Maybe we should genetically engineer differant humans. ;-)

The original Staniford article was much too long. Excuse me if I read it wrong by only skimming it.

My impression is that he is presenting a supply side scenario for energy production based on assumptions of economic gowth requiring growth in the use of energy.

I too am cynical about the intelligence of the majority of humans and the inability to reach them and their "elected" (I quote elected because the candidates are bought and therefore beholden to the interests of the economic elite) representatives.

The trouble with focusing on supply side economics and energy is that they both ignore demand. In relation to economics, the lack of effective demand for the plethora of consumer products will prove to be the downfall of this past generation's experiment with supply side economics. With respect to energy, we must recognize that demand side management is critical to any possibility of a sustainable future. I don't think that liberal economics (laissez faire, the so-called free market)can deal with the problem(s). We need a planned economy to effectively retrofit the infrastructure with regards to increasingly scarce energy supplies and to rebuild our communities to be walkable, therfore eliminating the terrible daily waste of oil/energy resources for transportation purposes.

I have to differ with Staniford's rosy scenario regarding the contributions tha photovoltaics will make. I'm not an electrical engineer or an electrician, but it is my understanding that PVs don't have the oomph (be it voltage, amperage and/or wattage) to contribute very significantly to the current and recommended increased usage of electricity. Sure PVs and wind might be able to contribute to lighting applications, but I doubt they can power our transportation, our industrial and home heating, hot water, agricultural inputs,refrigeration, drying, and cooking needs.

We could go full throttle to the building of nuclear power plants, but I am highly leary of their toxicity and safety issues. Even if we pursued the path of electrification with the maximization of nuclear power, it will require a tremendous overhaul of our transportation infrastructure and all the other applications currently met by oil products and natural gas.

First of all, nuclear is not a "free market" technology. Most of the resources for development of this technology were paid for by government programs. Then, there is the waste issue. Is it not the Federal Government who is going to or proposing to pay for the waste depository at Yucca Mountain (Nevada)? Then there is the issue of bringing back the so-called Price-Anderson legislation. This is legislation to insure the power plants and related operations. No private insurer will touch them, thus the government had to step in to provide such insurance.

I am cynical and believe that in the next generation or two we are heading toward a massive die-off. As a matter of understatement it will be ugly and messy. Those few who survive will need to be self-sufficient. Thus, under such a scenario, what Staniford calls historical reversalism, a relocalization of sorts will be realized.

A much better scenario could be realized (go ahead, call me Pollyanna)if we started very soon with a planned economy that focused first on demand side management and also the retrofitted infrastructures with respect to very scarce and relatively clean (I view carbon resources, if appropriately used to be cleaner than nuclear) energy applications.

Relocalization is part of the plan (and not just for food). Instead of reversalism, let me offer the following re words for your consideration, response, and suggested action.

Reformation

Little to no beneficial changes will occur without an almost religious change from the paradigm of economic growth and standard of living to one that emphasizes community redevelopment and quality of life. This is an educational component of an alternative ecological economic plan.

Reorganization

If we can be successful and realize the educational/reform component, we need concurrently to reorganize our economic systems to one of cooperative (i.e. economic democracy, or at least partially so - we will probably need to compromise with relation to the divide between the one dollar/one vote and one person/one vote structure of economic organization) communitarian local and regional economic entities.

Reallocation

We need coordinated regional planning agencies that agree on the fundamental mission of a global ecological economy that has the two basic pillars of sustainability and equity. These "planning" agencies would work together to determine and facilitate how resources are allocated to and within communities based on the relocalization paradigm and other governing principles.

Restructuring

Communities will need to be physically rebuilt to make them walkable (i.e. new urbanism, building community centers making necessities and reasonable wants available to all within walking distance of all homes).Included in such a plan would be neighborhood work stations where office workers could telecommute in their occupations that are involved with the transition from an entropic Capitalist system to an ecological Socialist one.

Reduction

Reduce, reuse, recycle.

You can get more info. about my plan by going to: www.culturechange.org/Morin.html .

Workin' for peace and cooperation,

Mike Morin

Here's someone writing about Human Nature from a Marxist viewpoint

"Q. What About "Human Nature"?

A. The question of so-called "human nature" is one of the most commonly raised arguments against socialism - but it is also one of the easiest to debunk. Many people believe that the way people think has always been the same, and that we will always think the way we do now. But a few examples will show that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is, like all things in nature, human consciousness and society are always in a state of change. Marx explained that "conditions determine consciousness". In other words, our environment determines to a large degree how we think. We know what rap music, Hollywood movies, and a Boeing 747 are because they exist in our world. For example, if we were born 5,000 years ago as peasants in China, our world-view would be very different! If we were born as royalty in China 5,000 years ago, we would also have a very different view of things than if we were peasants."

And he goes on at some more length here : http://www.newyouth.com/content/view/117/60/#humannature

Human psychological nature may be complex, but there is a human psychological nature (just as there is a "human physiological nature"). The authors of the textbook to which you are referring are "social constructionists." The bane of cultural anthropology is has been the search for the culturally exotic while ignoring the underlying commonalities ("human nature") between cultures. The blank slate, human-natureless "Standard Social Science Model" is being gradually replaced by the nature-nurture interactionism (the "Integrated Model"). So human nature is relevant.

Moreover, "life nature" is relevant. All life is a competition to replicate genes (genes that didn't replicate just are not here anymore). Thus, the competition for resources. Evolution does not occur for the "good of the species" -- unfortunately, there is no brake to stop replication and resource consumption just before reaching overshoot levels.

As I have mentioned elsewhere here, inclusive fitness is not absolute, it is always relative to the inclusive fitness of competitors. That is both the "life nature" and "human nature" we are up against.

It may not be nice to fool Mother Nature, but that is what we need to do to avoid overshoot. I wrote about this in a previous post: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3375#comment-277043

Cheers, Mike

http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm

George,

I wasn't going to 'stick my oar in' as my granny used to say, but after reading Stuart's interesting speculations and attempts to weld positive solutions together; and then to see his work dissed so quickly, almost like a reflex, and the hoary 'argument' about 'human nature' dregged up, I couldn't contain myself.

Why do people casually assume they know anything about 'human nature'? What is 'simple' about the concept of 'human nature'? What's so simple about 'nature'? What's simple about being 'human'? Is it because they consider themselves unequely qualified in some way to comment? Is it because they are human? Is it because they are natural? Or a bit of both? Or perhaps neither of the two?

I confess I'm sick and tired of hearing about human nature. Every time I hear the phrase, I feel lik reaching for my pistol, to paraphrase another self-confessed expert on human nature - Hermann Goring.

'Human nature' is a cultural construct. It changes constantly, both in time and place. Therefore it isn't constant, not 'natural', and put simply it's a myth. Much like God, we created our 'nature', and we can change it if we so desire.

Coincidentally I was chatting to friend of mine who is a professor of anthropology just the other day, and the subject of 'human nature' popped up, we'd both heard some asshole politician using the phrase relating to the current the meltdown of Capitalism. My friend also rolls his eyes every time he hears somone pontificating about 'human nature'.

Let's say human civilization is around six or seven thousand years old, that is people we recognize as human like us culturally. They had streets, houses, temples, writing, maths, fields, kings, poets, soldiers, armies, wars, schools, religion... On the other hand humans like us have been wandering around for about 150,000 years. Six thousand years, contrasted with 150,000 years. One figure is considerable shorter than the other. What does anthropolgy tell us about the way these humans lived for the overwhelming period of human existance? Well they were hunters and gatherers for well over 100,000 years, long before agriculture came along and settlements of any duration. What does anthropolgy and archeology tell us about the main characteristic of hunter-gatherer groups/societies? That they had an extraordinary level of solidarity and co-operation, they were forced to work together for the common good and survival of the group, or they would simply disappear. Life was hard and tenuous. Work together or die was the rule that kept our species alive for over a hundred thousand years. This was our culture. This was our 'nature'. Our culture defines our 'nature'.

Of course once we moved into perminent settlements, civilization and culture really took off and our 'nature' adapted accordingly, but that is another, larger, and more complex story.