<Biomimicry and Ocean Generated Energy: Are Humans Smarter Than Sea Sponges?The Oil DrumFuture Scenarios: Mapping the Cultural Implications of Peak Oil and Climate Change>
<DrumBeat: May 25, 2008DrumBeatDrumBeat: May 27, 2008>

258 comments on DrumBeat: May 26, 2008

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

NeverLNG on May 26, 2008 - 8:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

In most places where people live, a small fraction of the energy they spend on getting out of where they are could be spent on making their places pretty again. Parts of Texas were absolutely gorgeous -- and could be again. If everyone just stayed home and tended their gardens ....

Wishful, maybe Pollyanna thinking for an early morning on Memorial Day, but I don't see a declining energy regime as all bad -- there is a potential seriously positive upside.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DownSouth on May 26, 2008 - 10:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I agree, NeverLNG.

While the change may be painful, a quieter, more inward-looking existence certainly has its rewards. The consumerist treadmill--a huge public relations success brought about by over a hundred years of incessant propaganda--may not be all it's cracked up to be.

That said, it nevertheless may be human nature that makes consumerism and our Baroque modern culture, a culture in which every waking moment is filled to excess with a whirlwind of activity or entertainment, so appealing. As Eric Hoffer observed:

"The individual's most vital need is to prove his worth, and this usually means an insatiable hunger for action. For it is only the few who can acquire a sense of worth by developing and employing their capacities and talents. The majority prove their worth by keeping busy."

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NeverLNG on May 26, 2008 - 1:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Grand theories about "human nature" need careful examination.

It seems to me from what I can read about "traditional" societies (which I guess means "pre-industrial") people don't seem to have to prove their worth. In fact, that is largely a Calvinist idea, designed to discover who was "saved", but easily distorted into creating a consumer society to demonstrate "worth" and by extension, "salvation" through consumption.

Eric Hoffer is probably right about Western Europe and North America since the 18th century. I'm not sure if it generalizes.

Lots of people really like to stay home and fix up their places -- even now.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DaveMart on May 26, 2008 - 1:19pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

What you have read about traditional societies seems to be at variance with that which I have read.
Their need to prove their worth is articulated in their initiation rites, for a start.
Those who did not cut the mustard had a short life expectancy probably and a miserable life certainly.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
NeverLNG on May 26, 2008 - 1:27pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Well, true enough for the children. Once they have been admitted to adult society, I suspect the rules change, except for the leadership.

However-- this discussion is probably not appropriate for the oil drum.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
lilith on May 26, 2008 - 2:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

it nevertheless may be human nature that makes consumerism

A lot of energy was expended to train Americans to be voracious consumers. See this article from Orion:

The Gospel of Consumption:

[Industrialists] feared that the frugal habits maintained by most American families would be difficult to break. Perhaps even more threatening was the fact that the industrial capacity for turning out goods seemed to be increasing at a pace greater than people’s sense that they needed them…

By the late 1920s, America’s business and political elite had found a way to defuse the dual threat of stagnating economic growth and a radicalized working class in what one industrial consultant called “the gospel of consumption”—the notion that people could be convinced that however much they have, it isn’t enough. President Herbert Hoover’s 1929 Committee on Recent Economic Changes observed in glowing terms the results: “By advertising and other promotional devices . . . a measurable pull on production has been created which releases capital otherwise tied up.” They celebrated the conceptual breakthrough: “Economically we have a boundless field before us; that there are new wants which will make way endlessly for newer wants, as fast as they are satisfied.”

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DownSouth on May 26, 2008 - 5:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thank you, lilith--A great article that not only gives a thoughtful critique of American baroque culture but also explains how we got here.

I'll file it away in my favorites and use it for future reference.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Anna on May 26, 2008 - 5:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

See also Paul Graham's most excellent essay on Stuff.
("...What I didn't understand was that the value of some new acquisition wasn't the difference between its retail price and what I paid for it. It was the value I derived from it. Stuff is an extremely illiquid asset....")

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.