I think we all agree that we will end up with a stable-state, no growth society at some point whether we like it or not. And, there are hundreds of fictional works depicting such societies as well as a few, small actual societies today.

However, I simply don't see it happening until: 1) population growth is dealt with and 2)society collapses so that people are forced to accept a new paradigm.

Todd

I am afraid that the population problem is going to be solved by Mother Nature.
I completely agree with you that people will not stop doing the things that have "proven" to work for them until not only do they not work anymore but actually cause them personal harm and that will be the collapse.
Complete and utter disillusionment is the only way that most people will change.

Todd my friend,
Of all the things I have learned reading this website (and researching related issues) over past 5 years the most profound is that facts just don't matter as much as I believed. Facts about resource depletion are like shooting a BB gun at an elephant. We won't get really resourceful until the elephant has charged through us and moved on. Then maybe we will remember the facts. (and hopefully the real facts, not the political ones).

A lot of despair starting to accumulate here.............maybe that is an early sign that the worm is turning as relates to mass awareness?
Always darkest before the dawn No?
The next demand spike for energy will send prices up again and that will get a lot of peoples attention.
I really want to thank all the contributors to this and other like sites for making information available that otherwise would not be.
You have opened my eyes and i , in turn, am doing what I can to wake others up to this monumental period in human history. Hopefully it will gain traction and spread geometrically....hopefully.

A lot of despair starting to accumulate here.............maybe that is an early sign that the worm is turning as relates to mass awareness?

1)My comment shouldn't have been read as despairing. I am many years past despair and am more hopeful/resolved than ever for long term. Short-intermediate term will be some pain. Kind of like waiting for surgery...

2)I have reached point where I don't believe mass awareness would be a good thing. But it's just a belief...;-)

I guess my thoughts here are that most people are going to remain ignorant until far too late. The perception will be that "things just aren't working" any more, but for the vast masses they won't really understand why. We saw some of this last year when gas prices spiked. All kinds of people were blaming OPEC, speculators, or greedy oil companies. You try and explain it to them, and they blow you off and repeat the previous assertions. I suspect that to an extent people are really looking for simple explanations, especially ones where there might be a relatively simple fix of some sort.

In the future I expect this pattern to be repeated. There will be some shortage of some sort - prices will spike, and the general public will be looking for more scapegoats. While they may never really grasp the underlying reality, the higher prices will ultimately force them to use less of whatever is in short supply, but there will still be a yearning to go back to what they had before.

That's a catch 22.
Nothing is going to change until a very significant percentage of the population recognizes just how dire the situation really is.
I agree with you though it will be more like a panic than a light bulb moment.

Porge,

You are too optimistic - and if you weren't posting on TOD, I'd say you don't get it. Not a damn thing is going to change until everyone gets it. "They" are only going to get it when society collapses and people are dying left and right and services have died too. And, even then, there will be a few holdouts who refuse to change paradigms.

There will be no "light bulb moment" before it is too late to transition to anything that is stable-state. The result will be chaos.

Todd

I also think that it will be a panic.
I think you may have misinterpreted my post.
I see what you see out here in suburbia.
Complete denial or if I want to sound more formal "cognitive dissonance".

A lot of despair starting to accumulate here.............maybe that is an early sign that the worm is turning as relates to mass awareness?

This is a self selecting group - people who think "the topics here are downers" and don't want to be 'down' leave.

The people who are "ok" with "down" stick around and comment. Sometimes the comments are light and flippant, other times have yet another interesting fact to help others weave their own narrative taperstry in their lives.

Nate good buddy,

As aside along your lines...years ago when I decided that the corporate trip was a load crap and my wife and I had decided to move to the boondocks, I told my fellow "executives" what we were doing. Without exception that all said how much they wished they could do the same thing and then launched into a bazillion rationales as to why they couldn't do it. They all knew they'd eventually be screwed but couldn't let go of the power and status.

Part of this was, no doubt, that they didn't have confidence in their abilities "in the real world". Another part had to be because they couldn't envision themselves/families living "differently".

FWIW, my first job after being a chemical plant manager was as the custodian at the elementary school. I loved it! One of my favorite things to do was correct errors that the teachers made when they wrote stuff on their blackboards. I was finally told to stop since it made the teachers look bad.

Yea, facts don't matter.

Todd

Some thoughts and ramblings: My intuition tells me that it goes well beyond a lack of confidence in one's abilities in the real world, or the inability to imagine an alternative lifestyle which holds people back. Perhaps the problem is more existential in nature. You hinted at power and status and those I think are the most important factors. We have bought into consumerism/materialism so completely that our lives are devoid of meaning when not pursuing its ideals. Ultimately, despite the rationalizing, most people will not transition simply because they don't REALLY believe an alternative life without all the gizmos, power, status seeking would be all that satisfying because what they ascribe importance and meaning to now is no longer prominent in the alternative view. Replacing the previous world view/metanarrative by something as coherent, and dare I say hegemonic, as to provide meaning/purpose, a sense of self and place, comfort and reassurance is difficult indeed as it requires a complete change in values and beliefs. And I think it's safe to say that most if not all of us here on TOD went through a gradual and possibly painful, depressing and disillusioning process. Our egos are our worst enemies I guess..."The only reason I feel secure, is that I am validated by my peers".

We should be patient with our peers and try to more effectively communicate our message, our values whatever they may be, and provide a tangible and attractive alternative. We have a 'gospel' to spread (yes, I happen to think PO is good news! ;) ), people to engage and lots of work to do! And though we will certainly not save the world, we can still be/make a difference for our families, friends, coworkers, and communities. There's no sense in overwhelming people to despair or being self-righteous and self-congratulatory.

I agree with your stream of consciousness.
This incredibly complex hyper-specialized society/economy that is the current arrangement is very, very fragile and the complete result of a concentrated, cheap and artificial energy source.
Humans in industrialized societies have become so divorced from their true relationship to the environment and so narrow in their skills that the transition to a more natural and sustainable existence will be very disruptive. Ironically the societies that have benefited the least form the oil age will end up suffering the least in the years ahead. I guess there is such a thing as Karma after all.
People will begin to transition when their current situation is more trouble to them than it is worth.
Also once they see that they are not the only ones that can't "keep up appearances" it won't seem such an ego hit.........after all the only thing that makes people feel superior is being Relatively better off than the Jones'.

Bang on. It's all about keeping up with appearances for now. How vain we are indeed. It's never about being wealthy, or handsome per se--for what pride could one have out of being wealthy or handsome if everyone was equally well endowed? No, we gain our pleasure and self-importance from being comparatively better off, or better looking than the next guy (or gal)! Time and time again I catch myself thinking that way, especially when on the prowl for some female company ;) always sizing up...what an ego gratifying experience it is to have the hottest girl in town. I sure expend a lot of time and energy/money on such endeavors!

I'm not sure whether or not societies that have the least benefited from oil will really be better off than others. For many of them I guess, their BAU is subsistence and a precarious existence. But even were we to go through severe disruptions, our descent, however abrupt, especially I think in my part of the world (Quebec), will not be as severe, and I seriously doubt our existence will resemble that of countries that developed largely without oil. For sure, transition will be very uneven region to region, and country to country.

Most of the posters on TOD are from the US and EU I presume, but the situation in my part of Canada is very different, and I doubt the doomer scenarios will apply. Perhaps our biggest issue during transition will be dealing with throngs of American refugees!? I'd like to know more about regional PO issues, especially in dealing with Quebec (there's precious little on TOD:Canada...anyone out there?). Despite our many problems, we have massive amounts of fresh water (3% of the world's reserves for 8 million people) and plenty of rain, very healthy and productive arable land, our cities aren't too big and fairly compact, all of them are surrounded by plenty of farmland nearby, and though we are energy hogs 97-8% of our electricity is hydro so some small incentives like a price hike or other controls would make us self-sufficient. Also, the St-Lawrence seaway/corridor will remain a significant economic asset, whose importance to transportation in increasingly regionalized markets will surely grow. We also have plenty other raw materials and resources and I see some sort of new industry flourishing here in a peak oil world. When it comes to Quebec, I'm a cornucopian. If I was a native of NYC, or SoCal or Arizona, I wouldn't be so hopeful.

I agree with No 1 100%. Overpopulation will be dealt with by we the people or Mother Nature will do it for us. I personally don't think there are any politicians anywhere left in the world that are capable of dealing with the need for sudden and large population reductions, so I am expecting that Mother nature will do the job - And that won't be very nice to see happen.
Governments today will feed the farmers to Mother Nature to save the Bankers and corporate CEO's and then they will start looking at each other and wondering who is going to feed them all.

Jon,would you care to elaborate a bit about the govts feeding the farmers to the bankers?

Governments still believe they can save the day, don't they? (Maybe they can?)

Jason Bradford suggested I might forward to TOD editors (I did) the response I received from a Minister's (Aus) office a few weeks ago on this subject. Here's the second paragraph...

"It is true that growth in Australia and globally is generally exponential. Resources are therefore being consumed at a faster rate each year, particularly due to the dramatic increase in growth in China. However, it is not true to say that growth cannot be sustainable. Through technological advances and innovation, we can develop new methods and ways of doing things which can allow us to continue to have growth in the long term, but in a sustainable manner". (The two-page letter goes on to outline proposals and initiatives).

In other emails, government admits they're well aware of TOD, Al Bartlett, Chris Martenson, Peter Schiff and the like.

So what's there to do? We're in good hands, right?

Regards, Matt B

Joe,
I would be interested in those proposals and initiates for sustainable growth. Does it include recycling of resources, increases in energy efficiency, replacing FF with renewable energy ?

I guess it comes down to what rate of exponent growth, could be 0.1% per year or 4% per year.

The rest of the letter (minus names)...

"In order to support science, research and innovation, the Australian Government is funding research and development at universities and Government research institutions. For example, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is working to develop technologies and behaviours that address sustainability issues into the future in many areas, including energy production, materials, transport, agriculture and land management.

The Government is also focused on promoting innovation amongst businesses in Australia who are working to develop and commercialise new ideas. Many of these innovations are aimed at allowing Australia to continue to grow in a sustainable manner. Last year Minister (name withheld) commissioned a review of Australia’s national innovation system looking at how the Government can better target Australia’s innovation capabilities and examining what principles and actions might better position Australia to unlock its full innovative potential. The Government will be providing a full response to the Review of the National Innovation System as part of the budget process.

In addition, the Government has in place a number of initiatives to assist companies to develop and commercialise innovative ideas. For example, through the R&D Tax Concession, the Government provides a tax concession for businesses undertaking research and development. Another innovation initiative is the Climate Ready program, which provides grants to businesses to support research and development, proof-of-concept and early-stage commercialization activities to develop solutions to climate change challenges.

The Re-tooling for Climate Change program will help small and medium sized Australian manufacturers reduce their environmental footprint, through projects that improve the energy and/or water efficiency of their production processes. The Green Building Fund aims to reduce the impact of Australia’s built environment on green house gas emissions, by reducing the energy consumed in the operation of existing commercial office buildings. In addition, the Enterprise Connect network provides comprehensive support to Australian small and medium sized enterprises (SME’s), to help them become more innovative, efficient and competitive.

Through research funding and innovation initiatives such as these, the Government is supporting the research and development activities of research institutions and companies throughout Australia who are working on solutions to ensure that Australia and the world can continue to experience growth in a sustainable manner.

For example, CSIRO and a number of Australian companies are developing strains of algae which can produce oil which could power Australia’s transport fleet in the future when conventional oil supplies are in decline. The University of New South Wales, CSIRO and the Australian National University, as well as a number of innovative Australian businesses, are developing world leading solar power technologies, which can replace fossil fuel usage for electricity generation. CSIRO is also developing an intelligent building management system for commercial buildings which operates, controls and monitors energy consumption and implements energy management programs and water saving devices on hydraulic fittings and fixtures. CSIRO estimate that the system can reduce a buildings energy use by around 30 per cent.

Research is also being undertaken in a number of other areas, which will help address the problem of maintaining sustainable growth, such as waste, food production, urban design, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, water management and biodiversity conservation. Through innovation and technological advancement, long-term growth can continue, in a sustainable manner

Thank you again for taking the time to write to the Government on this issue.

Yours sincerely"...

Matt,reading that politico speak reminds me of the reply I got to a letter I sent last year to Senator Evans,Minister for Immigration.I was strongly,but politely,critical of the government's insane immigration policy amd also the welfare for breeders program.

The people who write these letters at taxpayer expense are qualified bamboozelers and that is what they are employed for.They have the facts at their disposal but they have salary induced myopia.
Their private opinions may be different but it doesn't really matter,does it.

From top to bottom of the oligarchy the harlots are running the country.

I personally don't think there are any politicians anywhere left in the world that are capable of dealing with the need for sudden and large population reductions...

China?

At one time, fifty years ago or so, Mao Zedong practically ordered the Chinese people to multiply, which they did, then about 25 years ago, new leaders ordered the people to stop multiplying (and backed that up with a one-child policy for city people; it was two or three for country folk), and have prevented at least 400 million people from being added to China's already large 1.3+ billion population. So, there ARE politicians who are dealing with large reductions.

Maybe you meant politicians in the west. That would certainly be the case, particularly where the Catholic church is a power to be reckoned with--see, for example, the Philippines, where the population is growing dramatically, but where the Catholic church is against birth control and family planning; the government there knows Catholicism is a major hindrance to population reduction, but don't know what to do about it. Same applies to Latin America.

So, it's not the politicians who are at fault, it is the religion of the country or region they're in. A more secular and non-religious America, coupled with a sense of collective responsibility (as in China) and the population could be reduced substantially. But so long as we have this silly mass movement called democracy and an anti-humanistic religion, we can't do anything about it.

Todd has it right, it's about population growth. We need tax incentives to encourage no-kid and one-kid families, because only with fewer people can a shrinking economy comfortably fit.