I've had two encounters with fellow MIT alumni at the Portland Maine Bioneers satellite conference this weekend. The first, with an architect (I too was course 4 and 11) - she was proposing plans to put trains UNDER Rt 95 and to turn the above ground into local new urbanism strip complete with parking meters at which one could
plug in one's EV - all powered by solar of course. What's that, off by three orders of magnitude every way you look at it?

The other encounter - more disturbing - was with a group associated with EPA's new "Environmental Finance" group. Essentially, they are planning to rebuild the entire coastline of US, assuming global warming and bigger storms. I contributed my usual pithy rant about the only Smart Growth is shrinking and "there aren't enough resources on the planet", yadda, yadda. But they are stuck in their silos and focused exclusively on water levels
and storm surge. SLOSH they called the model.

It wasn't until I was halfway home that I realized something else: the scale of that EPA undertaking implies that "our" government has given up on any effort to stop AGW, but intends to handle the results as "opportunity" aka tsunami aka New Orleans aka Disaster Capitalism. Ilargi wrapped today's AE update with What we see unfold before our eyes is not an economic crisis. It is something much bigger.. Doubleplus yes.

What is the MIT mascot? A beaver. And there's that inscription something to effect of "we will tame the world". It's not helpful to "get it" unless one contributes as well and more beavers chewing won't help. An institution like that dumping resources into resiliency thinking and community planning libraries would be powerful. [And I'll point out that a disproportionate number of systems analysts and thinkers DO come from there.] Still, follow the money; funding determines. If I recall, I cost them something like $250k and only paid maybe $20k; I too am a product of the Pentagon.

As for loincloths, sure, I'd treasure a TODO logowear branded loincloth. Think how easy it would be to identify other TODers by sight!

cfm in Gray, ME

I expect a great number of people out there 'get it'

The thing that I find rather strange is that they may "get it", but yet do nothing to prepare for it. Like they believe the underlying systems they depend upon to live will somehow be unaffected. A common thing seems to be to recognise the problem then attempt to game it by investing for collapse via stocks and shares or vote some politician in or some such. A kind of virtual preparation with no corresponding preparation in the real world. That by putting their faith behind some thing or someone will be sufficient to get them through.

I believe what we face is a systemic failure brought about not only by energy depletion and Climate Change, but also by the internal dynamics of the system. There is no fixing it.

I surmise that what they "get" is that there are problems and what they don't "get" is how those problems are going to take down their lives.

Wow. That is a perfect explaination of the anatomy and development of "group think" at the micro-scale (small group conversations) and the macro-scale results (the babble from politicians).

It's something I'm sure all of us have experienced in our discussions with friends and relatives about peak oil.

treeman wrote:

"The last comment she made (paraphrased) was that we as a country probably only have one last chance to save our economy and our country as we know it and that is to develop a new energy growth industry based on our innovation and hard work. Jobs produced locally and not given away to other countries. As you would guess, she is quite concerned."

Nate replied:

The President of MIT? That IS encouraging...

I think the situation is thus. Two people, head to head, and there is little politics - they can tell it like it is

I don't find that particularly encouraging. Nor do I see anything indicating that the president of MIT "gets it". I was not there and treeman was paraphrasing, but... "Save our economy and country" ... "energy growth industry" ... "innovation" ... "jobs" ... that sounds like the same garden variety bullshit we hear from everyone but the drillaniacs. Is the president of MIT really aware of peak oil? Did she introduce the term or did she just nod and agree when treeman mentioned it? I will repeat and amend what I wrote last month:

I make the following statement with much consideration and in all seriousness: any candidate, office holder, pundit or journalist who discusses energy and does not include "peak oil" in that discussion is either uninformed or untruthful and should not be trusted while that behavior persists.

Add big name college presidents to that list. Also, to clarify, by "discussion" I mean public discussion (broadcasts, speeches, printed material, etc.), not five minute one-on-ones over punch in the campus quad. At this point almost no one will deny that we have a "problem" related to energy. But we all know that very few people get it. I am not even sure I get it. But I just can't take seriously anyone who still uses the words economy, energy, growth, industry and innovation while describing what we should be doing to "save our country". To me that indicates not getting it. What the hell is so special about our economy and our country anyway?

Although I have been focused on peak oil the last few years, I have come to understand that it is merely one symptom of larger problems. I still haven't found the bottom of the rabbit hole, but I think Derrick Jensen is right about The Problem of Civilization. There, now I've brought it back to the subject of the post with some left wingnut, eco-nitwit, non-profit-generating fluff. Most will no doubt scoff at the 20 premises at that link, but that's only because they are insane and in denial.