Cornelius, you write:

I get the sense that many if not most of this website's readership are trying to obtain knowledge here that will increase their own relative fitness, either through investments, or better preparation for collapse by knowing timing and magnitude.

That's a very perceptive comment. My only fear is that many readers may have missed it because of the average blogger's limited attention span -- even at the TOD echelon. I think people tend to skip over any comment that takes up more than one screen, and that's why I'm quoting it above. But I wouldn't be too cynical about our motives --- besides, there's nothing wrong about trying to improve one's chances of survival provided one isn't banking on the failure of others as part of one's strategy (like selling short, for example).

Now I'll get around to reading the rest of your comment ...

Pareto optimality is incongruent with our biology, and Prof Daly recognizes this – his arbitrary 100:1 max-min may make sense on paper but how do we convince the ones currently in power to give up their relative advantages?

Historically there are almost zero cases of achieving what you ask. Therefore you can draw whatever conclusions you think are probable based upon the answer to your question being "they won't give up those advantages willingly."

The two paragraphs below were written by Garrett Hardin for a speech he delivered on June 25 1968. The speech was the basis for the article "Tragedy of the Commons" published in Science on December 13, 1968. The elegant and extremely radical notion embodied in the article and his other writings as well explain why he was marginalized as ferociously and maliciously as was.

His writings posed then and pose today a threat to the existence of every economic, political, environmental and any other power center you can name.

The truth of what he writes is undiminished by time, only the urgency for accepting what he is saying has changed.

Hardin writes:

At the end of a thoughtful article on the future of nuclear war, Wiesner and York (1) concluded that: "Both sides in the arms race are ... confronted by the dilemma of steadily increasing military power and steadily decreasing national security. It is our considered professional judgment that this dilemma has no technical solution. If the great powers continue to look for solutions in the area of science and technology only, the result will be to worsen the situation."

I would like to focus your attention not on the subject of the article (national security in a nuclear world) but on the kind of conclusion they reached, namely that there is no technical solution to the problem. An implicit and almost universal assumption of discussions published in professional and semipopular scientific journals is that the problem under discussion has a technical solution. A technical solution may be defined as one that requires a change only in the techniques of the natural sciences, demanding little or nothing in the way of change in human values or ideas of morality." (emphasis added)

the full article can be found at http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/index.html

I get the sense that many if not most of this websites readership are trying to obtain knowledge here that will increase their own relative fitness, either through investments, or better preparation for collapse by knowing timing and magnitude.

Yes and no. Of course I want to improve my own prospects. But the way in which I'd like to improve them need not be at the expense of another. As the article says, knowledge is a thing which does not become less as it's shared out. So by improving my knowledge, I'm improving my fitness, but not necessarily my relative fitness.

I'm also very interested in everyone being able to improve their fitness. Some people have fantasies of sitting on their cases of ammo and spam and gunning down hordes of suburban cannibals made desperate by overnight collapse. I don't. I have fantasies of a better future for the world, one where everyone has water, locally-grown food, shelter and clothing, productive employment, access to education, where the rich-poor gap is not too great, and so on.

I think we can achieve my little fantasy, some places are already moving towards it. But it requires knowledge.

-Redistribution seems to be a recurring theme in ecological economics and some environmental circles. “Fairness”, as our society markets it might be our biggest stumbling block in the end. It’s odd that we harp about how much inequity there is yet as individuals constantly strive for it. “Human fairness" is a red herring which may sabotage many very logical possibilities.

I have to agree in practice and disagree... in practice. It is only in modern times that the idea of sharing has been considered heretical. We put labels on sharing by calling it communism, collectivism and socialism. Yet, this is the only way societies exist in a steady-state economy. What is really amazing is that people assume such societies exist only in the fevered imaginations of wild-eyed liberals, socialists and communisits (etc.). This is far from the truth. What is truthful, however, is that we have never managed to do this on a large scale. (That does not mean area, but population/complexity.)

On smaller scales, small populations do exist this way. I posted an example in a recent DrumBeat. Diamond also offers examples. Others exist, of course, if you're of a mind to google. Many North American Indians lived this way, at least within the breadth of their own tribes. On an even smaller scale, and a little less apt an anology, Americans lived this way to an extent as they went West. Barn raisings and other such activities were seemingly altruistic actions that actually were a matter of self-preservation as small communities counted on neighbors more than modern Americans do.

Human greed for power and money are the root of all evil. This idea that one person not only can have more than others, but that it is our inalienable right to have more than others pervades the current paradigm. And in the end, that right is backed by might, whether it be physical or economic. (This despite most people considering themselves to be religious and being told to live in service to one's brother; to give half your cover to the naked one you meet in the road. Ah, the irony...) A steady-state economy is nothing more than learning to share at a societal level without demonizing that by naming it with some pejorative term. Were politicians to successfully drop the huge weight of pejorative labels we have allowed ourselves to be labeled with, the change might be enormous. Why should feeding the poor be "socialism" when capitalism creates an eternal underclass? Why is capitalism not called parasitism, since that is exactly what it is? It is the shark/lamprey relationship in reverse. Capitalism cannot exist without cheap labor. Cheap labor = an eternal underclass. In the end, the ideas espoused above are about as close as we may get to transitioning the current civilization's basic structure to something resembling equality because we will certainly never overcome human greed - or any other of our vices - so long as we live in groups large enough to allow us to demonize/objectify our neighbors. Dunbar's number and all that.

The great weakness in the essay is this: it requries a slow transition on a global level from a parasitic to a cooperative society. When has this ever happened before? In truth, we have not lived in such a way since we left the Stone Age. We live that way now only in those societies that never left the Stone Age. We abandoned cooperative living yea these many thousands of years ago. How realistic is it that we can successfully transition back while keeping the best of what we have created since then?

To do so would require us to, indeed, relocalize. To learn to share again, and like it. To live with others closely. To abandon the self to the whole in the greater degree while reserving some small portion for ourselves where it does not conflict with the survival of the whole. And to like it. To not only live in balance with nature, but to seek to do so. And like it. Etc.

Most of all, it requires us to repudiate forever the idea of leadership that does not arise directly from the people, and is directly answerable to same. Not over 2 to 6 years, but immedaitely. The end of "leaders" in favor of nominal chiefs/big men as decribed in aboriginal societies is a must. For greed is what it is. The love of power does, indeed, corrupt. And it is the lack of bonds between us that allows the community to accept immoral and unethical acts upon our neighbors - and to commit them. Whether it be rape, usury, price gouging, theft or exploitation of workers, this is not possible when we are a close-knit community if the community stands on the principle of fairness and good for all. It is not possible if we know and have some degree of bond with our neighbors. This does not mean immorality or unethcial behavior will not exist, only that a cohesive community can check such behaviors either by punishment or by providing the external stimulus to control our impulses. The combination of human nature and a lack of community creates a vacuum into which the powerful sweep and build their power bases.

One final thought: For all this to work, we must also include a simplification of the legal process. It must be pared down to a short list of principles by which a jury judges right and wrong, guilt and fault. Put the power back in the hands of the people. The extreme complexity of the legal system favors those in power (of whatever form.) Juries must be in position to protect the community from laws being twisted. The greater the number of laws, the greater the number of loopholes. The current president, for example, could not possibly avoid impeachment were the legal system and the congress of the mind that the Constitution, as *the* law of the land, must be enforced. To wit: in referring to the Chief Executive, "...he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed..." By failing to do this, the president is in violation of the law of the land. One need know no more than this to see that impeachment is not only justified, it is necessary to restore the balance of power to the people. This priciple should apply at every level. When a company dumps toxic waste, when a teller embezzles money, when Exxon knowingly lies that Climate Change is bunk, when Enron manipulates power supplies... etc.

For example: did Enron manipluate (manipulate = lie)? Yes. Guilty. Anyone who knew this and did not act to stop it is also guilty. Anyone. Did BuCheney mislead about Saddam/al Queda (mislead = lie)? Yes. Guilty.

Let the jury decide their fates.

So.... can we make this transition peacefully? No. I do not think so. Walk outside and look at the nighbors around you. How many of them would you sacrifice for? How many of them would sacrifice for you? How many of them can you trust? How many of them **do** you trust?

How many of them are not a product of this age? How many of us are? How many of us, here, could make this transition?

How many are?

If it is possible, relocalizing and the end of strong governments at every level are musts. The end of usury and the fractional banking system is a must. A willingness to live within the bounds of the natural system is a must. (This list is not exhaustive.)

Cheers