Peak Oil, Persuasion, and the World Meme
Posted by Prof. Goose on July 12, 2006 - 11:03am
Topic: Sociology/Psychology
Tags: elaboration likelihood model, energy, media, oil, peak oil [list all tags]
All of these ideas vary in importance, salience, and validity depending on who you talk to; but all are definitely a part of the din of noise we subject ourselves to every day.
It still remains my concern, however, that the pillars to the myriad houses of problems I list above are those of world energy depletion--namely oil and its peak.
This leads me to my main question, which I will address in this post: how and when are human beings able to cut through all of that noise? How can they be persuaded? Surely it takes place, people change their minds every day on issues. What insights can we claim from psychology to get those we care about, and even those we don't, to dig deeper to get to an understanding of the pillars of the problems we face, instead of trying to buy aluminum siding for a house slowly falling in on itself?
The Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) distinguishes between the central route and the peripheral route as the two paths that can lead to attitudinal change (Petty and Wegener 1999; Petty and Cacioppo 1986).
The central route is typified by persuasive circumstances that require a great deal of thought and scrutiny of the attempted persuasion, and therefore are likely to predominate under conditions that promote high elaboration--or better said, higher amounts of thought/cognition.
What is elaboration? In this case, it is the "extent to which a person carefully thinks about issue-relevant arguments contained in a persuasive communication."
So, this elaboration means that ideas are scrutinized carefully, going beyond simple understanding. In turn, the receiver generates attitude relevant thoughts about the persuasive message they are being subjected to.
What motivates elaboration? Much of the theory of the ELM revolves around personal relevance and an individual's "need" for cognition (which obviously relates to sophistication), which is based on the ability to elaborate, which in turn requires freedom from distraction and sufficient prior knowledge. (In better words, the receiver must be able to understand information in order to be able to elaborate on it.)
Under the central route conditions, a person's unique cognitive response to the message determines the direction and magnitude of attitude change. The more actively one thinks about an argument, the more likely one is to use the central processing route. The strength and the direction of the argument also obviously plays a role in its persuasion capacity.
Ideas imparted via these central routes tend to be much more durable due to the congnitive changes they have on the person receiving the persuasive message. These are arguments based usually on observables (unbiased and empirical information) and things that can be verified by experience or multiple sources.
Peripheral route processes, on the other hand, require little thought/cognition, and therefore predominate under conditions that promote low elaboration.
This low elaboration means that there's little extensive cognitive work required for decision making because the receiver relies on a variety of cues to make quick decisions, and these cues allow us to travel along the peripheral route on auto pilot.
As one of my favorite book's authors, Bob Cialdini writes in Influence (a book I assign in my courses regularly, but here's a fair review), the peripheral routes reflect the too-often visited world of "Click, Whirr." That is, most of the messages put out by the media and received by those around us merely pass through this peripheral process simply because of information overload; therefore we respond using as many shortcuts as we can.
Add to that, the amount of information around us grows exponentially every day; sifting through it is, quite simply, a bitch. (which raises, in turn, questions about how much information citizens in democracy need, want, and deserve. I often find myself thinking about these quantities as three interconnected containers with the three chambers sharing only few droplets of fluid. But I digress.)
These peripheral processes often rely on judgmental heuristics (e.g., "the Supreme Court is always right") or surface features of a message (e.g., the number of arguments presented by peak oil advocates) or its source (e.g., the attractiveness of the source) to filter information.
Peripheral route persuasion is induced less by the substance of the argument, and are based more on emotional/affective response. These attitude changes can be rapid, but tend not to be very stable, and can be used to quickly (heuristically) dismiss or accept an argument.
These routes are not mutually exclusive of course, and there's no doubt that other factors play a role that I have not mentioned, namely sophistication, quality of message, and the like.
Also, in all likelihood (heh), the ELM's routes should be placed on a continuum and related to other important psychological ideas such as the schema, as well as the continuum between affect and cognition, which relates to the recent "hot cognition literature" and the like, but I have already typed a tome, so I will stop there. After putting just this model to the page, I can see there's a few posts that could follow this one.
So, dear reader, I pose to you this question: are we doing all we can to use the central route of persuasion? How else can we rise above the din of the less important noise using these psychological insights?
References:
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Petty, Richard E., and Duane T. Wegener. 1999. "The Elaboration Likelihood Model: Current status and Controversies." In Shelly Chaiken and Yaacov Trope (Eds.), Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press.
Your explanations and discussions of the technical, geological and industry aspect of oil are clear enough that I can follow them and have an idea of what you're talking about. If there's too many charts/graphics and its a very technical discussion, I do get lost but that's a small percentage of what I read here.
Just keeping the issues in front of the public on some medium/format is the only thing I can think of to get the message across. More people, I bet are listening/reading since the gas prices have hit them in the past two years. The only way most people will listen and act is if it's something that really impacts thei own lives. Just keep on doing what you're doing here! the word about this issue will keep on spreading, unless you can get some celebrities/public figure to address this as Gore is working on the message of global warming with his movie "An Inconvenient Truth."
thanks for theoildrum.com
How do I go about "persuading" you that the chart above is all wrong?
Humans generally do not "think" in the rational, deliberate way ascribed to them by the chart. That "model" of human behavior is highly inaccurate.
There are "specialists" in the art of persuasion. They live in Hollywood. They live on Madison Avenue. They live on K Street. They do not reside in the academic ivory towers (no offense, I really like professors --it's just that "persuation" of the masses is not within their bag of tricks).
Just last night, I saw a new Hummer ad campaign rolling out across my TV. A polite mother is waiting on line at the park by the slide for her 4 year old to get his turn. A more aggressive Mom cuts in line with her kid. "Hey, that's not fair." says the meek, polite Mom. Then she goes out and buys a Hummer. She is sick and tired of getting pushed around. She is out on the road pushing her weight around. Who's the big Momma now? Ha.
Do you "think" this ad campaign is going to sell Hummers? Stop being a meek, polite academic here. Tell us your true emotional reaction to this ad. Damn right this ad is going to work! No one is going to push me around anymore. I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore! (--I think?)
Alternately, a high-interest appeal using central processing: the classic print ads for the VW bug in the 1960's, explaining that it was so different it was smart to own.
Petty and Cacciopo's main point? Different mindsets need different approaches. They would not disagree with you.
Exactly. Give people the facts, help them draw conslusions. They will persuade themselves.
You can fill the trough with facts. But when the horse is brought there, he may refuse to drink them. He may refuse to even notice them.
Cute one though.
But it will be a waste of your time and money, in all probability. Trust me on this one;-)
But so is every even remotely well-socialized human.
Sociopaths and idiots and psychotics and infants are exceptions to this rule.
(And maybe lawyers;-)
People will almost always choose something that offers short term individual pleasure even if it risks long term individual pain. Despite our individual abilities to plan for the long term. This differs across issues, but IMHO we are still very much creatures of the moment.
Unfortunately burning fossil fuels is worse because it is a great short term pleasure and the long term pain will be collective, not focused on specific individuals that overuse it in the present.
OTOH, we can apply peer social pressure in the present to curb the immediate pleasure of wasteful individual behaviors. But that will only work in certain social groups that highly value environmentally friendly attitudes and without a mechanism to reward this type of behavior in other circles, it will largely remain a fringe group that does this.
Frankly, this is a collective leadership issue - people are going to continue to do what is in their immediate self interest until the immediate tradeoff is not worth it. Basically we need to internalize the cost of the future pain into the current variable cost (financial, social status, moral, etc) of using fossil fuels.
The dramatic reduction in smoking over the past 50 years has only be possible through:
- Hard scientific proof of the long term negative impact on personal and societal health
- Shift in public opinion that turned smoking from "cool" to "dirty"
- Hefty increases in the taxes on the per unit cost of cigarettes combined with new and better treatment strategies.
And yet we still have about 20% of the population regularly smoking...which is still better than 40-50% of years gone by...Anyway, as addictions go, I think that changing the habitual and monotonous use of such a substance, be it say Petroleum, Alcohol (in either form) or Tobacco is to me, akin to separating molecules that are in compound. You can apply energy to break that molecular bond, but until you give the addict something else to replace it with, and I mean having it close at hand and readily resupplied, then the original compound is all too likely to reform. Maybe I'm being too esoteric..
When I decided to really get out of the 'Soda' habit, over a few different tries, I saw that it wasn't about just pulling the Coke away, but putting something there in it's place, so that the empty spot wouldn't just be filled by another Coke, the way dirt was magically drawn to Pigpen in the Peanuts..
I talk about energy, to coworkers, to my family, friends, neighbors, and try different approaches in different contexts. To the guys on my Video crew (ESPN Poker, Vegas).. I hop into the car with them as we trundle over to one Hyper AC'd hotel from our own (Very green, very green.. but my room is set at 72, and I didn't get the offered rent-a-car, but carpool with one of them each day.. Vegas busses are ok, too.), and say cheerfully, "Did I tell you that we're F'd?" They know I'm joking, and they know I'm not, as I bring up the Oil situation again, but in a somewhat light tone. They know that Ethanol is ~probably~ untenable, and that we're ~probably~ heading for the waterfall, and that we ~ought~ to be doing something about it.. and they want to, but I think they all "Already have a hobby".. that's Bob's Hobby, the 'Energy' thing..
I've told neighbors about my 'intention' to get alternatives up on my roof, but I don't think that is anywhere NEAR as effective as it will be to have them see it up there. (This Summer, after Vegas, I swear) Actions speak louder than words, and neighbors can be acutely aware of each others' advantages and their quirks.. could take 'Talking about the Weather' to a whole new level, eh?
Anyway, I think seeing it happening in your own neighborhood, at your own office in ways that you can stop someone and ask about it will be a signifigant way of making it 'real' to people who only see it as an occasional News Item, and are just too stretched to take it to the next level themselves. It puts the other elements into the pan, so that the 'free-radicals' have something appropriate and new to bond onto, instead of going back to the prior 'solutions'..
Exactly, and infortunately it is not going to change any time soon because it is somewhat "hardwired" in the brain.
See Breakdown of Will from George Ainslie.
Also of interest A Selectionist Model of the Ego: Implications of Self-Control and Emotion as a Motivated Behavior (same page).
As a quick summary, we are not rational creatures, we are not "in control" and even we try to this brings so serious drawbacks that one has to wonder which option is worse.
How do we fix the mess then?
Same as fighting smoking!
Good hard scientific evidence.
Political leadership at all levels of government to promote efficiency and alternatives to oil
Social pressure against wasteful behaviors like suburban living, buying SUVs/Hummers, 6,000 sq/ft houses
Economic incentives to "do the right thing" and consume less fosssil fuels.
And of course large scale investment in alternatives!
One thing I have observed, though, is that when people are pessimistic or depressed they are even more short-term oriented.
When the pain of change is greater than the pain of 'staying the course'. Right now, the course is oxidation of carbon.
Eventually people will build things like
http://www.passivhaustagung.de/englisch/Passive_House_E/passivehouse.html
instead of ideas like "oh, oh we'll build nuke plants and THEY will keep the houses warm!" and if humanity isn't busy killing itself over a bit of carbon to burn.
One problem is the duplicity of elected leaders, thus allowing "conspiracy theories" to grow like weeds. But like rasberries, one man's weeds is anothers fruit. Because goverments and corportations have lied in the past and such actions are tolerated, such theories of what is going on are able to grow.
The problem in the future will be trying to keep cool.
We'll need highly efficient houses and nukes.
But most people won't be wealthy enough to buy high-tech high-quality German construction.
Mr. Sailorman doesn't find a problem where he lives.
We'll need highly efficient houses and nukes.
The failure modes of nuclear power is the issue. Unless you want to argue that man doesn't make m mistakes.
buy high-tech high-quality German construction.
It adds 10%.
I'd say, trying to keep stable. Some places will be very hot, some very cold (UK if the Gulf Stream stalls), some a very chaotic mix of both of those, and very wet, very dry, very hungry, very angry, etc..
People have to be open to the idea and it has to be effective points presented to them (in the chart I believe). Also repetition/reinforcing is benefical (WestTexas does a good job of this with his export model). In the end, the change of view is a long process.
I am also curious about why we believe things we do. It's interesting to see people here presenting facts to back up thier view of PO, while someone else (Freddy Hutter) will present facts to back up thier opposite view.
I'm not trying to change the topic to religion, but one thing I have thought after reading this site for a while is how 'evangelistic' people here are. It really isn't much different than Christians trying to convert others. "Why won't these people believe? I know I'll show them this and this and in a logical way, then they have to believe. Ok, maybe I will print up some fliers and hand them out, that will get some attention". Just my opinion.
I have found that 95% plus of the people who join the peak oil club fall into one of the following categories, often times two or three of them:
- They already felt the current system was totally wrong. Thus, accepting this informatiion is almost natural to them as it only buttresses their pre-existing world view that the current "paradigm" is f--ked.
- They have something to sell, be it a book, dvd, technology, or (in most cases) an ideology that seems like it might be a good response to this information. This could be anything from an apocalyptic religious cult type ideology to new urbanism to agrain community living to nuclear power to car free living to some form of ecofascism.
I actually happen to subscribe to some of the agendas mentioned above so I don't necessarily mean this in a derisive way. (New urbansim, community living, and of course, apocalyptic relgious cult style living)You have to understand the brain is optimized for survival not for truth seeking. Humans' survival is dependent on being socially recognized in the tribe. The more social status you have, the better your chances of surviving.
Having an ideology or plan that you can convince others will benefit the tribe is one way to move up in the tribe's social network. So if a person has an ideology or agenda to promote that they can attach to a fact based, provable and demonstrable meme like peak oil, it's natural for them to accept it and then to use it to advance themselves in the tribal social network. Well, at least the aspects that help promote their agenda.
3. They secretly wish to be dictator.
Most of the folks who get into this with a desire to make their community a better place really are into it because deep down they fall into category #3. The desire to be dictator is not one that is socially acceptable so it gets sublimated (sp?) into a desire to make the community (or world) a better place. Peak Oil is picture perfect for this: it is a definable problem, it inspires fear even when presented in the most sober fashion possible, and people's natural reaction is to look for somebody or something who has a "plan." In steps he who secretly wishes to be dictator.
In all instances, however, the person sees themselves or people who share their ideologies/agendas/tribal affliations as being the new folks in charge. So even if the agenda/person is one I like, it doesn't change the basic psychological motivation.
(That was probably me three years ago but I didn't know enough about evolutionary psychology to see that.)
The vast majority of people just want more BTU's (more money.) If they don't fall into one of the above three categories PRIOR to coming across this information they are extremely unlikely to ever accept it.
Best,
Matt
Mostly seems hopeless to convince others, with few exceptions. Common reaction is glazing/shifting of the eyes... kind of like the monkeys, hear/see/think no evil. Need a hammer, best available is ever higher prices. Note that by 1980 the perception had changed to expectations of ever higher prices... this thought is coming, and will eventually affect behaviour, just as it did then.
As an aside, in the seventies the fraction of the s&P 500 held by oil and related companies went from 6% to 30%. Current is around 8%.
ROFLOL at you taxonomy.
I myself think there are 10 kinds of Peak Oilers:
those who count in binary and those who don't
jkissing: You hit the head pin in our bowling alley of attention getting. Nothing wakes 'em up like that old "Pain at the Pump". When that hits, they start howling like a pack of wolves. Otherwise, they are asleep with their "eyes glazed over".
what does this mean, can you please elaborate?
sometimes all the stocks within a certain sector of the sp500 will go up more than stocks in other sectors (think tech stocks in 1999). what he is saying is that the market capitalization of the energy companies within the sp500 is only 8% of the total capitalization of the sp500. it peaked in 1981 at around 20%.
the implication being, that either energy companies have alot more upside to reach historical peak or non-energy companies have a lot more to fall. I am positioned on both sides of that (long energy, short most everything else)
BUT I never go short.
Why?
Because potential gains are limited, while potential losses are indefinitely large.
Thus, IMO, short-selling is a suckers' game.
DOG finished at 69.90 today, a gain of $0.80, while the DJ Industrials were down 121 points.
You are one of the wisest posters on this site. But that last comment is patently inaccurate. Short selling may have been a suckers' game in the past 50 years, but in a Peak Oil world, it will be a gold mine, and will outpace any traditional investment strategy if done correctly and wisely.
First off, you can short futures. The risk profile is almost identical to going long, it depends how and when you add/cover that makes the difference.
Secondly, you can short index products like QQQQ, etc. the risk of a buyout impacting the price dramatically is small.
I am much more confident in general stocks going down than I am in energy going up in the future. If hubbert method is half right we are talking about the end of growth as we know it and our financial model will have to be revamped. Retail and other stocks that sell premium items will get hammered -I am short HANS - Hansen Natural which makes Monster beverages and is valued over 10 TIME SALES..! As it drops I will add - I have made alot of money this way in a bull market - the bear market ahead will be much easier. Sure I will own my energy, wind, rail stocks etc, but I would recommend anyone who is involved in the stock market to learn how to short sell..
Prof G, in answer to your question, I have a brokerage acct at Ameritrade, and I just enter an order to 'short sell' instead of buy. If a stock is at $50 and you buy and it goes to $75 you make 50%. Shorting is actually in a margin acct - you generate proceeds from borrowing then shorting a stock which can earn margin interest or be used to buy/sell something else. (50% is typical haircut). If you have an acct, short sell 100 shares of QQQQ and get used to how it works - it will be a skill youll be happy to know.
Many parts of the energy sector are growing in value, not just the big names eg xom. E&P's, service companies, coal companies, etc. As these companies grow some become large enough to displace previous S&P companies, whether because the latter are weakening or not. So, the sum market cap of the energy companies currently making up the 500 is around 8%, having grown from around 6% a few years ago. IMO, this trend will continue; imagine if, as todders are hoping, the perception that po is nigh becomes widespread. Many will realize that if energy companies will do better, non-energies will do worse because consumers will have to cut back on everything else as they shift more of their spare earnings into gasoline etc. So, many will want some energy stocks, and will asap sell the stocks they have now to purchase them. The strategy spelled out below by thelastsasquatch, carefully selling everything else and investing in energy, is just doing what all investors want - get there first before the crowd does.
I came to the po view 18 months ago. My investments have done exceptionally well... Hope my optimistic view of how we cope with po is correct. My favorites now are ard and gpor - so far, have not tried to short the balance of the market, but might begin to dabble in it later.
How did you know? It's Good to Be King! Tom Petty.
Just kidding!best Dave
I think you are conflating the status quo with the human condition. Society has been ordered in other manners.
Just a few f'rinstances: The old Soviet Union. No one was going to be allowed to starve. No one outside the Part was at all likely to get ahead. 'Get ahead' was hardly a real concept. Party membership was limited & there were those who didn't want to play.
Hereditary aristocracy. The game is rigged. You can't do much to maximize your access to energy. Maybe you can try to suck up to the Earl or his household, maybe you can't even do that. Social mobility is purely a modern idea
Black America until quite recently. Any uppity black man who thought he could get rich or gain status got slapped down pretty quick. And there was enough fat on the land and family and charity that few starved. So status came from things like dancing ability, music, dressing sharp. Actually the mode of competition I'm describing here goes on at some level most everywhere.
There have been plenty of societies that didn't have money or used it only in ways so basic it didn't mean what it means to us.
There are all kinds of ways humanity has subsisted without the competition for status, money and babes you describe and we're still here.
As for changing the status quo I'm as dubious as you. I just think it's wrong to read all history through a prism of America ca. 2006.
At the bottom, life exists to perpetuate itself and every animal, with the exception of a few odd balls like the New Mexico Whiptail Lizard, is in a constant search for sexual partners. And that means status. Onansis said it all, when asked why he had accumulated so much money, "Without women is would all be pointless".
Man always competes for status, because that gets the "babes". Money is just one form of status. Even in pure hunter-gatherer societies the most successful hunters give meat preferentially to women who they desire as sexual partners.
Yes, this is supported by research see Geoffrey Miller:
How Mate Choice shaped Human Nature
Aesthetic fitness: How sexual selection shaped artistic virtuosity as a fitness indicator and aesthetic preferences as mate choice criteria
And some more from the same...
We will never get rid of the Hummers or equivalent gimmicks tailored to the available energy ressources!
I think it says that even in a world of electric cars, there weill be electric Hondas and electric Porsches.
Maybe those Tesla guys have it right. A 4 second 0-60 appeals to this ol' monkey brain.
Also, Italian sportcoats that retail for $1,500 and up are nice. I shop at Goodwill and get them (almost new) for $1.29. My wardrobe is outstanding . . . to match my wit, brilliant conversation and superlative cooking skills. Oh, I can also sail circles around most other skippers, and this impresses sailorwomen no end. Fastest skippers get the lustiest and best women crew.
More sophisticated women will go for things like humor, intelligence, and the ability to get along with others. Of course, it is no coincidence these things are (largely) what determines a man's ability to procure resources in most any society.
So I'm not reading things through a prism of America ca. 2006 as I am the past couple hundred thousand years of human history.
Best,
Matt
No comment at all on the desirability of such arrangements. They are simply common, normal to human history. You don't get to throw out history that doesn't fit your model.
I don't want to debate you at all. You're clearly a sharp guy and your opinions are worth something. May I instead recommend some reading? Some out-of-the-rut reading?
The Death of Adam, essays by Marilynne Robinson, esp. the essay 'Darwinism'. I hesitate to summarize her arguments at all as she is IMHO the best prose stylist currently working in English. Suffice it to say what is treated as biological science at TOD she puts as straight ideology/theology and you will be intellectually challenged.
The Elizabethan World Picture by E.M.W. Tillyard. None of the deathless immortal inscribed-on-our-neurons concepts/ideas discussed in TOD philosophy existed 400 years ago, much less 400,000. After Tillyard, you reread or go see Hamlet.
Mutual Aid and Fields, Factories, and Workshops, both by Prince Peter Kropotkin. Sure he's quaint, charming, terminally naiive. OTOH his field surveys of Siberia were a catbird seat possibly no other human has had. Lewis & Clark might have seen some of the same, Kropotkin saw more & used the opportunity. For anyone considering growing their own food or thinking about subsistence agriculture his view of the market gardens of Paris is mandatory.
A back to back reading of The Iliad,trans.Fagles and The Origin of Human Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes. Jaynes is a wacko (and has a bit of a cult following still so AlphaProphet should heed the style) and nothing he says can be verified/tested/demonstrated. After reading him you will wonder what if anything you really know about brain structure. And how you so easily know it. Read the Alexzander Pope trans. too, just because it's great and also to see what different results can come from identical text.
Yes good minds can go different places from identical text. When I see so many here singing the same song on biology/evolutionary psychology/brain strucure etc. that alone raises red flags.
That's enough.
Damn! You have certainly observed something I have not. I haven't observed a lot of biology, evolutionary psychology or brain structure on this list, but what I have observed, no one is singing the same song. If there is anything everyone seems to disagree on, it is those three subjects.
Methinks Old Hippie, that you are imagining things. And that most definitely raises a red flag.
Words fail.
I give up.
Old Hippie replied:
You are absolutely correct Old Hippie, words do fail you, you fail to see them. At least you failed to see a lot. Either that or you do not know what the words mean. Then notice that I added "but what I have seen". Did those words fail you too Old Hippie?
I give up.
So Old Hippy, if you are willing to stop doing that then I will not launch a defense or counter attack and a pissing contest can be averted before it ever starts.
On this list we have two distinct sets of contributors: the technical and the social. The technical contributors provide the hard facts about what's going on in the world of peak oil. The social contributors provide thoughts on how people respond to the physical situation. This thread, for instance, is dominated by the social contributors, while threads like the ones on OCS , rig counts or or Oil Shale are more technical in overall content.
For me the "biological" part of the compound term comes into play when we try and deal with what aspects of human behaviour can or should be considered "hard-wired", and thus less malleable in the face of changing circumstances.
I think both the technical and social approaches are necessary, or at least the social/biological discussions are inevitable: once we understand a problem, we're hard-wired to discuss fixes.
Have you noticed that the social threads are the ones where most of the doomer sentiments are expressed, and that those expressions are discouraged on the technical threads? I think that's a good thing, so long as we have the occasional social thread to let those of us who don't feel there are viable global solutions vent just a bit...
This started silly and it only gets sillier. Get some sleep.
Though it may be fair to call Kropotkin terminally naive, it is intriguing that his scientific work is much more easily available to read for anyone interested than Dawkin's 'English' perspective in his very much copyrighted books.
Those wacky Russians weren't as wacky as it seems - but then, people trying to do what Kropotkin and company did are always rare - and ever so easily dismissed out of hand by those who feel no need to remove themselves from the pinnacles they believe themselves to be at.
Red flag warning, indeed - and I guess skipping over this thread makes sense.
It is a total and absolute misrepresentation of history to assert that "nobody starved" in the Soviet Union. At the time of the government-imposed famines, Stalin exported grain to get gold and other things he wanted.
Why glamorize the Evil Empire?
The time of the famines and the "gold purge" as described by A. Solzhenitsyn and others was as bad as anything Hitler ever did. Also, on the scale of mass murder, most historians now rank Stalin above Hitler, some by as much as a factor of two.
Plus...I'm not sure it's possible to persuade most people, and moreover, I'm not sure it would do any good if we could.
I think the only way to beat an idea is with a better idea.
How can I beat consumerism?
Well, I have a better idea:
- Tennis every morning when weather permits.
- Get on the water or the ice, depending on season. Sail, fish, cross-country ski, etc.
- Sex in the morning, sex after breakfast, sex before lunch, sex at siesta, etc. IMO people in modern civilizations are almost always sex-starved compared to people in hunting and gathering societies.
BTW, missionaries were shocked, SHOCKED to find out that "the primitives" all had sex all the time--even the old and ugly people. Even people who were married to one another copulated several times a day--and never (or almost never) in the "missionary position," which, BTW gives relatively little pleasure to women. The idea that women would get pleasure from sex was considered by most Christian missionaries as coming from Satan and something that had to be stamped out all all costs.Missionaries have a lot to answer for.
(See, for example, the classic article, "Steel Axes for Stone-Age Australians," for an example of how missionaries casually destroyed a whole culture and society--not even on purpose, but it, and many other examples, happened.)
IMO in order for a person to grasp the message, he/she must have been thinging critically about the world we live, has connected some dots for what has been going on on the international arena in the past decades or at least has reached to the conclusions that there are some fundamental flaws in the world we live today. Like always you can convince people only in things that they have at least partially reached to themselves.
It was 9/11 that brutally knocked the blinders off of me. From that point forward, I was ready to finish connecting the dots and understand the far-reaching nature of Peak Oil...
So I guess I'm a Matt Savinar category-1 Peak Oiler.
Though the idea of being a dictator has some appeal... A benevolent dictator. I promise! Honest!
I don't think I fall into any of Matt's categories. I am definitely way too lazy to either sell anything or be a dictator. I guess that leaves #1, but I don't think that really fits, either. I do think the system is @#$%ed, but that's a result of accepting peak oil, not the cause of it.
Wasn't your father telling you "get ready to eat lower on the food chain" back in the 1950s? That tells me you'd fall into category 1.
Rarely do women wish to be DICKtator. That's mostly a guy thing, although there are some exceptions.
Best,
Matt
Obviously you have never been married :)
Hey, girls this was a joke...
Ummm....no. I wasn't alive in the '50s.
My dad did tell me about Malthus, but I didn't believe him. In fact, we argued for hours about it, more than once.
Strange. Did you consider everything was OK 5-10 years ago?
I assert this all goes back to how money works. Usury drives surplus (can't pay back more money than there is haha, so how bout a bit of extra grain so I can keep my land?!). Surplus drives population increase (more food = more people). Fossil fuel detritus has become the enabler of great surplus and allowed this paradigm to play out even further.
I think it all goes back to usury money.
Was Everett wrong. No. Just ahead of his time. (From him I also learned to hoard copper tubing, one of the alltime best investments I have ever made.)
Now seriously, folks, how come we (homo S) can cooperate pretty good when little band of brothers in tough situations re kamakaze and such like, and not when in tough situations like now? How about forming just a lot of little bands of brothers-and sisters-?
I do not suggest military solutions, but the military experience, organization, training and psychology can teach us, IMO. ProphetofDoom notes desires to be dictator, Sure. Also exist desires to be hero, not to forget. But leadership req'd.
However, many men fought as long as they were strong enough to walk with armor on, well past age 60. If Socrates had not become known as a philosopher, he would probably be remembered as one of Athens most decorated and bravest soldiers; he did a heckuva lot of fighting against the Spartans. Plato also received medals or the equivalent for exceptional bravery in battle. Socrates was a hoplite, Plato in the cavalry, and I seem to recall that Aristotle was sort of in the reserve, but because of his friendship with King Philip and then Alex the Great was able to have fun doing science and philosophy rather than get bloody in battle.
Obviously we are not seeing massive "proactive" mobilization right now. We are seeing a testing of ideas (hydrogen, hybrids, tar sands, ethanol, biodiesel, ...). It's pretty nice that the list of "tries" is as long as it is ...
So I anticipate that some clue or event will shock people into getting serious. If you want to blue-sky it, you can think about how effective that at (or post) peak response can be.
I think the jury's out.
I voted Republican. I joined the Air Force. I was more than willing to take my place in the military industrial complex.
Then I grew up, I guess. ;-)
Regarding 9/11 - I realise it was a shocking event, but I'm not sure what is the "balance" - how many people started to ask question, and how many preferred to live in the cosy world of illusions (now complemented with the war against all those evil terrorists that are coming to get us).
Outside the US, 9/11 was met with a lot of sympathy, but frankly said with a too little surprise. The US game in Middle East had been visible for decades and a reprisal in one form or another was simply waiting to happen.
Given that, 9/11 did not change my world views in any way - I simply realised that the game is reaching the shootout phase. And with the discovery of PO several years later I realised why. The rest of course is history...
It's amazing to develop a worldview in which 9/11, the Iraq War, GW, PO, Faux News and the sale of the US national debt to China all have their places in a single framework.
Are you implying that there is an "Intelligent Design" behind all this madness? If so, I think you credit the naked apes with way too much skill and capability. Randomness in a madhouse explains it much better.
Do you realize that today, 10-3/10+3 is DDY Day?
(Double Dan Yergin day. 2x $38 =$76/bbl, today's price crossing on the NYMEX)
My sole goal now is to survive as much of what is coming to see what comes after and to enjoy myself as much as I can along the way. If there were a significant enough group of like-minded people interested in taking specific actions, I might be persuaded to assist them or join them. But in general I see nothing for the statistical majority except death, whether that comes in my generation or my children's generation or my grandchildren's generation. I cannot deter the lemmings from their chosen path so I won't give myself ulcers trying. Either nature will change their minds the hard way or nature will cull them. In either case, it's beyond my abilities to impact.
Except, in the Western world, the birth rate is falling and in many places (Japan, Italy) is causing a fall in population and associated demographic problems. I believe the same is true for the USA, net of immigration (disclosure: I was once an immigrant to the USA but have since returned to Europe).
The key seems to be feeding everybody AND educating the females. Feeding everybody is necessary, but not sufficient. Witness Saudi Arabia.
Also, IIRC, Germany and Sweden are reducing their footprints and have plans to do so even more...
Yes. The U.S. would have Europe-like growth rates if it weren't for immigration.
The McPaper had this article today:
Society switches focus away from children
I really think that these are the issues we can make the most headway on. We'd be going with the flow, rather than against it. Many people want fewer children, or even none, but there's a lot of pressure to have kids, even now. I think they'd embrace the idea that chosing to be child-free is not selfish.
And immigration is of course a red-hot topic right now.