315 comments on DrumBeat: February 2, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
315 comments on DrumBeat: February 2, 2008
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know, it's what we know for sure that just ain't so.”
—Mark Twain
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
“The fastest way to decrease our carbon footprint is to decrease our consumption of energy,” Schweitzer said in his keynote address before a panel discussion by state and local leaders on climate change policy.
This is the same Brian Schweitzer who thinks we should be making an all-out coal-to-liquids push. That's not exactly going to decrease the carbon footprint. In fact, I have become convinced that we are not going to address Global Warming at all, because we don't care to pay the price. And by address, I mean actually cause GHG emissions to decrease worldwide. We can pass all the Kyoto Protocols we want, but when gasoline consumption in the U.S., China, and India continue to increase - and China keeps building coal-fired power plants - then there is not much hope, IMO.
"Ecology and Capitalist Costs of Production: No Exit"
by Immanuel Wallerstein
"There are two different kinds of operations in preserving the environment. The first is the cleaning up of the negative effects of a production exercise (for example, combating chemical toxins that are a by-product of production, or removing non-biodegradable waste). The second is investment in the renewal of the natural resources that have been used (for example, replanting trees). Once again, the ecology movements have put forward a long series of specific proposals that would address these issues. In general, these proposals meet with considerable resistance on the part of the enterprises that would be affected by such proposals, on the grounds that these measures are far too costly, and would therefore lead to the curtailment of production.
The truth is that the enterprises are essentially right. These measures are indeed too costly, by and large, if we define the issue in terms of maintaining the present average worldwide rate of profit. They are too costly by far. Given the deruralization of the world and its already serious effect upon the accumulation of capital, the implementation of significant ecological measures, seriously carried out, could well serve as the coup de grƒce to the viability of the capitalist world-economy. Therefore, whatever the public relations stance of individual enterprises on these questions, we can expect unremitting foot-dragging on the part of capitalists in general. We are in fact faced with three alternatives. One, governments can insist that all enterprises internalize all costs, and we would be faced with an immediate acute profits squeeze. Or, two, governments can pay the bill for ecological measures (clean-up and restoration plus prevention), and use taxes to pay for this. But if one increases taxes, one either increases the taxes on the enterprises, which would lead to the same profits squeeze, or one raises taxes on everyone else, which would probably lead to an acute tax revolt. Or, three, we can do virtually nothing, which will lead to the various ecological catastrophes of which the ecology movements warn. So far, the third alternative has been carrying the day. In any case, this is why I say that there is "no exit," meaning by that that there is no exit within the framework of the existing historical system...."
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/iwecol.htm
It's really hard to argue with this. Last night I went to a presentation by a young, intense group (Cascadia Rising Tide) about global warming and carbon credit trading. They put on a superb program, and a brave face, but in the end, they were merely left with "hope" that people would wake up to the massive theft and environmental degradation that the various carbon-credit and cap-and-trade schemes produce-- and somehow get their elected representatives to stop it. The situation is even more dire than I had realized, and I'm afraid that in recent years I have always expected the worst.
Aha! The light bulb goes on!
Now think it through, all the way through. And be sure to not forget this:
People who expect "business as usual" to solve these problems are completely delusional. Chaco Canyon refutes that. The Mayans refute that. Mesopotamia refutes that.
But like good programmed homo sapiens, they will go on believing what they believe until they physically cannot believe it any longer.
P is for Piranha. Virtually everything coming out of the piranha class will make the situation worse. I qualify with "virtually" only because there is bound to be some mildly positive tertiary consequence.
cfm in Gray, ME
Hello NeverLNG,
Cascadia Rising Tide?--cool name! Once this young group realizes that 'hope' is futile: expect a shift to Secession, sequential building and enlargement of biosolar habitats, and ruthless Earthmarine mindset for optimal species protection. Just my speculation, of course.
Consider the Seed Bank now being stocked in Norway-- I suggest that any attempt by starving mobs to eat this vital reserve will be ruthlessly repelled by any and all measures from weaponized smallpox/ebola, to nukes, to snipers picking off adults to little kids-- whatever is required to protect this biota thru the coming postPeak transition.
IMO, Peak Outreach is the greatest info charity to mankind and the protection of biota for future generations the greatest gift. The question to be answered: can we develop a focused conflict method [such as Asimov's Foundations, Earthmarine vs Mercs, biosolars vs detritovore, etc] for optimal Bottleneck Squeeze? Or is a full, diffuse anarchy, grinding Thermo/Gene catabolic collapse, and extinction our fate?
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
http://www.risingtidenorthamerica.org/wordpress/category/rising-tide-cas...
Cool group of young people who really care, and for the most part, walk the walk. Personally, I am becoming persuaded by Derik Jensen's idea that "hope is a narcotic" -- but that may be too harsh and cynical. These kids are actually making a difference in the world, and in them lies hope for the human race.
This looks cool - any sense of how many members it has? How long has it been around? The Relocalize folks have frowned on our efforts here and WiserEarth.org is huge, but I'm not having the time/sense to get any traction with it ... would be nice to expand horizons and this sounds like an intriguing group.
There was recently an article in the New Yorker about seed banks. There was(is?) one in Russia (St. Petersburg if I remember correctly) and during WWII one or more of the caretakers actually starved to death guarding the seeds from other starving people.
You must be referring to Nicolai Vavilov.
An amazing Russian scientist, his story written up
in this Russian site .
It goes on... reporting on our own Al Gore visiting the site and using American funds to try to save the collection of ancient seeds Vavilov so painstakingly amassed.
Great Reference, Hardhat, thanks!
As James Thurber said as the moral of one of his tales..
"There's no safety in numbers, or in anything else!"
Bob
Bob, I always enjoy your posts and find them upbeat, even if some others may not. I'd like to think that sort of 'planetary patriotism' will emerge but so far I haven't seen it except in a very few outliers.
Hope so. I think the secession - or at least talk of it - is reasonably likely at some point, but Earthmarines don't exist now when it would be relatively painless and the information is all to be had for the taking, so I really don't see it happening. Talk is one thing, action another. Guess we'll see.
Frankly, I wish they'd hide the damn thing. Seems more pragmatic than squirting ebola on the mobs. Oh, and replicate it in about 3 dozen places including the antarctic.
I have to say that thinking of such 'seed banks' reminds me a lot of the movie "silent running" with Bruce Dern; anyone into doomer porn should see it. Be a good earthmarine recruiting film.
THAT should be a keypost... why don't you write it?
Cheers.
You might want to read this opinion about the seed bank before getting all misty eyed. If Engdahl is right - and he certain puts forth a strong case - then this seedbank is all about Monsanto and Dupont hedging their bets as they screw around with plant genetics. Sort of the ultimate DNA backup.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7529
The misty eyes are for the preservation of species. The motivation of those doing it quite secondary, though as noted I'd like to see seed banks replicated in many places.
I don't doubt that Monsanto, Dupont, etc have their own calculations, but on brief reading Engdahl comes off as a bit nuts. I have a hard time buying this as part of a Nazi-esque eugenics program.
Saving seeds and species is a good idea.
I agree that it is a good idea - but one thing you can be sure of: those investing companies are not doing it out of the kindness of their hearts (despite what good intentions some individuals might have). They will be seeing the possibility for profit/power down the line somewhere.
Yeah, I agree, but use the term "inertia" because such exists on Nature's side too. I see two large wheels--Mill Stones--one representing BAU, the other Nature; only one is several orders of magnitude larger than the other, which makes it clear that when the wheels meet the smaller will be easily crushed by the larger. The larger wheel is Nature's Natural Systems. As noted, previous human BAU wheels--Mayan, Mesopotamian, Sarasvati (Vedic), Roman--have met the Natural Wheel and we can see the results.
good analogy. and the Way in which the larger wheel operates is called Dao. LaoZi had all this as well as the solution figured out way before the so called "Christian era."
I think any grown up over the age of 25 knows that we will choose option #3"...do virtually nothing..."
Any doomsdayer worth his oats has by now read Jared Diamonds' "Collapse". The grim conclusion that Diamond reached in his thoroughly entertaining treatise was that societies that are focused on their lifestyle and political competition will forego longterm goals for the sake of status and power.
Even his Anthropology students had to ask the inevitable question:
"What did the Easter Islander think who cut down the last tree on Easter Island?"
Currently, due to the monster of "globalization", we earthlings are accelerating our collapse and this time the collapse will not be regional but global in nature. Like the ancient Easter Islanders we are isolated on a small planet in a relatively obscure solar system , with no close neighbors. Nationalities are in fierce competition with one another for hegeomony, status and resources. Root causes: overpopulation and enviromental destruction.
One huge irony is that the consuming nations assume that there will be a winner at the end of this "competition". If we could grasp the lesson of the long extinct Norse civilization in Greenland 800 years ago:
"..the winners were the ones who had the priveledge of being the last ones to starve to death..."
Hi joemichaels and Leanan,
Every so often, I'd like to interject the article below into the discussion, when we draw on the history of "Easter Island" as an example.
"Easter Island" or Rapa Nui can still teach us a lot - it's just that its important to take an fresh, objective look at the evidence, as well. There are new lessons to be learned.
Really worth a read (IMVHO).
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/AssetDetail/assetid/53200?full...
Rethinking the Fall of Easter Island by Terry Hunt. In the American Scientist.
Aniya - Thank-you for the aritcle in American Scientist. Although I think that the demise of the Easter Islanders may have been more complex than perhaps Diamond may have concluded, the questions that remain unanswered is if the easter Islanders were increasing at a prolific 3% annually and the maximum population that Easter Island reached was 3,000 and not 15,000 what were the factors that kept their numbers to the more sustainable level of 3,000 prior to the arrival of Europeans? War, genocide, starvation? If the Easter Islanders percieved that the rats were a danger to their survival it would have taken a relatively short time to bring the rat populations into control. After all we have to assume that the Islanders were intelligent enough to understand their delicate ecosystems better than late-coming archaeologists. Who destroyed the massive monolithic monuments? The natives or the European invaders? Why?
The thing that makes the Easter Islanders collapse even more appropriate as an example of our future collapse is the invasion of humans followed much later by the introduction of the European invaders. The impacts of Globalization and corporate slavery of less developed nations, World Bank Policies, deforestation, invasive species, mono-agriculture, Peak Oil, Global Warming...these are no doubt all complex factors that will all have to be considered when future scientists grapple with the reasons for the collapse of human society on planet Earth.
How?
You have 3,000 people and millions of rats on 160sq km of substantially-forested island, and your most sophisticated technology is an outrigger canoe. How, exactly, do you plan to reduce the rat population and prevent them from breeding to re-fill the niche?
I think you're making assumptions here that are not at all warranted. Even now, with modern technology, Australia has largely failed to control its rabbit population; there's no indication that the inhabitants of Rapa Nui would have had the ability to control the rat population of their island.
Hey Pitt - thanks for the question. You state that there were millions of rats. What do you base that assertion on other than exponential growth rates. This a a relatively small island. What were the limitations to rat populations other than human predators? Food. When rat populations overwhelms the food supply rats have a very basic form of population control: Cannibalism.
Also I suggest you re-read James Clavells' "King Rat". The basics of the story is how a large group of Allied prisoners of war on a small pacific island learned to survive using rats and cockroaches as a vital source of protien. They caged, captured and harvested the rats using very simple technologies.
The rabbits of Australia had the ready expanse of a continent to spread and seek refuge. The rats of easter Island had nowhere to go. Rat eradication is energy intensive yet a low technology endeavor. It would have required an intensive local program (remember on Easter Island everthing was local)that would have have easily curtailed rat populations to tolerable levels.
Perhaps the rats, as in the Clavell's novel, were used by the Easter islanders as a vital source of protein?
Now about that "Outrigger canoe" comment...? Please!
There is little that can be done to stem the tide of consumption. And, consumption is the driving force of GHG emissions. Until the issue of consumption is addressed, there is no hope of altering emissions.
Consumption will not be addressed, for it is the corner-stone of all economies. There is no courage to destroy such a fearsome beast, for we all fear that we will destroy our chances at fame and fortune along with it. If only the human race developed the ability to see beyond our own prosperity.
Thank you.
Mark Twain, the anti dote to the Gilded Age.
Which begat the Fed Res, Income tax, and the ability to fight
WWI.
I'm confused about the relative pronoun. Are you saying Mark Twain started the Fed Res, etc., or the Gilded Age did? If the latter, it certainly didn't start there -- that was just the first flare of the resurgent sun of global empire in the USA after its early experiments with "freedom for some." I'm pretty sure that most of the founding fathers and the occasional founding mother were firmly in the camp of Empire-- they just wanted to make sure that they, not the English or the French or the Spanish or the Russians were in control. "Democracy" was exploited as a tool to get control of the continent, and having achieved that, Democracy is to be shrunk back down where it belongs and flushed down the bathtub. The program is progressing swimmingly.
I know you were focused on GW, but the same thing is true of the Peak Oil debate. Consider the discussion between Simmons, Hirsch and Rubin (we are very close to or past Peak Oil) versus the positions taken by ExxonMobil, OPEC and CERA (we don't have to worry about Peak Oil for decades).
Even many of the people who believe that Simmons, et al are correct don't want to rock the boat, i.e., the "Enron Effect," they have a vested financial interest in continued consumption and they don't want to bring down the whole house of cards.
I guess that all we can do is to warn those who will listen and then continue to bail out of highly energy dependent assets like large suburban homes--via sales to the true believers in the Yerginite Community.
I would further say that it is not just that "they don't want to bring down the whole house of cards". But also that they have considered the options of reducing consumption and increasing consumption, and have decided that what is best for them - personally - is their perception that greater prosperity via increasing consumption allows a better defense against any changes in the future. Money is power. Power over everything, including Nature.
It is this core belief - that money and prosperity is the greatest defense - that is the essence of the human race. Nothing will (or can) abate this belief in the greater power of prosperity over all things.
And, you are correct to point out that consumption is not just about GW, but also about energy (and PO, specifically). Any discussion of reducing consumption will cause most of the human race undue discomfort. We don't want to think that tomorrow will not be easier than today.
"It is this core belief - that money and prosperity is the greatest defense - that is the essence of the human race. Nothing will (or can) abate this belief in the greater power of prosperity over all things."
Spot on! and this truth spells the end of humanity.
It seems to be the conclusion of most peakniks too. That a big part of their "plan" is to get more money as if that will insure a softer landing.
Focus more on HUMANITY and less on the dehumanizing activity of getting more money.
But money can insure a softer landing. Do you want all the capital in the hands of peak oil and global warming deniers, or do you want it in the hands of people who have come to terms with reality and are looking to put it to work in ways that improve the situation?
Westexas has it right--people who understand the situation should be unloading their SUVs and McMansions onto the Yerginites. They should be investing in oil futures contracts and solar panels on their homes. They should definitely seek to prosper at the expense of the deniers. It's nature's way of dealing with fools.
I've phrased it this way:
What is the fundamental intrinsic value of the world's 100 largest oil fields without the world's 100 largest financial institutions?
What is the fundamental intrinsic value of the world's 100 largest financial institutions without the world's 100 largest oil fields?
Careful. A variety of financial institutions existed and had intrinsic value when burning surface collected oil was little more than another way to defend the castle from attackers.
It's not evident that oil would have much value in the absence of financial institutions, and while I know you are thinking of the BofA sort of institutions, I would include money itself as the transcendant financial institution. It's not clear to me that civilisation would not be at more risk in the absence of financial institutions than it will be during the decline and eventual virtual disappearance of oil.
None of this to say that I don't believe that the share of the pie being grabbed by the rentier class needs serious cutting.
The main problem I see with solar panels is that its difficult to hide them.
I get the idea that if TSHTF, the authorities will simply take them by eminent domain. They have helicopters, and can readily fly over neighborhoods looking for them if they want to. The need the run the Police Department's air conditioners may well supercede your need of running your refrigerator. All it takes to take your system is a signature.
Otherwise, you may leave your house for a couple of hours, and when you come back, gone!
Its hard to have something if everyone else wants it and knows you have it.
In some contexts, conspicuous displays of preparedness might be inadvisable.
It's almost as if one has created a 'religon' or 'cult' based on the worship of money and prosperity. One's even built temples and shrines and sites where pilgrims can gather to pay tribute and sacrifice to their God. The Muslims have Mecca, and we have Las Vegas.
Only money, prosperity and marterialim, are probably a poor substitute for spiritual well-being. Maybe Jesus was right, and Love is what really matters, all the rest is just an illusion.
I kinda doubt it. A lot of peak oilers have fond fantasies of the filthy rich being given the Marie Antoinette treatment by hordes of angry FWOs. But the reality is likely to be different. The very rich did fine during the Great Depression, and I suspect they'll do fine in the "long emergency," too. Or at least, better than the rest of us, which is really all they need to do.
As Sharon Astyk said in a recent post in her new blog:
FWO's?
Formerly Well Off
If one views history from Olympian heights and the analytical category du jour is an amorphous "the rich" then of course the rich are always with us and history is bunk and the more things change the more they remain the same.
If one is Marie Antoinette the French Revolution is a pretty big deal. The current Count of Paris cuts a rather smaller figure than did the antebellum Sun King.
For the American upper classes the Depression hardly mattered. They'd made buckets of money in the immediately preceding War and made more buckets of money in the imminent second chapter of the War. Conveniently fought elsewhere. The New Deal was a bother but the rich bided their time and started undoing it from 1968.
For the European aristocracy 1914 was the end of the world and the Depression confirmed it.
It is always easy to say nothing matters and nothing ever happens. Wealth and inertia can make those sentiments seem true. In the present circumstance I would rather be informed by Agincourt. The flower of France were convinced of their invincibility. The first alarums of battle did not disturb their equanimity. They knew their wealth and position would prevail. They stood their ground. And were slaughtered. Many great houses were extinguished. The French aristocracy was a shadow for generations and in some sense was evermore something different.
The question was whether wealth will provide a soft landing for the rich. I think in all likelihood, it will.
In the initial stages of collapse (i.e. the next five years or so) you are no doubt correct, if they are smart and don't lose their money in a stock market crash. The more money you have the less likely you are to lose your home to foreclosure and fall off the economic ladder as the economy tanks. But in the longer term there isn't going to be "soft landing" for anyone on the planet, the wealthy included.
I think business as usual is going to go on for a lot longer than five years. And the rich are the ones who will be able to afford solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, etc.
They'll also be the ones who can afford to relocate, should it become necessary.
My better off friends have a large photovoltaic array and a Prius. My husband and I have discussed both but have neither
Can you see the world entering a recession due to peak oil, and it ever ending? Unmitigated, Peak Oil equals permanent recession equals goodbye BAU doesn't it?
Probably yes to part 1, probably no to part 2.
When I say "BAU," I don't mean we won't notice that anything's different. I mean there won't be the kind of sharp discontinuities some are predicting (the middle class rising up to kill all the rich, mass dieoff that kills off 95% of the population before 2030, nuclear war, etc.).
How many children of the Roman Senate and Patrician class survived the fall of Rome?
How many bear latin names to this day?
Why does England offer up so many pots of treasure that were never claimed by the people who laid them down?
No.
They did not make it. Maybe they died out. Maybe they blended in with the survivors.
Most died.
There was a Coda.
stop.
.
Dunno, but Tainter noted that the wealthy were the last to suffer. The poor suffered first, then the middle class, and last, the wealthy. The wealthy eventually set themselves up on country estates, with the poor to work their land for them.
Quite a few, but they are no longer recognized as Latin.
Umm...they all died. It was a long time ago, and we all die eventually.
Anything's possible, but I think we are most likely to face the "brother in law on the couch version of the apocalypse." (Which some no doubt consider the worst possible future.) The wealthy will have more room for their brother in laws, and more means to support them.
The rich did not survive. We have exceptional examples of trashed villas here in England.
We have evidence of wooden (Saxon) buildings erected on sites that were formerly Romano-British villas.
And of course we have the periodic finds of hoards
The wealthy Romano-British got eaten by Saxon wolves, as did the Romano-British peasantry.
If you were rich enough , you got out of dodge: you did not hang around to meet the 'white socks' or to find out about the 'night of the long knives'*
*most people think that the NOLK was Hitlerian. Hitler based it on a Saxon massacre of Romano-British Royalty. A meeting was called. All weapons were forbidden. But no one checked the Saxons for the long , leaf-bladed knife (saex)that was universal among the Saxons.
They hid them in their white socks.
That means their villas did not survive. It doesn't mean they did not. Being wealthy means having the means to escape, if necessary. Things could very well have been even worse for the poor.
A better support for your view is the Maya. It was the elite who appear to have either died or left. However, even the Maya had a "catabolic collapse." It took a couple of centuries for them to collapse, with the elite probably doing quite well for most of that time.
They fled or died. Rich or Poor, the Romano-British got changed out:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990106/ai_n9655679
It must have been quite nasty for the RB's.
Who are we?
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/7/1008
Dorme Bien.
Not according to the genetic record they didn't.
The population of the British Isles has remained substantially similar since the close of the last Ice Age when it was repopulated.
They weren't all killed by the Saxons, they just changed their customs, and carried right on speaking the Germanic language they always had in England, not Celtic.
'The other myth I was taught at school, one which persists to this day, is that the English are almost all descended from 5th-century invaders, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, from the Danish peninsula, who wiped out the indigenous Celtic population of England.'
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7817
One guy who lies in the village of Cheddar proved to be very closely related to a 9,000 year old skeleton, in the same location!
'This is my favorite, maybe because of the name. He is a 9,000-year-old skeleton who lived in a cave, and who has a distant male relative living right down the street in Cheddar, England. Cheddar Man was a Stone Age hunter-gatherer who lived in southwestern England. Scientists from Oxford University's Institute of Molecular Medicine, led by Dr. Sykes, analyzed mitochondrial DNA extracted from one of Cheddar Man's molar teeth. The results were compared to those of 20 people in the area. Researchers say that it shows that Britons descended from European hunter-gatherers rather than Middle Eastern farmers. I would note that since mtDNA analyses were done, we cannot say that Cheddar Man fathered any children since the mtDNA of Cheddar would have been passed down by his mother. The living relative and Cheddar had a most recent common ancestor 10,000 years ago.'
http://www.ramsdale.org/dna10.htm
I remember that "Cheddar Man" story. Great stuff.
I've been tempted to get a DNA analysis, flawed as they are. Haven't quite been able to justify the expense, all things considered.
Fun, isn't it? I couldn't believe it when they reconstructed the face of the Cheddar man - he could have been the brother of the guy closely related by mitochondrial DNA!
Actually, I overstated my case about no die off when the Saxon's came, which was based on Stephen Oppenheimer's writings in the links I gave, or rather the book.
He got a bit confused about whether he was writing a popularisation or a thesis, and not a very well indexed one at that, so I couldn't be bothered in a subject of passing interest to me to put in the effort needed to follow properly.
I found his arguments based on language quite persuasive though - the first English we are aware of is quite a bit different from that in the areas it was supposed to have come from in a short time in the 5th and 6th century, and appears to be a separate branch of the Germanic languages which had been around in England since the ice age.
The English are most closely related to the Belgiums according to his analysis, but I believe that there is still a lot of academic debate about the extent of displacement.
Leanan,
There have a lot of postings using the past as a gague to the future. I think one thing that undercuts the idea that the well off will do well is the complexity of society and the reality that there are many skilled (in technology and tactics) and seriously armed.
Certainly some rich people will, indeed, have "bunkers", armoured vehicles and a private security force. But, the remainder will be as exposed as the next person in the tract house. It doesn't take much to screw up the sewer, the power, the water and communications. And, it's certainly easy to whack people from a distance (or, at the very least, make their lives untenable) or use IEDs.
To me, the only thing that possibly prevents this is "hope" among those who are impacted. Hope may be the overthrow of TPTB or another shippment of food on the way. But, were people to believe that there is nothing to lose, then they will destroy whatever appears to causing their pain.
Todd
Yeah, well, I think the "hope" might go on for a very long time. It did during the Great Depression. And it is in the countries that are currently having difficulties. People get upset, block the street, burn a few tires, maybe trash a utility truck and a few transformers...then go back home and wait for the power to come back on so they can watch TV.
Also, that technology you speak of could well be used to control the population. Cameras watching you everywhere, the FBI monitoring your phone calls and Internet use, perhaps mass use of psychoactive drugs. I suspect there's still a lot of low-handing fruit in that department.
Yeah, in Rwanda people burned a few tires, blocked a few streets, and went home all right.. After slaughtering about 800,000 people. Just imagine what would have happened had their country been saturated with guns.
Sure, right up until the time that cheap energy ceases to be plentiful. Then I think we'll see the playing field leveled. In this sense, energy depletion may turn out to be a pretty significant equalizer, and the 270 million guns owned by private American citizens may become much more relevant. Just think back to how effective the Redcoats(with all their technological superiority) were in controlling their rebellious New World colony (poorly armed relative to the British).
This is another reason I wouldn't mind moving to New Zealand. I want no part in this.
Rwanda is not peak oil related. They had a long and bloody history of conflict. And even in Rwanda...only about a tenth of the population died. A far cry from the 95% dieoff some are expecting. Today, they are continuing on more or less as usual.
Which is what I expect for us. Yes, there will be "points of discontinuity"...but we'll recover, settle in at a lower energy state, and continue on...until the next crisis.
Disagree. Cost won't enter into if the government is involved. It'll just be a matter of priorities...and control of the population will be a priority.
You're right, it is not directly related. But if you flip through Diamond's chapter on Rwanda in "Collapse," some of the contributing factors (there seem to have been many) stemmed from overpopulation. There were just "too many people on too little land." Peak oil means peak food, meaning there will be too many people and not enough food. Which is just as bad of a scenario, and probably worse.
Well the 300+ years of U.S. History haven't exactly been conflict-free.
The ecological stressors in Rwanda's case will pale in comparison to those stemming from peak oil and climate change. The U.S. (and the world) will soon face a multitude of ecological threats, including topsoil depletion, aquifer and water table drawdown, massive erosion, drought, fertilizer shortage, and much more. In short, the Perfect Storm.
Diamond's take on Rwanda is controversial; not everyone agrees with it.
We simply don't know that.
In the long run...very probably. But in the short term (i.e., our lifetimes), who knows?
Maybe the “soft landing” for the rich will be a designer pillow under the guillotine. The one thing the aristocracy (the rich) in the United States have had too worry about, unlike their European counterparts, is fear for their necks. They have always successfully used force to squash the masses. A European aristocrat could look at the painting of his ancestor on his wall and ponder the torment of seeing his namesake’s whole family slain by peasants; a scion of old American wealth could look at the painting of his forbearers and chuckle how easy it was for the Pinkertons to crush a worker uprising, and how easy it is to keep the foot on the neck to this day. However, as the French aristocracy found out in 1789, this situation could change in a heartbeat.
I wonder about that. There are a lot of very poor people in the world, living in societies with a great deal of inequality. Why don't they revolt?
I suspect it is because their expectations are extremely low. Expectations and the failure of the governing class to fulfill them is very important for revolt. People in despair don’t revolt, or vote. Most revolts actually happen in the middle classes. Raise the hope and living standards of the lower classes, give them the taste of the “good life’, take it away, and then see what happens.
I'd heard the theory that the reason the French revolution happened is that some of the elite joined in.
Dunno if I buy it.
I suspect speed matters. If the collapse is really fast, people will be too beat down to revolt. Similarly, if it happens really slowly, they won't even notice that their expectations are ever lower.
I think the latter is more likely. In fact, I think it's been happening since the early '70s - peak oil USA. With very little protest.
Are you being serious Leanan? I know you know better :)
Sure, it would be nice if the latter happened. But comparing the next 10 years to the early 70's is just silly! Yes, the U.S. peaked in the 1970's. But Saudi Arabia has done a fine job of picking up the loose slack. World oil production has continued to rise, right up until 2006-06. So it's really no surprise that Americans have not protested (though the economy has been run into the ground, savings are negative, debts of all kinds have gone through the roof etc.).
The upcoming years will be an altogether different story. World oil production will soon fall off the plateau, taking the world's GDP with it. And if this isn't bad enough, U.S. domestic imports will fall even more precipitously, again taking the U.S. GDP with it. Millions of "service jobs" will disappear. In fact, Friday's unemployment figures suggest this process may already be underway.
Over the next 15 years, as the U.S. economy shrinks in direct proportion to dwindling fuel supplies (as Hirsch concluded), huge chunks of the poor, the middle, and to some extent, the lower-upper classes, are going to be blindsided by the dismal future of no work, no means to get to work even if they found a job, and no way to feed their families. And unlike the Great Depression, or even the French Revolution, things will only worsen, year after year after year, for many decades. Or until the population reaches a sustainable level.
Sounds like fun, doesn't it? :)
Yes.
No, it wouldn't. I think I'm more of a doomer than you are, because I think BAU will go on long enough for us to really screw things up.
Ok, here we are in total agreement. As one poster said, the only thing worse than Peak Oil is no Peak Oil. That would truly be the Gaia's worst nightmare.
Because if it were business as usual for the next few decades... well, we could kiss the Amazon goodbye, along with what remains of the world's fisheries and topsoil. And we would probably hunt every edible species to extinction, including ourselves.
Yup.
Hillary wants "clean coal." Obama's a big fan of CTL. McCain wants lots and lots of nukes. Romney wants to drill in ANWR, offshore, and anywhere else there might be oil.
Nobody's talking "powerdown," and I don't think anyone will be, any time soon.
That is posturing - they can't say it until after the election and then someone else has to bring it up. Once this happens then we start to see some movement. Knowing our government it'll be a focused effort on the top six stupid ideas that come up, but at least we'd have an admission of the problem ...
I don't think they'll say it even after the election. Since they'll want to be re-elected.
I agree. I think we see this a lot in Africa, the extreme being refugee camps.
Although I suppose another way of looking at why poor people don't revolt may be exactly the opposite, that is, that expectations are relatively high. If it can communicated that upward mobility is possible, in a semi-convincing manner, then the poor will work to increase their fitness by conventional, traditional means.
But if the poor come to understand that the energy pie (and the food pie, the plastic pumpkin pie, deodorant pie, and most certainly the gasoline pie) will now begin to shrink, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future, then things could fall apart pretty quickly. This has important implications for "Peak Outreach," as Peak Oil (and all its nasty repercussions) must be presented to the public delicately. And some would say the masses shouldn't be informed at all.
I still like my example of Agincourt. The rich at Agincourt could have fled the field of battle. Those who survived were mostly those who fled. If they made no trouble for their new Angevin rulers, they were OK in the end.
Those who fled were a minority. In the face of an enemy they did not understand, in the face of an enemy who "logically" could not have prevailed, the flower of France stood and died. That was the majority of the noble-born in France. I do not see our rich behaving in a sensible manner when TSHTF. I can hardly claim to know what the S will look like when it hits the F, I can't see the future. I don't know the specific challenge that brings all to a head.
I do know what a brain dead rich f*** looks like, I do know a pigface. They're toast.
Why do the poor not revolt? Lack of physical energy. Lack of ideas. Good Lord, the French Revolution was a bougeois revolution, the poor briefly had a minor position of honour, then they were willing cannon fodder, merely on the hope that the new bourgeois masters could not be worse than aristocrats and priests.
I don't see the rich agreeing to go into harm's way this time. At least, not our rich.
'There are a lot of very poor people in the world, living in societies with a great deal of inequality. Why dont they revolt?'
There is a great deal of difference between a down trodden poor population that have lived in abject poverty for a very long time, are unarmed, and expect nothing better...and a bunch of American recently FWOs who happen to be well armed, most of whom were (probably) in need of professional help before they became poor, and are now watching their kids go without food.
If the economy declines to the point where the cops are no longer being paid by the governments because there is no money all hell is going to break loose. Lest we forget, one of the first items on the agenda of the American landed gentry was protection of property rights and construction of a 'middle or bureaucratic' class to enforce those rights. Without rule of law there are no property rights nor even a state, only anarchy.
Those that havent read Howard Zinn recently should brush up on just what can happen and how fast.
Gee Whiz, I had thought that was exactly precisely the question I addressed.Something about internet dialogue eludes me.
To tell you the truth, OH, I don't understand half the things you post. Sounds very poetic, but I can't make hide nor hair out of it.
I'm figuring that out.
Simpler: Our curent rich have faced few challenges. They're fat and dumb. I don't see them surviving.
In challenging circumstances a simple bag of money goes quick enough. The rich who have done well in the past also needed to work hard, get lucky, be quick on their feet. I don't see it.
I don't think they're fat and dumb.
I think hell will freeze over before they volunteer to go fight or otherwise put themselves in harm's way. It'll be just like it was in Vietnam, and like it is now. The poor and middle class will bear the burden. The rich will pull strings so they and their kids are safe.
They drank the kool-aid. They believe in their own propaganda. When faced by something new they will be clueless.
Big ships with big keels do well at riding out storms. Us in the little boats always look like Chicken Little. Then the storm blows over.
Big ships sink on reefs.
Um....okay.
I think most people would rather be on the big ship if they have a choice.
It's a dead thread. Guess my interlocutor got it. Tho she disagrees. She may.
I never had any faith in the master of the big ship. Never wanted to be near him or with him. And in the end, since I think he's running us aground, I'm glad not to be there. That others see it as their shot, OK.
Note to self: Stop assuming your readers know Shakespeare. Does not mean I will stop using him, or other referents, just adjust expectations.
The problem is not your references. It's that you read into them things that are not immediately obvious to anyone outside your head.
Take "Agincourt." The problem is not that no one ever heard of it. It's that you (near as I can tell) see it as an example of rich people dying during bad times.
I, on the other hand, see it as an example of how different our rich people are now. If the government called for the elite to go to war now, the elite would all run in the opposite direction. They aren't going to rush to the front, any more than George W. Bush rushed to Vietnam.
The rich leading from the front tends to occur in societies which are homogenous in religion and race - examples would include the British in the First World War or the Japanese in the Second.
The idea of the chinless aristocrat and generals hiding from the front line in the British Army in WW1 is simply inaccurate - an awful lot of generals died on the front line, when perhaps duty strictly speaking may have indicated that they should have been further back, and the death rate in the upper classes was far higher than in the working class - the aristocracy was much more than decimated.
A British Lieutenant had a life expectancy of around 20 minutes once 'over the top' I understand, although perhaps that is an exaggeration.
For better or worse, British society is certainly not so homogenous now.
In America there are not only wide divergence in racial origin and faith within society at large but also wide differences in the composition of the elite and the rest of the population in both respects.
The degree of social identification needed to 'lead from the front' is in my view less likely under those circumstances.
I think there's more to it than that. For whatever reason, we no longer feel like citizenship carries responsibilities. Everyone cheats on their taxes if they can get away with it. People who join the military often do it for financial reasons, not out of patriotism (and there's no draft any more). People don't vote, don't join civic organizations, and do everything they can to get out of jury duty.
I really think Vietnam was the turning point. Before then, even the "elite" - the wealthy, movie stars and star athletes - did their time in the military. They sometimes got cushy assignments, but the idea of not doing it was never considered. Now, can you imagine Derek Jeter taking time off from baseball to serve his country in the Army?
Roger Staubach was a star for Annapolis and won the Heisman, but he still had to do his time in the military, including a tour of Vietnam. His glorious football career had to wait until after his military service was done. Now, few NFL-quality players go to the military academies, and when they do, they find a way to pursue their NFL careers along with or instead of military service.
I agree that there is more to it.
Just the same I think it is an important factor.
I doubt that being called up to fight for England would enjoy quite the degree of universal support in the muslim community for instance, as it did in most sections of society in 1914.
Disagree. Well, I don't know anything about UK Muslims, but ethnic minorities in the US have been as supportive as anyone else. It's been a path to assimilation, in fact. (Right now, there are a lot of Latino immigrants in the military.)
The classic example is the most decorated military unit in US history: 442nd Regimental Combat Team. It was basically an all Japanese-American unit. This despite the US government interning many Japanese-American families.
All that I was thinking is this:
Agincourt was the self-immolation of the feudal ruling class of France. Henry V was not even that different from the French - you can make a case that he was somehow early or pre-modern but so what. The French were full of themselves. And died. They could've run. They could've isolated the English and watched them die of hunger and cold. They could've marched to the English rear. They could've done all kinds of things. They were 15 or 20 thousand, the English 400. Ten thousand men of quality died that day. Presented themselves for slaughter. The French could not change their thinking.
Our current rulers do not see or understand or have an idea how to cope with the obvious and copious challenges discussed on this site everyday. They are locked in amazingly rigid orthodoxies. Most all of us - I am no exception - have minds that run in ruts. The objective challenges being posed are serious, large, will not submit to the same old same old remedies. The weariest and most tedious of all are those who now rule.
Hi oldhippie,
Re: The above exchanges. I'm aware of how much I don't know - and wish I did. (It's impossible to catch up, past a certain point.) I appreciate fuller explanations - when you can provide them. Just like you do here.
That's simply not true:
"The lack of reliable and consistent sources makes it very difficult to accurately estimate the numbers on both sides. Estimates used by recent historians vary from 6,000 to 9,000 for the English, and from about 12,000 to about 36,000 for the French. Some modern research has questioned whether the English were as outnumbered as traditionally thought (see below). The English were probably not outnumbered as badly as the legend would have it; many modern British historians (for example, Juliet Barker, Christopher Hibbert) would accept that they were outnumbered by three to one or more, although Anne Curry estimates the odds were much more even than that."
There's an entire discussion of how the odds in the battle have been systematically overstated, in part for obvious political gain. Nobody puts the number of English forces at just 400, though; indeed, the only place a similar number shows up is in the approximate number of English casualties.
The English were marching for Calais (a safe stronghold), so the French couldn't simply wait them out. The French actually did delay battle a few times, as they were awaiting reinforcements. Those reinforcements are in large part why Henry forced the issue.
Certainly, at the actual battle there was a certain amount of arrogance that hampered the French (they blocked their own bombards, crowded towards the front so closely they hampered each others' mobility, and generally displayed terrible discipline), but it's far too simplistic to ascribe the loss to an inability to change their thinking.
Prior to the New Deal Policies of Roosevelt in the 30's the fear of a Bolshevik style revolt in the U.S. was so real that all of the Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, and their ilk kept a fleet of ships anchored and staffed off of Long Island to facilitate a hasty exit from America the beautiful in the event of a revolt. Is it any wonder that the U.S. has spent the last 3 score years brainswashing Americans to the "evils of Communism". Post war egalitariansism has lulled Americans into a Nationally induced trance fed by cheeseburgers and infotainment.
Will the massive shift in wealth and loss of solvency of the middle class lead to civil unrest?
It is dangerous to assume that wealth can insulate certain groups from a collapse. Russian aristocracy was virtually eliminated after 1917. In this country there are far too many handguns in the hands of individuals who could easily become a powerful insurgency in the event of collapse.
Those guard gated estates will offer little protection to those privelidged occupants when events overwhelm communities.
You hit the nail on the head. Our culture has become one of seeking ever higher levels of wealth, by way of size of home, size of vehicles, electronic distractions, glitz and bling that all move away from spiritual love interaction.
My belief is humans are best when they are humbled, and worse when given an opportunity for greed and ego gratification. And what we will inevitably face in the coming crises of Peak Oil is the demise of our cultural hold on the things that seperate us, and humble us back to the roots of who we really should be, a loving interactive community.
The ultimate unfortunate challenge with Peak Oil will be the wholesale reduction of Peak Population, which will be forced into retreat on a scale never before seen in a relatively short time frame.
Yeah, but it's not like we'd have the spiritual well-being if we were suddenly poorer. I view American culture as being crushed between mindless religion and spiritless materialism.
"...One's even built temples and shrines and sites where pilgrims can gather to pay tribute and sacrifice to their God. The Muslims have Mecca, and we have Las Vegas..."
First time poster here. I must commend this message board for its clearmindedness. I have been avidly reading the posts here for sometime, and get most of my news stories from this site. Kudos gentlemen (and ladies).
I can certainly attest to the comment above, for I live in Las Vegas. Though we hardly ever frequent the strip here, the last time I was down there I had an epiphany of sorts. We were in the Caesars Palace Forum Shops and I could not help but to recognize the 'gods' that are being glorified within our culture.The theme of this resort and shops is that of ancient Rome, before Christianity, and all of the Gods of Rome are present in image and charaterology. They ,the Roman gods, are being glorified along with their ideology. Their ideology is exemplified in commerce i.e. Mercury - the god of commerce, Zeus - the supreme ruler of Nations, and Nike - the god of victory. These gods are the gods of our culture, and the God of the Bible certainly has no place within our society despite all of the protestations to the contrary by the 'christian right' and their moral majority b.s.
The truth of the matter is no one within the main stream christian mega McChurches are teaching what the Bible actually predicates. We have all heard the famous phrase - "the love of money is the root of ALL evil", heck even Pink Floyd knows that verse. Or what came right out of the mouth of Jesus Christ Himself - "You cannot serve God and money, you will either love one and hate the other, or you will hold to one and despise the other." You will never hear these verses quoted in these mega McChurches, for if they did, they would be admitting to their rebellion against the very commands they claim to uphold.I do not advocate church attendance, unless you like going to crappy social clubs, or worse, corporate controlled entities.Read the Bible for yorself...
This thread concerns itself with the cause of wars, and the cause of wars in relation to oil in the 20th century finds its correlation with the love of money - unequivocally.
When I first learned of peak oil in 2002 I knew right then that this would be the catalyst that would ignite the last world war (there are not enough concerned people out there like the ones on this board percentage wise to make a difference - you probably make up 1% or less of the population).This conflagration is not the will of God nor does he have anything to do with it. And even though the so called christian right in America are nothing less that the war mongers they claim to oppose (i.e. the Muslims) the truth is they all have the same ideology and very few of them have the slightest idea of what Jesus really taught. What ever happened to turn the cheek the other way and do good to those who persecute you? What worries me is that the answer to peak oil is not in the development of ever increasing technologies, in particular nuclear technologies and all of their self-evident dangers, but people will fail to see the need to the acknowledgment that God was right and we are wrong.Lest we forget contemporaneous 20th Century history after another world war...In with the new boss - same as the old boss.
"The Muslims have Mecca, and we have Las Vegas...": Dubai = Las Vegas
It seems to me the same can be said of the Middle East. The reformation of a religion on the threshold of change, shifting from Mecca to Dubai. When will the pilgrimage to Dubai exceed that to Mecca? Of course for other reasons.
Woods struggles as Els grabs Dubai lead
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_sp_go_su/glf_european_tour;_yl...
Sampson - If you have been considering Peak Oil since 2002 and continue to live in Las Vegas in 2008 I have to ask...why? Las Vegas is a myth built on pure speculation and an unhealthy suspension of disbelief. I am one of the few people you'll ever meet that grew up in Las Vegas in the early 60's and seventies. I moved to LA in the 80's and then late in the 90's returned to Vegas. What was an eye opener for me was the mallaise of Lake Mead that I had grown up around and was a large part of my life growing up. The Lake is now hopelessly polluted and down 200 feet. Now due to rapid expansion of local (unsustainable BTW) populations they are looking to siphon off the last ancient aquifier in the Great Basin National Park area 400 miles North of Vegas. They will drain it in 7 years and forever destroy delicate ecosystems that tourists and residents are blissfully ignorant of. Who in Vegas gives a F###?
There is a house of cards in Vegas (no pun intended) that Peak Oil will deal Vegas as the first casualty of collapse. I started selling out 5 years ago and I have left for good 2 years ago.
That is one sinking ship that is not worth saving.
There is another factor to be mulled over in relation to reducing consumption, and the paradigm of economic growth at all costs. That is, the social implications of a 'static' society. What does this mean for social mobility in society that isn't consuming/growing continually?
Americans seem to have invested a great deal, ideologically and emotionally in the idea of an open society with high, real or imagined, levels of social mobility. Indeed, seen from my detached perspective, it appears to be one of the cornerstones of what it means to be an American. It has cultural importance.
As a rule of thumb, growth and social mobility go together like a horse and carriage. But what happens if the cake of society were to stop growing?
There are also profound implications for social cohesion and political stability in a low-growth society. For example the distribution of wealth and power are very, colossaly, unevenly distributed in the United States. However, it seems that this enequality, and its effects and consequences are often disguised in a society that is growing, because 'everyone' is apparently getting richer and movin' on up. At least that's the theory. But in a society where the cake isn't getting bigger or even shrinking, the difference between the size of the slices different social groups are allocated become profoundly more important, and questions relating to social justice and the distribution of wealth push there way resolutely out of the shadows.
Your conundrum is an example of one of the reasons why "there is no courage to destroy such a fearsome beast, for we all fear that we will destroy our chances at fame and fortune along with it."
The human race does not really want equality - just enough of the appearance of equality to soothe one's conscience. The human race relentlessly pursues an imbalance that favors one group over another. It is who we are.
We lack the ability for true equality - and Americans, more so. Every human finds a reason to look down on a group they find disagreement with. We do not want equality. We want the chance to be better than someone else. That is the American Dream.
'There are two things which cannot be attacked in front: ignorance and narrow-mindedness. They can only be shaken by the simple development of the contrary qualities. They will not bear discussion.'
Lord Acton
WT, this one is for your described reasoning of those that have, and those that will, realize that the Titanic is going to sink after striking an iceburg...
'A wise person does at once, what a fool does at last. Both do the same thing; only at different times.'
Lord Acton
This is the old 'human nature' canard, thinly disguised. Human beings tend to want what they are taught to want, they accept as 'normal' what they are taught to accept. A given society might accept a great deal more equality and fairness than we have in the US because, in aggregate, its members grow up in a culture where this equality and fairness are accepted. Then, in comparison with other societies, it becomes easy to see why this attitude produces a more desirable society in which to live. We frequently have our European contributors pointing this out on the list to our American contributors. While Mark Twain was a trenchant observer of human society, he was American-Centric and bound by these attitudes.
Attempts have been made throughout history to teach large groups of humans to serve the needs of the elite who have power over them. Feudal Europe, early China and Japan and the African slave trade are obvious examples. However, those humans who were taught to accept slavery or servitude did not long accept those teachings. It does not appear that humans are as good at learning to accept what they are taught as you claim.
Capitalism cannot exist within a frame of equality (though some will argue that the equality of Capitalism is that everyone "has the same chance at success" - a lie told to the lower classes by the elite). I do not see many countries (in Europe or elsewhere) that do not practice some version of Capitalism. This leaves equality distant to progress and prosperity.
Europe is filled with humans who desire to "get ahead" within the constraints of Capitalism. This is not equality. Do not mistake Capitalism for Democracy, for they are unrelated species and cannot coexist peacefully. One must always fall under the rule of the other.
Does each country of the European Union work tirelessly for the advancement of their citizens - often at a cost to citizens of another country? Are there disagreements within the EU about money, laws, tariffs, and such? Of course. This is human nature. Not thinly disguised, but broadly open and obvious.
It seems that you are trying to say that some societies are more equal to members of the same society than in the U.S. (which I agree with). Yet, an individual society is not the entirety of the human race. While some societies might be more equal, that equality rarely ventures beyond their borders or includes unwanted groups of humans (such as immigrants and minorities).
Mainly what I'm trying to say is that many Americans seem to accept the American 'way of life' as representative of 'human nature' when it is only a manifestation of one of the many possibilities.
I suppose this ties in with the tendency of every tribe to see itself as 'the human beings' (ala the Cheyenne in 'Little Big Man') while the other tribes are somehow lesser than human. We have just modified that to seeing ourselves (Americans) as the prime manifestation of the traits of human nature that all will follow. It is especially troublesome to see intelligent and thoughtful people falling into this trap even while claiming to transcend this sort of herd thinking.
Putting oneself into another's shoes remains one of the most difficult things for humans to accomplish.
This requires some degree of brass neck on your part. If you remember it is socialism which is incompatable with democracy. It needed a one party state to enforce it.People who disbelived in eqality were branded lunitics and had nasty things done to them. In the end it disfuntioned anyway. Anybody thought why?
"If you remember it is socialism which is incompatable with democracy"
nonsense - France, the Netherlands and the Scandanavian countries are doing quite well with democracy and socialism - in fact, many would argue better than the US is doing.
EU countries have not had 7 years of erosion of liberties like the US has had, the EU has a better distribution of wealth, many EU countries are preparing for peak oil better than the US, EU contries do much better at providing health care for all of their citizens
AND
most of the EU nations have a system of Government that doesn't limit choices of representatives to two corporate sponsored parties - so one could easily argue that they have a MORE representative form of democracy than the US
Speaking an unpleasant truth is often considered impudence (brass neck). Democracy is incompatible with many things - not the least of which is Aristocratic Capitalism.
Hey, Twain. Great pull, up there!
I do think we still yearn for Royalty and a Pantheon of Gods to smite us and dazzle us. Twain, as ever is so right. I also wonder if we recognize our continued desire for servants and slaves? Every time I see the Vacuuming 'Roomba' 'bots, the Drink Server Bots, and even hear 'The customer is always right.', I have to wonder if the obvious euphemisms are really lost on everyone else?
PS, Have you got a quote from Mr Clemens about the 'Jury System depending on folks who don't know anything, etc etc..' ?? Saw it flash by on a movie screen once.. loved it.
Bob
Nice one :)
One could write something similar about our scientific establishment and our inability to find scientists without bias/"careers" to pursue/etc...
Actually, the US is significantly more static than even what we might think are ossified EU countries. Social mobility is a myth. At least the upward side.
The rising tide lifts all boats idea was a way of finessing distribution. Time to address distribution. Daly writes of distribution, allocation and scale. [The market only deals with allocation.] Gross economic inequality has destroyed our ability to deal with distribution and scale civilly within the political system. That leaves us where JFK feared - all avenues of peaceful change are closed off.
Whose first strike is it anyway?
cfm in Gray, ME
No, it isn't.
What's a myth is the idea that upward mobility is a birthright. We're already among the richest people in the world. And yet we expect to keep getting richer.
General Social Survey? How is it determined if someone is upwardly mobile? By asking him/her? Also seems upward mobility was better for those born before 1960.
The link (and some discussion) is in yesterday's DrumBeat.
And yes, there was more upward mobility before the early 1970s. That's because the economy was growing faster.
In a perfectly mobile society, each person born would have equal chances of upward mobility, downward mobility, and remaining the same. The fact that we have had slightly better chances of upward mobility is because the economy was growing.
I'll agree with that, Leanan. We've just started having as much downward mobility in the last 10 years as upward, where from the end of WWII up into the mid-70s at least, upward mobility could be pretty much counted on. For instance, people used to get "raises" which was, more money the longer they'd been working at a job, even if it was the same job all along - we know that's all past, now they just keep you at the same pay and if you complain you're gone.
With the economy shrinking, we can expect more downward mobility than upward. And it's also become very hereditary - if your parents did well, you will. If they did badly, too bad for you!
About the only way to "beat" this is to learn to live better on a little money than you used to on a lot. As many who have done it testify, you can have a much nicer, richer, life if you humble yourself a bit. I've had some awfully good sushi in the past, but the spam and onion tacos I made myself for lunch today still have me smiling.
And it's also become very hereditary - if your parents did well, you will. If they did badly, too bad for you!
Even the rich are worried about their children's prospects:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7214523.stm
First question with any study like that is methodology. This bunch is including as hard data mobility for men born in 1979 when the study is over in 2004. The data points would be for men who are in first jobs or still in professional school. Or thinking of applying to professional school. On that, I don't read further.
Mass biography is a better technique. Not done often.
Writerman - Years ago I was living in Las Vegas and a friend called me and told me to get to a particular suite at the Luxor Hotel and bring $5,000 in cash. I reluctantly did so. When I got to the Hotel room there was a "party" going on with liqour and a private blackjack dealer. After you got there you had a limited amount of time to "invest". Once you "invested" you were supposed to watch the board as the people rose from the bottom to the top. When you got to the top you cashed out $50,000. Theoretically this could go on forever save for one limiting factor: you run out of people at the bottom of the pyrimid.
I lost and I was good and P.O.d and I let my friend know about it. My point is: I don't see much difference between this (illegal) "party" and the legalized gambling known as the stock market. In a lot of ways that "party" was far more transparent than a lot of the Ponzi schemes they are selling on Wall Street.
During a recent discussion of this very subject (growth in the economy) with my sister (an economist with a PHD) she finally said in exasperation that she needed the economy to grow at a healthy 3.5% annually to fund her IRA so she can retire on time.
At this point I stopped arguing. You cannot fight the "psycology of previous investment".
It is common sense to me that the equation of growth will eventually come to a stop and then there will be a lot of unhappy players.
This is why I rarely browse the energy bulletin.
cheers
Us seniors sometimes think we have too many projects going.
We all hope for peaceful settlement of these unfortunate matters soon.
By the way, the quote is incorrect. Mr. Twain never said (or wrote):
At least, not in my copy of speeches from UC Berkeley Press.
That haphazard addition seems of military origin.
There is one way to reduce consumption: birth control.
"Notably absent from his discussion was any mention of coal gasification technology, long the foundation of Schweitzer’s energy plan."
I met Brian when he was first running for Senator and was impressed. His later cheerleading for coal, though predictable in many ways, altered that. I hope the new absence of coal talk in his speeches signals a change in stance, but that remains to be seen.
It strikes me to hear Matt Simmons talk about how climate change won't affect us for 50-100 years (the implication being that he thinks we don't need to address it for decades).
While China is going whole hog building coal power plants, they are also burning a significant fraction of their reserves every year. At current consumption rates the existing reserves will be depleted by about 2050. Which of course assumes they don't find more, of course. Many of the usual things we talk about involving resource depletion start to come into play - the extraction rates will peak at some point not to far in the future, and then life gets real complicated.
The tar sands concern me a lot more (related to climate change), actually, but the scalability problems may mean that they don't end up creating that much oil for us.
Climate change is occurring now, it's just semantics to say its not affecting us. I think most people mean that it's not crushing us, and so far, many like what is happening.
That will change, including Matt. His fight is peak and his axe is sharpened for oil. He swings it well, and in doing helps climate change concerns take hold.
I have also been surprised by Simmons inability to accept Climate Change as just as much a threat as peak oil. Despite his calls for assessing threats based on empirical evidence, he just can't seem to get past denial on CC. Perhaps it is because his solution to adapting to peak oil cannot work if CC has to be included in the equation.
IPCC models that assume no near term Peak Oil use unrealistically high future CO2 emissions.
To make the case for global warming one has to argue that coal reserves are high enough to cause the continued rise in CO2 emissions. Someone who makes that argument has to address the Energy Watch Group, David Rutledge, and others who argue for an earlier Peak Coal.
"Climate Change": Look, the climate is always changing. Of course it is going to change. Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a more accurate term.
And that is just one of the uncertainties. I think that anthropogenic GW is probably happening, and that it is worth addressing because many of the measures that are needed would be worth doing anyway, as fossil fuels won't last forever and coal is a dirty killer.
The IPCC with their fake certainty are an annoying irrelevance, as are those who wish to brand people 'deniers'
They have left the world of science behind by the use of such terms - there is a a reason scientists strive towards scientific impartiality, and that is because you have ceased to think when you state that something is unquestionable.
GW has been elevated to that status by many.
How do you assess new data if you already 'know' what it will show?
The answer to that is 'unfairly' - you are going to bend the data to your preconceptions, unconsciously as you are a prisoner of your elevation of GW to a tenant of belief.
These certainties and the emotional security they give are the realm of children, the old and mentally inflexible and of priests. They have nothing to do with science, although odd bits of data will be grasped on to 'prove' that their preconceptions are correct, their prior surrender of critical evaluation in favour of the move to unchallengeable certainties has in fact make it impossible for them to fairly judge.
I hope I don't 'believe' in the Laws of Thermodynamics in that sense - I just have an extremely high level of confidence that they are valid, to 99% and several decimal places.
Most adults have to live with various degrees of uncertainty about a variety of issues, and still act.
Whacking out a few scenarios which rely on data where the small difference between very large numbers can lead to very different results, and where the overall system is very poorly understood does not remotely inspire those sorts of levels of confidence in man-made GW.
Just the same, it is the best theory we have.
Importantly, the emphasis of GW has led in my view to underemphasis on other human impacts on the environment which could be just as serious.
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=445
In short, those who wish to infer that GW is beyond and above all question, and use labels like 'denier' have severely hampered their ability for critical thinking, and have moved beyond science to faith.
Science continually questions it's conclusions, and attempts to avoid emotional polemic.
Simmons, while informed about peak oil, is simply uninformed about climate change. He's seeing the "disagreement" by a very few scientists coupled with the wide range of forecasts and has concluded that it's not that big a deal.
I strongly suspect that if Simmons devoted half as much energy to climate change for just six months as he has devoted to peak oil over a like period that his view would change. Of course, Simmons may be trapped by his own sociological and psychological makeup -a belief in capitalism as the cure for anything and everything. If that is the case then he cannot wake up until he receives a personal mental shock that invalidates his belief system directly.
The media contributes to this dissonance all the time with their need to present “balanced” coverage:
500 climate scientists and some Nobel laureates on one side, a dentist, speaking outside of his expertise, denying global warming on the other. A classic public relations con.
Simmons gets it, he just refuses to get drug into the whole AGW "debate" - a wise position. I think ethanol stinks, but I am not gonna say that out loud in this state, or they'll have my private parts dangling from the tassel of a corn plant before the summer is out. Why pick a fight over an issue that already has a large, ferocious advocacy taking care of business?
Robert, My sentiments exactly. The thread the other day on coal fires was particularly distressing. If I remember correctly the largest coal fire in China is producing as much CO2 as our US car fleet does. Correct me if it is a senior moment. Bill
I can understand why people with enough political or economic power to actually influence important national and international decisions to even a marginal extent -- uniformly people in at least their 40s and more likely 50s or 60s or even older -- might figure that they'll be long dead before the consequences of GCC become truly catastrophic. Thus, in that respect I totally share RR's pessimism. What I can't understand is why people in their teens and twenties are not rioting in the streets and calling for the aforementioned people's heads. They are just young enough that they might very well live to experience some serious consquences.