User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
"When you look at the future using that as an assumption, scenario 9 actually seems overly pessimistic."
Wow! We obviously view the world very differently. When I read LTG I found myself finding all sorts of assumptions that bias towards a fine outcome. The authors point this out themselves, explaining how in their models there are no bad actors...corrupt politicians, greedy corporations, mob-violence, religious extremism, special-interest lobbying, paranoid nation-states...etc.
Scenario 9 seems so astonishingly impossible given the real world I did basically dismiss it.
Hmmm - I didn't say that this was probable - just that if you assumed that our industrial systems were converted to operate as a closed loop system, you could come up with a more optimistic scenario.
Its not impossible for this to be done, but its certainly a huge task, even larger than converting to a completely clean energy system.
It would be a nice thing to attempt though.
You're right - it would be nice to attempt. And I think you are right in thinking that there are a lot of resources that we have barely tapped. There are two very important factors that must be considered during that attempt, however.
1) What is the realistic possibility of making an attempt that is not heavy influenced by "bad actors"?
2) Although many resource bases may still be very abundant, the real questions are - which ones are not, and how will they affect our attempts at creating a sustainable culture?
As long as these things are also kept in mind, I am all for working for a sustainable society.
I am all for working for sustainability, but for sustainability you must begin where it is at least possible to be sustainable. At 6.6 billion people with the concomitant environmental destruction, we are ... how far away from a population sustainable on the remaining ecology?
4.5 billion too far? 5.5? 6.5?
"If there were one species that could disappear for the benefit of the sustainability of the planet, it would be us." -- Jane Goodall, "The Selfish Green" BBC debate
Yep. As always, population is one of the primary problems. I think our cultural/belief biases regarding growth and our rights to reproduce are so strong that it will take non-voluntary reductions to shake us (as a society) out of our complacency.
"I am all for working for a sustainable society". But you won't.......until everyone else does...... and everyone else thinks the same as you.
When will we start sustaining? When should we have started? Will we ever?
Look at the world around you. Over consumption is normal now, it is what got us to where we are and it will inevitably lead to collapse. We absolutely need overconsumption to sustain economic growth.
We used to have one TV per household, now there is three or four, several DVD recorders, cell phones etc. We must have the latest technological gadget or appliance.
YOU will start a sustainable lifestyle when it does not affect your means or when you are forced by circumstances. You (and I) are like the vast majority, the human race as a whole is easy to understand and predict.
Look at the past to see the future. The depletion of a resource including foodstuff will encourage a frenzy, an orgy of destruction and scramble, to get it before it is all gone or before someone else does. That is human behaviour. We will watch as the last tree is cut down, carrier pigeon slaughtered or coal seam plundered.
Sustainability will be a reality forced upon us. It won't even be recognized as what it is.
Until then we will sacrifice anything and everything to maintain a perception of business as usual.
Won't I? Perhaps on a global level my contribution means virtually nothing until most other people work towards sustainability and we reduce our population, but on a personal level there are plenty of people who are voluntarily reducing their consumption, or trying to produce for themselves. And I am one. I fully understand how futile that is when 99.9% of other people are not, but you have to start somewhere. Things won't change overnight. And I, like many people who are voluntarily changing, have a long way to go.
You may well be right - sustainability may end up being force upon us. That doesn't preclude trying to work towards a voluntary change.
I'm sorry if I insulted I'm sure you mean well..
The level of sustainability which was/is/will be required, means sacrifice. Buying a smaller car and putting a solar panel on the roof won't cut it. That's not sustainability, that's self preservation.
Eating less, growing and slaughtering your own. Sustainable manufacturing and construction.
Your perception of "entertainment" must alter completely and forever.
Our obsessive quest to obtain or participate with what makes us feel good is the ultimate journey to destruction for human kind.
Every species likes to be pleased. Animals would eat themselves to death if they could. The problem with us, is we have the ability to seek and bask is pleasures which become addictive and then appear normal. Like any addict we must continually increase our pleasure levels to obtain the "high" we sought.
Human pleasure centres can be stimulated by drugs, violence, sex, power, status, gambling and eating.
In the developed world and now in the developing world, since the turn of the last century and especially since the 1950's each succeeding generation expects more pleasures from life, they also expect more for their offspring.
We absolutely, positively cannot change. Our very existence now is interwoven with the type of world we have created. Everything is interdependent on over consumption which we have grown used to. It's acceptable behaviour.
All the popular solutions to peak oil involve more consumption. It's an attempt to maintain the current way of life. Synthetic oil, wind mills, solar cells and so are illusory solutions, exploited by governments and business. They too need straws to clutch, they have a way of life to maintain.
No insult taken. Although I may quibble over some of the specifics of your argument, I agree with you in general.
First of all, you're talking primarily about the western world, not the whole world. Over consumption is a larger problem, particularly in the U.S., than in other parts of the world such as Japan, which has anemic economic growth for many years now, greatly because of lack of "western style" consumption.
Furthermore, you're going way too far if you think people need to grow their own food and slaughter their own animals. Many members of society have not been growing their own food for thousands of years now. Things may have to change, but we're not going back to the point where people all grow their own food.
As far as us being unable to change, you're underestimating people's adaptability when forced to change. People wouldn't buy 3 TVs if each TV cost $10,000. Maybe people wouldn't be happy about it, but they'd survive.
You name every single technological innovation as illusory. I say your ideal of living on the farm where we all slaughter our own animals is even more so. Even faced with problems, we're still going to endeavor to move forward, not backwards. I doubt an agrarian society could support anywhere near the population we currently have, so that scenario already assumes catastrophic failure and thus is hardly something to aim for.
As a colleague of mine is fond of saying (somewhat ominously), "by 2100, we'll all be living sustainably".
Yeah, why not give it a try.
I like the following attitude:
"Can we rely on it that a ‘turning around’ will be accomplished by enough people quickly enough to save the modern world? This question is often asked, but whatever answer is given to it will mislead. The answer “yes” would lead to complacency; the answer “no” to despair. It is desirable to leave these perplexities behind us and get down to work.” E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful
Nice one - that sums it up pretty well.
Personally, I like:
-Andre'
(the quote apparently is variously ascribed to Barbara Marx Hubbard or Dee Hock)
Nice quote.
Most of this thread goes off discussing whether or not the scenarios are optimistic, pessimistic or whatever. But I'm much more interested in the why do we misunderstand part. Is there some sort of selection for groupthink - Obama, Hillary and Change, for example? Is there some sort of biochemical mechanism by which we affect each other's thinking? Is this Dawkin's evolution by meme? I can't see why we would select for mistakes, except maybe it's better to be in the herd than the single surviving lone wolf [Was the single man left on Mars in Bradbury's Martian Chronicle really any better off than everyone else who returned to earth for the final wars?]
The same thing was happening to the announcers during the Super Bowl. Before the Patriots scored in the last half, the announcers were talking themselves into turning on their golden boy Pats. And the Giants? Forget it - even though the Giants weren't playing the same game as the Patriots and there were still two minutes left. These are experience sportscasters - they should know better than I. But herd mentality or groupthink seems to trump any sort of critical thinking.
We go out of our way to misunderstand. We put effort into missing the point. Why? How does that help our genes? Does it function by increasing conflict? [Obviously I'm way past my depth here.]
cfm in Gray, ME
Drywki,
There may be a tie here to Nat Hagen's discussion regarding our dopamine based addictions to oil.
In that other post, Nate talks about pecking orders among social animals and how the establishment of a pecking order reduces repetition of infighting and thus minimizes energy expenditure (energy wastage) by the group as a whole.
Well, the phenomenon of "groupthink" achieves the same end result: minimization of energy consumption by the group through the unquestioning adaptation of a cohesive way of thinking, no matter how wrong the thinking is.
By conforming, and "going along to get along", individuals within the group minimize their own energy expenditures (because thinking consumes energy). They in essence become energy parasites who profit off the energy expended by others in the group, the ones who already did the "hard hard" thinking (as one esteemed leader of the USA is fond of saying).
Additionally, the group as a whole reduces its energy consumption by not spending more than a minimal amount of time thinking about, critiquing or reviewing a particular point of view or decision.
So take the decision by the American people to go to war with Iraq as an example. Once an initial "go" (rather than "no go") decision was adopted, the bulk of the herd fell into line and made the excuse that further questioning was "unpatriotic".
But truth be told, most people do not enjoy doing some hard hard thinking on their own. It consumes personal energy and personal time. It's so much easier to become a mental parasite and unquestionably adopt the "groupthink" as one's own.
Thank you for bringing up this very interesting question. :-)
And thank YOU for your development of it.
... Sometimes I just fall in love with this site all over again!
I'll ditto that sentiment.
This site is filled with many perspicacious contributors like Driki who spend time (and their own energy) thinking about stuff and posing interesting questions. Then collectively we start developing greater understandings of the world around us.
If it hadn't been for Nate Hagen's excellent post the other day, I would have never started thinking about energy conservation within a group. If it hadn't been for Driki's observant question, I would have never made the connection between the two ideas. So it is only with the combined contributions of all the people here at TOD that ideas are developed.
Thank you Jaymax for pointing that out about why TOD is so cool. Most web sites are filled with flame wars. This one is filled with thoughtful discussions. Let's keep it up.
Someone else made the point that any major decisions made by leaders that are supported by the people (groupthink) by definition rely on the support of 'irrational' people in order to succeed. In this case, these 'irrational' people could be seen as those who "...do not enjoy doing some hard thinking on their own."
I thought the connection with 'irrational' people was a good insight in spite of (or possibly because of) the fact that it grates on a lot of people who like to think of the human race as having the capability of making 'rational' decisions in a groupthink-like way. The challenge for a really good leader is to take advantage of the group-think (sheeple?) tendencies of people without coming across as an evil manipulator (Cheney?). Good leaders and bad leaders use the same basic 'rabble-rousing' techniques. It's just that good leaders happen to espouse policies that I agree with ;-) (after having thought long and hard about them of course!)
We are all idea-parasites.
How often have you heard someone say, "I'm not a ___ expert, but those who are say that X is true and Y is false"?
(Fill in the blank and substitute as appropriate for X and Y.
Example: ___=Petroleum, X=Infinite_growth, Y=Peak Oil.)
We all accept the "hard thinking" done by the experts and blindly adopt most of them as our own. If the doctor says, "Take this blue pill twice a day," you do it. If the banker says, "Take this subprime loan," you do it. If the government says, "We're here to help ...", you believe them.
A complex and highly specialized civilization requires that we trust others to do the hard thinking for us. We each can't do it all.