiction backed by only a promise and full convertibility to the dollar. European exports to the U.S. would collapse as the Euro skyrocketed. The U.S. economy would boom as globalization brought on by the strong dollar reversed big time. The Yen is from a country that produces no oil or ethanol. The Ruble? Give me a break. The Saudi's have little choice but to accept the dollar, albeit more of them due to their rapidly falling value, because the alternatives are no better in a fiat money world. If they don't trust holding dollars just trade them for gold or whatever as soon as they show up.

"I suspect that Americans will survive better than most if the Saudi's decouple from the dollar. So what will they accept?"

Gold, silver, copper, cement, uranium? Any thing of useful value would be more welcome than organized debt (fiat currency) from the biggest subprime borrower in the world. It is not a good idea to lend to governments with large debt loads, you might not get your capital back.

Regarding the post on Natural born liars:

Anthropologists use the words emic and etic for explanations of social behavior. The emic explanation is how people explain their own culture whereas the etic explanation is how an outsider, who is supposedly impartial (i.e., the anthropologist), explains it. What this means is that people evolve a certain culture in response to their ecology (I am taking the World System's view here) and then make up stories to justify/explain it as well as to use as a teaching aid for their children. Every fable, fairy tale and morality story is teaching people how they should behave. These children will become the next generation of good, god fearing, moral villagers, whatever that culture defines as good, god fearing and moral. Natural born liars is just another phrase for social propaganda and conditioning. We believe what we believe because believing that way helps us cooperate with our neighbors and get something beneficial for ourselves. A good example of this is the need for efficient, reliable and sober workers for the factories during the industrial revolution. This created the idea of the Protestant work ethic.

Of course, the dirty secret is that anthropologists don’t apply these techniques to their own cultures. We are, after all, the ‘impartial’ ones.

Jon.

From a cultural materialism point of view I see various social movements like Slow Food, Downshifters, Voluntary Simplicity, Relocalizers, etc. as ahead of the curve. They will be considered odd-balls, ignored, scorned, etc. by mainstream culture up until the time when the material conditions plus some leadership starts aligning with them. In one possible scenario, these movements will be co-opted by existing institutions because the big institutions have the means and the historical cultural clout to drive change.

I see them expressing the Shadow (in a Jungian sense) of the dominant culture. The dominant culture is exploitive, fast-paced, globally integrated, competitive, unequal, rational/quantitative, views the universe as a pile of inanimate natural resources to be quantified and utilized as rapidly as possible, etc, etc. So all the "various social movements" you list (hmm, we need some kind of umbrella term here...) are expressing the opposite of that - slow, non-competitive, local not global, emotional/intuitive not rational, socially just, viewing nature/environment as sacred, not quantitative, etc, etc

Especially, it seems to me, not quantitative. And so prone to doing things like advocating biofuels "because they are more sustainable" without understanding the consequences of what will happen if they scale.

Jung would say (I think) that our tasks, as individuals and as a society, is not to become our Shadow, but rather to integrate our shadow into the dominant (ego) personality.

I think that the dichotomy that you propose is too simple minded. On the Energy Blog you will find many enthusiastic supporters of biofuels who are clearly part of the competitive, growth oriented main, stream culture. Also there are many "greens" promoting biofuels, local food production etc who are planning to have their 401K fund growing at 8% per year forever, and are thus clearly part of the main stream culture. They see "green" technology as a way pursuing constant increases in wealth in a less destructive manner,not as a means of slowing down or sharing resources more fairly.

Human beings have a rational faculty that they use to solve specific concrete problems, but I do not see much sign that people's larger life goals are much driven by rationality. People are strongly resistant to major disruptions in the manner of living to which they have become habituated. When such disruption is threatened a strong irrational denial mechanism starts operating. In my perception smart, analytical people are subject to this denial just as much as more intuitive people. Their denial may be more subtle than that of more intuitive people, but the confidence with which many of them predict a hundred more years of economic growth seem to me to be more strongly driven by wishful thinking than by an objective evaluation of the probabilities.

To my mind the most rational response to resource depletion is to forge new social agreements which voluntarily limit consumption and which share resources fairly. I have been told over and over that this idea is impractical, unsalable, inconsistent with human nature, etc. I have even recently been accused of being insane for holding this idea. Nevertheless, from a purely physical point of view this is clearly the most sensible response to the crisis we are facing. Furthermore, in the long run we must create economic institutions that do require constant growth for healthy functioning. If we cannot get our brains around this idea today, why do we believe that people a hundred years from today will be able to do so?

'Localization' is not my mantra for achieving this goal. As transportation energy costs grows economies of scale based on centralized production will change, but barring a catastrophic collapse of energy supplies we should expect a continuous change of economic efficiency and not an abrupt transformation from centrality to locality. Of cource if social structures collapse then radical localization may be forced on us even if it is not the most efficient choice from a purely physical point of view. Insisting that we go on growing until necessity forces us to do otherwise increases the likelihood of such a social collapse.