Jay Hanson and Dieoff.org
Posted by Nate Hagens on July 24, 2006 - 11:37am
Topic: Miscellaneous
Tags: dieoff, evolution, net energy, peak oil, thermodynamics [list all tags]
As such, I feel privileged that Jay will be visiting Robert Rapier, myself and some friends in August to discuss his latest ideas, research and predictions regarding society in the face of peak oil. He is particularly interested in working out a 'logic' framework on the human behavioral aspects of everyday life, and believes we can parse much of our behaviour into a simple set of 'if-then' analog algorithms, evolutionarily designed, context dependent.
Human behavior is a product of our genes and our environment (culture). Jay has often pointed out that culture is only relevant so long as it has the ability to punish. Many of the dieoff.org viewpoints are difficult to envision let alone accept (like a 50%+ human dieoff in the coming decades). Yet Jay Hanson has connected many dots with research and insight difficult to refute. Below is Jay's farewell summary to his dieoff listserv from 2003. It offers a unique perspective on societies possible reactions to a decline in energy availability. (If there is interest, and we haven't started WWIII, I'll follow this post one month hence with a synopsis of our mini retreat on human evolutionary constructs.)
FAREWELL DIEOFF.ORG
Jay Hanson 01/12/03I am turning the dieoff website over to the moderator of the "energyresources" mailing list -- a fellow named Tom Robertson t1r@bellatlantic.net. If you are so inclined, Tom could make use of any support you could give him to keep the dieoff web site going.
I would like to bid you all farewell and present a brief synopsis of my work over the last ten years or so. Like everything else, it's all very simple when you really understand it. Unfortunately, I doubt that more than a few hundred people worldwide (perhaps far less) would be able to really understand the issues I raise in this paper. Probably no more than one or two who actually receive this mailing will really understand it -- for reasons I will attempt to explain...
SYNOPSIS
--------
I developed an interest in "sustainability" about fifteen years ago when it became clear to me that our present economic system was totally unsustainable and self-destructive. It seemed little more than a well-organized method for converting natural resources into garbage. I studied modern economic theory on the assumption that our political leaders would work to change the flaws once I was able to point them out.I became aware that something was fundamentally wrong in our political system when I ran for public office. The more I studied politics, the more bizarre it looked. I finally realized it wasn't anything like the "democracy" it claimed to be. It turns out that America is actually a stealth plutocracy http://www.dieoff.org/page168.htm !
Working full-time for more than a decade, I studied it all: the history of our so-called "democracy", the fundamentals and history of modern economics, sociology, cybernetics, system theory, biology, ecology, microbiology, evolution theory, physics, and so on.
After several years of research, I concluded that little -- if any -- of the so-called "social sciences" (including economics) taught in our universities had anything relevant to say about the real world. Instead of discovering facts and principles, most social science is little more than a program designed to "rationalize" (invent socially-acceptable excuses for) the current plutocracy. Moreover, I was astonished to find that the global economy is based upon Catholic religious dogma that I was able to trace back to St. Thomas http://www.dieoff.com/page243.htm ! Eventually I discarded social science altogether because it had absolutely nothing worthwhile to say about sustainability.
By placing the results of my research in order of importance for sustainability, I can simplify over ten years' work down to two sets of physical "laws". These laws place harsh limits on what is possible for us: #1 ENERGY LAWS, and #2 BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION LAWS. For purposes of sustainability, nothing else matters.
#1 ENERGY LAWS
--------------
Once I was able to understand Odum's "eMergy" metric (actually very simple, but difficult for old minds), I realized there are only three relevant principles concerning energy: the First Law of thermodynamics (no creation), the Second Law (always a loss), and the "Net eMergy" principle ("net energy" converted for "quality") http://www.dieoff.org/synopsis.htm .Once one understands the three simple principles outlined in the paragraph above, then one understands that the only way our society could actually be "sustainable" would be to continuously reduce our aggregate energy footprint -- less consumption AND less people -- until the global population level is back to a couple-a-hundred-million people swinging through the trees. This is also Georgescu-Roegen's conclusion http://www.dieoff.org/page148.htm . That's the easy part...
With great reluctance (because it has worked so well for me), I was forced to conclude that our present system of capitalism is incompatible with energy laws and can never be sustainable. My only hope was that some new form of sustainable society might be possible. So I began studying human nature, intending to discover what kinds of sustainable societies might work...
#2 BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION LAWS
----------------------------
Human nature is much more difficult to understand than energy laws for two main reasons: it's not taught, and we are genetically biased against self-knowledge. In other words, teaching human nature to someone is something like teaching a dog not to bark http://www.dieoff.com/page193.htm .I will reduce several years' research on human nature down to the essentials: A COMPUTER ANALOG, and A SOCIAL PRINCIPLE. For purposes of sustainability, everything else about human nature can be ignored -- it simply doesn't matter.
a. A COMPUTER ANALOG
-------------
Computer software cannot function before it is enabled by the hardware. In other words, functioning hardware MUST precede functioning software.Human thought is analogous to computer software. Any particular thought (software) cannot precede the neurons, dendrites, neurotransmitters, etc (hardware) that make that specific thought possible. Like all computers, human hardware is the physical prerequisite to human software -- but that's where the similarity with everyday computers ends.
Human brains are much different than the stored-program, digital, binary, single processor PCs we use every day. Instead, human brains are wired (not stored-program), analog (not digital, not binary), multiprocessor (not single processor) "state machines" (program logic may permanently modify itself depending upon the data). A human cannot have a specific thought unless it has been enabled by earlier brain "wiring" (e.g., pre-programmed, formal education, reflection, critical thinking). Moreover, older brains are much harder to "wire" than younger brains.
Brains are mostly hardwired by age 25. By middle age, people may need two or three years of hard work to understand something completely new (grow the brain hardware required to think the thought).
The human brain comes from the factory with a set of empirically designed pre-programs that have historically (over a billion years) tended to maximize "inclusive fitness". One of these pre-programs was specifically designed to inhibit self-knowledge with respect to social issues. By remaining unaware of our true motives, we are much more effective at deceiving others. We evolved this way because the more convincing liar has the advantage in sexual competition (e.g., Bill Clinton).
In short, people cannot think a thought unless the brain has been previously "wired" to think it. This is why civilization after civilization runs out of energy and collapses http://dieoff.com/page134.htm . This is also why we are presently running out of energy and hell-bent for collapse.
Contrary to the received wisdom, people do not think and then act. They act and then rationalize. New data from the environment is routinely plugged into existing mental hardware (like entering a number into a spreadsheet), which is then followed by an appropriate thought. Since people have no wiring for "peak in oil and gas production", news of the present energy crisis cannot generate the appropriate thought. Only prolonged reflection can grow the required mental hardware to place this critical piece of news in perspective. Unfortunately, only a few people can invest the thousands-and-thousands of hours necessary to see both the energy and evolutionary aspects of the human condition clearly.
b. A SOCIAL PRINCIPLE
-----------------------
Individuals come from the factory pre-programmed to seek inclusive fitness in ways that have actually worked in the past. In modern society, economic growth serves as a proxy for increasing fitness. This is why we "feel good" when we make money, buy a new SUV, and so on. Unfortunately, when our pre-program determines that inclusive fitness is best served by violating social norms, we will violate those norms and seek a fitness advantage. This explains the higher crime rates in our lower income populations and why nations go to war.Societies can remain reasonably stable as long as their economies continue to grow -- continue to serve inclusive fitness for the majority. But when economic growth becomes physically impossible -- as it must -- societies will disintegrate into anarchy and war, as individuals and groups seek advantage.
CONCLUSION
----------
Once one understands the three simple energy principles outlined in this paper, then one understands that the only way our society could be actually be "sustainable", would be to continuously reduce our aggregate energy footprint. Put differently, energy laws will force us to continuously reduce our aggregate footprint whether we choose to or not.Once one understands human nature as outlined in this paper, then one also understands that continued social stability requires us to continuously INCREASE energy use, which we now know is impossible! It should not come as a surprise that we have been pre-programmed to overshoot and crash just like other animals http://www.dieoff.org/page80.htm .
There are absolutely no humane solutions available to the ruling elite because it is impossible to solve the problem of human corruption (i.e., the genetic pre-program to violate norms and seek advantage). Unfortunately, the best the poor can hope for is a painless death.
Since human nature is so terribly difficult to understand (I needed about five years), I am willing to participate in a moderated discussion group to explain the contents of this paper -- providing enough people are interested -- and someone volunteers to do the moderating. There will be no "political" discussions on the list. Go somewhere else if you want to talk politics.
It will be a few weeks before I can get the list started. Send a note to me at j@qmail.com if you are interested. Be sure the word "farewell" is in the title of your email so I won't delete it as spam. (I use a "white list" spam filter.)
Farewell and good luck,
Jay
I dont profess to agree with all of Jay’s ideas, but everytime I’ve thought I logically or verbally cornered him in the past, he replied with "Nate, you still haven't read enough biology, not by a longshot". After starting here, I've recently buttressed my biology background with the following titles: The Tangled Wing, by Melvin Konner, The Moral Animal, by Robert Wright, Biological Anthropology- The Natural History of Humankind, The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins, The Red Queen by Matt Ridley, The Spirit in the Gene - Humanities Proud Illusion and the Laws of Nature - by Reg Morrison, and Evolution, by Colin Patterson.
Biology and behaviour are underrepresented in discussions of resource depletion.
I realize I learned it all, in dribs and drabs, back in my college years, and in my own readings of evolution subsequently.
One of his footnotes names a professor I had, Craig Hatfield, of U of Toledo geology dept. This man, I know, is not a kook. He's been warning of oil shortages since the early 80s.
And so I'm hooked.
I have a relevant article half-written. But I'm waiting on permission to add a picture. It's a picture of a cat drinking a beer while lounging on a couch. Literally has it's paws around the beer and looks like it's been drinking it. Caption I added is "the problem with seeking the truth is sometimes you find it."
IMHO, the question is can we adjust to the rate of decline? I suspect the rich world generally will by moving toward more expensive energy, less energy-intensive transportation, less wasteful housing, and less disposable manufactured goods (both less overall and higher quality). That means living more like people in the earlier 20th century, but with much higher technology.
I suspect there will be die-offs (they happen all the time now anyway), but they will largely be in the less developed world and will be attributed to the usual suspects of disease and famine rather than overpopulation, resource depletion, and climate change which will be driving things.
Your missing the point here. Human society is unable, due to psychological hard wiring, to go from a state of high energy use to a lower one without some serious strife and struggle that is typically expressed violently.
A few individuals who are particularly aware of their own mind may be able to, but the masses can not. Look around, how many people profess to take global warming seriously, perhaps recycle, use low energy light bulbs etc. And then take one flight and blow all that was saved and more.
The problem is that the human animal uses possessions and social standing as gauges for how successful we are. We are hard wired to want more and ultimately this translates into energy use.
If we could find a mechanism for translating 'more sustainable' into 'higher social standing' then we would have a winner. But I cannot see a way to do it.
I am not completely with Jay Hanson though. I think it is possible and in the end inevitable that humans will eventually evolve an intelligent way into sustainable consciousness. But it will take a long time... hundreds... thousands, maybe even millions of years. It is either that or die out only for another animal to replace us and make it.
The only short cut would be genetically engineering ourselves to be wired differently. But that opens a whole other can of worms. How can a bunch of monkeys who don't have the moral abilities necessary to program themselves to have them... the process would just be corrupted by our current mindset resulting in even greater violence. Beside the science is not even close to doing that, and we are out of time.
This makes it important to keep electricity production up and price down to keep non oil sectors healthy and people warm and comfortable and to have towns functioning on bicycling and collective transportation and those systems are fairly ok.
The biggest external psycological help with this would probably be if some rich country region crashed and media were full of reports on how awfull it is in the car-only parts of the world who have lacked planning and now cant afford new infrastructure. Be patriotic and accept the lower pension etc, in a few years the new trolley and rail lines will open and plug-in hybrids are slowly getting cheaper, it will be better in 5 years. And if you can afford it, buy a share in the new nuclear powerplants and be guaranteed a maximum price for you kWh!
I think it is time to dust of the old nation state and try to keep the competition on the constructive side, who is better at creating new resources and make savings? Those who are best at it should both compete and trade and thus also get resources to help or keep the riff-raff at bay depending on how desperate people are and how cynical people outside this club are. If war starts resources will contract fast and they will be burned in non constructive competition.
I guess the question for those up on both dieoff and modern neurobiology is: how can you be sure this is not confirmation bias?
FWIW, it seems a warning sign when someone shares not just a concern, but a flat certainty of where the fixed and flexible portions of human behavior will take us:
Best.
My off the cuff blog remark is coming short of a truly balanced response.
I used to be a big poster on forums but hold back these days because I find that to write a really good post that really reflects my views I have to spend several days contemplating and researching, making sure I am covering all the angles. I don't have a chance of keeping up with oil drum posts, each time I check there are another 300 comments and posts become stale very quick.
And I agree, it is very hard to extrapolate the future from what is still a young science and yes humans are adaptable.
however, the point I am trying to make still remains...
As was said by Kevembuangga lower down.
the kind of problems we are facing now is dealing with SECOND ORDER regulations, i.e. regulating the dynamics of the system, not just the immediate outcomes.
We simply do not have the wetware that we need to face this situation, past evolutionary response has been to `move to the next island' or `kill off the neighbours.' This means that we have to consciously overrule our instincts. It can be done but it is hard, and many will not even want to try, believing their instinctual response to be the correct one.
This is why men compete to move up the resource ladder. Naturally we each want the best mates: the best looking, most intelligent, etc.
Now when will we powerdown? When women start mating and marrying DOWN the resource ladder.
Question #1: when was the last time you heard a woman say, "I'm looking for a good man, one who is smart, funny, gets along well with others and who makes less money than me."
Question #2: this one is for the married guys and gals: how would the woman in the relationship react if the man came home and said, "honey, I've been reading about this Peak Oil thing and I think we need to reduce both our own consumption and our own economic activity so as to reduce the strain on the planet. So I'm taking a 75% pay cut."?
I am married.
I followed your leadership suggestion in Question #2.
Results not pretty.
Let's say Lorena Bobbitt is starting to look like a kindly gentle lady to me right now.
I am starting to have doubts in your leadership abilities.
(P.S. Just kidding. I'm stupid, but not that stupid to try Question number 2. The results would be total Bobbitthood. I would not be able to join you and Sailorman in those exhibition games anymore. As you know, certain things are non-negotiable.)
lmfao! I'm writing an article on money and happiness and am so including your post!
Why do you always abbreviate that sociobiology to one specific kind of "position" and write "up the resource ladder?"
To be honest, that seems to missing the forest for the tree.
the status of women post peak is not pretty. the reason islam evolved to have their women in veil is I think, scarcity. covering them up means less competition for the males to expense a lot of energy consumption to win the best looking female.
women in the western world will be married off. they will no longer have much freedom. just the other day, the news said teenage girls opt for marriage more. have more children but they're in wedlock.
women can't handle the business world anymore, it seems. a lot of men will go the same way with regard to the business world.
all this is scary to the beta males/the intellectual ones. they feel this will happen to them. they'll be marginalized. the alpha males with the bigger muscles will win. all this is the status quo around the world today.
Studies of human happiness have famously shown that once basic needs are met, material wealth doesn't make any real difference to happiness. What does make a difference to happiness is relative status. If you're doing better than the other guy, you feel good. You'll get the girls.
I used to think that this was a terrible thing, because we can never make everyone happy - someone will always be at the bottom of the heap, someone always comes last even in the olympics. Now I see the glass half full - when we power down in may not actually make much difference to human happiness, ie social stability as long as we make sure that the basic needs are met. We can consume a hell of a lot less resources than we (in the developed world) do now and still meet those basic needs.
I think we have a chance if the decline is in fact Stuart's "slow squeeze" and the realisation and transition is slow enough not to induce a panic.
Very good for you.
I suspect that if 100 guys did as you have done, 90% plus would not have such great results.
What you've done is not unlike a bigger/more thorough version of me going without a car here in the car-obsessed U.S. 9 out of 10 guys who might attempt to do what I would do would see a decrease in their status/popularity.
Luckily I am quite charming and handsome so I'm able to get away with it. Proof you ask? Here you go:
[http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/OriginalArticles/mattandmariacaption.jpg]
My guess is your similary gifted. But let's be honest withourselves: most guys aren't as blessed as you and I, wouldn't you agree?
In any case, I do not piss on your theories.
It's all relative.
Netherlands has something like top tax bracket of 80%. Yet people still work and they have one of the highest subjective well beings on the planet, (unless the pumps run out of energy and the country sits under 3 feet of water)
People wont voluntarily reduce their income if everyone else is still making full cash - someone needs to tell them to do it. Alternatively, the real forward thinkers will realize the buddhist economic angle that they can never win the relative fitness game and reduce desires to simple pleasures using HROEI - Happiness returned on Energy Invested)
Americans have much different cultural (and possibly genetic - DRD4 dopamine gene) structure than Japanese. Not saying its likely, just saying thats probably what it'll take.
And yes, if I could surround myself with social capital (including one (1) wife), in a setting rich in natural capital, I would attempt to pursue the personal powerdown. I am learning what that takes now though, and its not easy either
"I do believe
If you don't like things you leave
for some place that's better than before"
Still a lot though...
This is supposed to be a meaningful question? How?
Do you have pages of math to show us that power-down over the coming decades is equivalent to a 75% pay cut in today's dollars (uniformly on all types of purchasing power), or are you pulling scary numbers out of your butt?
But:
I think there's somewhere in the middle that's probably right. I haven't missed the point. I would rephrase your point as "It will be extremely difficult, if possible at all, for people in the rich world to adjust to lower amounts of energy without great violence. It goes against millions of years of genetic selection and thousands of years of recent experience." I certainly agree with that.
I don't agree with the original statement from maximumheaviosity, quoting and paraphrasing Hanson:
The proposition is that no combination of renewable energy systems have the potential to replace current fossil fuel energy. The unstated assumption is that we need enough energy to replace all current fossil fuel energy. I don't agree with that assumption. I don't disagree that there will be a population reduction, I do agree that there will be increasing violence, and I do expect some amount of premature human deaths in the process (witness Iraq and Lebanon now), but IMHO we can make due with much less energy, so that the adjustment doesn't have to be through massive violence.
Personally I live on about a tenth most peoples footprint in the UK. Largely because I work from home, wear jumpers(sweaters) when cold, don't have a car, buy everything locally and don't fly.
However I am unsure that people will respond in the way you think for two reasons.
Firstly because the majority of people are not rational, especially when having their favourite toys removed from them.
But the more important challenge will be how it affects the economy. The current economic system has to continue growing in order to be work (due to the way it is shored up on loaned out savings that have to make an interest.) What would happen if our economic system collapsed?
I'm not really quite the doomer I am probably seeming to be. I actually think it will be a long slow collapse. Lasting several generations.
Now, people without realising about PO, they are thinking about gas use to where I mention moving to save a fifth of gas they say the move it worth it just to save the fifth each way! Saving a fifth each way is not the only motive to move however, but it sure helps. Once I move, a commuting mission will use "only" 2 fifth of gas each way. It won't be too long until gas costs a buck a fifth, thanks to the oil peak.
Right now, it might be prudent to invest in a little beer.
The dieoff hasn't begun and probably will never happen. Perhaps population will decrease but not via some mass death within the next 10-20 years.
Just as an example, I recently watched a program about a prison in California where gang members are sent. The gang leaders are segregated from the rest of the population, but they still manage to give orders to their gang members by writing letters in code and then relaying them down from cell to cell using string from their clothing (a practice called "fishing"). These guys make weapons out of all kinds of weird things, including melting down a plastic bag to make a shiv.
I was utterly amazed by just how resourceful and innovative these guys were. I can't imagine that the average population of the prison has better than average intelligence, yet they manage to come up with very complex codes, unique and highly complex social structures/hierarchies, and of course weapons made out of all kinds of weird objects.
So, saying we can't adapt to peak oil and less energy? I say such thoughts are utter crap. We "adapted" to using oil and coal in the first place. If we were so stupid we wouldn't have figured out how to build steam engines in the first place. We built a society based on petroleum, and we can build another one based on alternative energy. Will it be the exact same in every way? Obviously not. Things will be different, maybe dramatically so, but it won't be the end of the world as we know it either.
Once again I have to take issue with this idea that people's brains are wired and cannot adapt. There's a difference between it being harder for someone to pick up a skill, like say learning a language, and adapting to new circumstances. People don't need to learn any major new skills to adjust to a peak oil world, they just need to change their behaviors a little bit. The suggestion here is to the effect that older people are too set in their ways to learn to ride the trolley, rather than drive everywhere.
You can't simplify human thinking down to a computer program of if-then statements. Once again, if our thinking were really that rigid, we'd never have managed to populate the whole world as we have. Who knows maybe something like this is why the Neandertals died out, because their thinking was more rigid? Who knows. In any case, humans are nothing if not adaptable. It is our biggest strength by far. We may lack foresight and long term planning, but when the shit hits the fan we usually find some way to overcome.
In the end, I think what the whole "collapse" argument comes down to is extreme pessimism regarding human nature, looking only at our weaknesses and disregarding all of our strengths, combined with a lack of imagination of how we could do things differently. People are not just going to sit there pumping gas until there is nothing left and then abruptly revert back to caveman ways while our former cities crumble around us. I don't claim that post-peak is going to be easy sailing or that we won't have problems, even quite severe ones, but at the point where we can't ignore the problems anymore, then we'll start to adapt to them. Yes, it's pretty dumb, but it's how we seem to operate.
That's why the fact people are driving around obliviously through LA is irrelevant in my opinion. Yes, they are not aware of the coming problems, maybe they're growing some more awareness as gas approaches $3.50, but they're still in denial. At some point that will end and things will change (already it is changing with SUVs going out of style). It just takes a lot to overcome the initial inertia.
There is no newness... there is adaptation to do the same-old-thing. Isn't this prison cleverness similar to meeting our energy constraints with hybrid cars and ethanol?
At this point we still haven't peaked for sure. We might still keep increasing a bit more. And maybe the post peak decline will be gradual enough for us to make changes. Maybe it won't be and we'll have severe societal collapse and then something new will rise from the ashes. I'll hope for the former only because there is no guarantee that you or I, will be amongst those rising from the ashes, or rather will just be the ashes.
Therefore, a few decades from now, agriculture will no longer be a viable proposition in most parts of the world, and remaining humans will revert to nomadic hunter-gatherers.
So, what would be a non-abrupt transition from a settled blogger to a nomadic hunter-gatherer. Can you please outline the steps?
Human ingenuity can indeed be an amazing thing. The human ability to find new ways to destroy life ever-more-effectively is part of having that ingenuity. We've entered an era where a small group of people, even perhaps one, could develop a means to cause a mass die-off.
I think it was H. G. Wells who recognized that humanity is in a race... A race between knowledge that provides many positive benefits, and the ability for self-destruction that's also inherent in having such knowledge. Which side of the coin will win is anyone's guess at this moment.
Of course people will adapt. But there are fundamental limitations on where humanity can go. Real physical limits.
For example, even if humanity had nearly limitless cheap Solar energy (by harnessing a significant percentage of solar output, say), with all the food and water people could ever need, and a means to colonize distant planets, exponential population growth could not be sustained. Humanity would run out of room. This is because of the light-speed limit. We'd run out of space in which to live. We could only expand the region of our occupation at a cubic rate. An exponential expansion rate (population growth) will overtake a cubic one.
-best
But with enough time and effort we could create more power using alternative means than we currently use. The effort in switching over would be large and would in itself consume a lot of resources, but the absolute limit of energy available to us is not one we are anywhere near bumping into right now.
I do think that capitalistic economics has in some strange way captured the expense of over population in that nearly all developed countries are showing signs of declining populations. Overall I am not a huge fan of capitalism as I feel it has many flaws (which require augmentation by other means), but in some ways it seems pretty impressive how fluid and adaptible the system really is.
Fair enough.
I'm giving you 24 hours.
That's "enough time" (works in TV land).
Use your best "effort".
I know you won't disappoint us.
You is "we".
So come back tomorrow with one of those miracle alternatives that "We" always come up with to save the day and you will have moved us safely away from the edge of the ledge. "Us" are counting on you.
Nothing personal mind you. I suspect you belong to the "Technology will save us" camp. (BTW, I'm still a card carrying member --don't tell anybody.) It's just that this angle has been explored here at TOD so many times. And we keep doing it over and over: ethanol, clean coal, nuclear, fusion, you name it, we're looking at it. We keep hoping there is something we missed. Something that will make "the problem" go away.
THIS argument is "absolute bullshit"!
Of course "Humans are extremely adaptable" and have not "died out hundreds of thousands of years ago".
But THIS is the problem, humans are extremely adaptable to the range of difficult situations they HAVE MET for "hundreds of thousands of years".
This is not the kind of problems we are facing now.
The kind of problems we are facing now is dealing with SECOND ORDER regulations, i.e. regulating the dynamics of the system, not just the immediate outcomes.
This is the difference between regulating the FLOW out of a faucet and regulating the PRESSURE from inside the pipe.
It is easy to approximately regulate the flow by choosing a faucet setting, it needs much much more "intelligence" to regulate the pressure inside the pipe when confronted with random variations of the source flow.
It takes monitoring the inputs, modelling the pipe/faucet responses and acting on the faucet setting.
This is an entirely different mechanism which has to BUILT and OPERATED.
In the context of societies this means a collective buildup, this is what sociopolitical structures are supposed to be about, unfortunately they have been tailored for resolution of problems of "hundreds of thousands of years ago".
Very little chance that we can upgrade those sociopolitical structures in the shrinking time left til disaster strikes.
Just think about "what" nearly 99% of the posts on TOD are about.
Solving the problem du jour, which energy supply will we have tomorrow?
Of course, we have to care about this pressing need, but not planning for the more general problem of GROWTH guarantees that we will just crank up to an even nastier state of affairs.
This is well explained by Tainter and Diamond, go back there, read and THINK!
"Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do."
"Many people would sooner die than think. In fact they do."
"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished."
"Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible."
"Gradually, by selective breeding, the congenital differences between rulers and ruled will increase until they become almost different species. A revolt of the plebs would become as unthinkable as an organized insurrection of sheep against the practice of eating mutton."
~Bertrand Russell, "The Impact of Science on Society", 1953, pg 49-50
"In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called 'co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them."
"Except for the one matter of loyalty to the World State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative...."
"On those rare occasions, when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it."
~Bertrand Russell, "The Scientific Outlook", 1931
~Bertrand Russell, "The Scientific Outlook", 1931
I did not read those.
Were these quotes predictions or prescriptions ?
Orwell' 1984 and Huxley' Brave New World are full of "horrendous suggestions".
In any case that does not detract from the relevance of my quoting of BR.
I was not suggesting that people be made to comply by any kind of authority, just that they THINK by themselves.
Raising the question of whether they will do it or not.
I suspect most will not even if they have the capacities, intelligence and information.
Please feel free to comment on the CONTENT of my post instead of using innuendo against BR (and me too may be?).
Succinctly said.
I agree, this is the reason we are not equipped to face this.
- What I mean by SECOND ORDER regulations is not various parasitic side effects which would have to be compensated but regulating the derivative of the processes.
Like regulating acceleration versus regulating speed, for the case of providing with human social needs we need not only provide results, food, energy, etc... but prevent the GROWTH of ressources consumption. In an "open world" (seemingly) this has never been done nor even contemplated.
- I never said that this is what Jay Hanson suggested, this is rather a possible answer to the problems of collapse as depicted by Tainter and Diamond.
- What I mean by SECOND ORDER regulations is not various parasitic side effects which would have to be compensated but regulating the derivative of the processes.
Like regulating acceleration versus regulating speed, for the case of providing with human social needs we need not only provide results, food, energy, etc... but prevent the GROWTH of ressources consumption. In an "open world" (seemingly) this has never been done nor even contemplated.
- I never said that this is what Jay Hanson suggested, this is rather a possible answer to the problems of collapse as depicted by Tainter and Diamond.
Coming at it from that perspective, it made me think that peak oil (and our lazy resposne to it) is just like all the big scary things we've faced before. I really saw nothing in peak oil to make it the "special" problem that would sneak under our evolutionary preparation and get us. So no, I don't agree with:
I think a steep depletion curve will be a challenge, no doubt.
But I think that anyone who knows the outcome has gone religious on this one.
Nagorak,
If you cracked open a skull, you'd find that yes, there is a basic hardwiring scheme.
Perhaps it is that you are young and your brain is agile. Take it from someone on the geezer side, this agility is quickly lost somewhere between age 30 and age 60.
Take a look at most of your politicians. How old are they? How mentally agile are they? (Hint: GWB just turned 60 the other week.) Who decides the course of the world, you or them? How quick were you to put this 2+2 together? Still think "we" are all that quick witted?
Now as to dying out years ago, many human civilizations did exactly that. Read Jared Dimaond's Collapse. You just happen to belong to one of the lucky offshoots --the ones that found easy oil and decided they are so clever for having done so.
If you had instead belonged to one of those already-extinct civilizations, we wouldn't be hearing from you, would we?
You are correct; we are the most adaptable animals to have evolved. We have evolved a brain large enough to take some of the hard work that evolution does out of the equation by thinking for ourselves.
But, and it is a big but. We still have a long way to go before we have really taken evolution into our own hands and there are many ways in which we are blinkered by our hard wiring. Combine that with the method in which we learn new ways of doing things... The hard way. We very rarely change our ways and develop a new understanding of how the world works and how to behave in it until the old way collapses in a spectacular, usually painful fashion. (Don't have time just now to quote sources, but this is all from psychological research)
Even our basic ability to `think' actually has some major flaws. It is important to remember that our ability to think about and model the world is essentially based on various simplifications that our brain makes in order to comprehend it. All our understanding of the word is essentially based on the ability of our brain to model and interpret it. Our interpretation will always be restricted by our brains structure. For example, the current vogue to interpret the world rationally is not necessarily the most accurate way to view the world and can be argued to be fundamentally flawed as its foundations lie on a dualistic split to define something against something else. (The infinite is defined against the finite, up against down. Me against other.) This is essentially an illusion, none of these things really exist, they are abstractions.
Anyhow I have probably lost 99.8% percent of the population now (to be precise). Well, I would have if I was any good at explaining it, so I have probably lost all of you. At least half of us are capable of thinking rationally, it's a big step up from the previous fashion of thinking conventionally (follow the leader) which 40% of the Western worlds population is still primarily stuck in.
Mind all you like, or never mind at all. What is, is.
Exactly, but this is flying in the face of all the "realists" who confuse their own visions with reality where these are only more or less accurate maps and models which may or may not be appropriate for some purposes.
Interesting that you come up with such remark, what is your "background"?
Anyhow I have probably lost 99.8% percent of the population now (to be precise).
This common shortcoming is the very root of all the "problems", how can you sell any solution to people who CANNOT understand the problem, much less the solution.
They have to trust you to care for their own interest, cannot really be done, and it is so easy and tempting to tamper with this trust if you ever get it, the root of all "political evil".
Background is very varied.. Arts/Complimentary health/Computers. Currently earn my crust as a web developer. Clients include UKs largest `green' mail order company and UKs largest community owned wind farm (actually a network of many wind farms and constantly setting up more.)
No official qualifications in psychology. Have been considering doing a second degree, but feel I have done all the reading in that area I desire to for now so am not feeling very motivated. (Covered Freudian, Jungian, Integral & Transpersonal, Rogerian (trained in counselling skills), evolutionary/socio-biology, spiral dynamics, Piaget, Gardner etc.) My strongest leanings these days are towards Evolutionary Psychology (and Human Behavioural Ecology) but still have respect for others, particularly (post) Piaget ideas and Spiral Dynamics.
The non dual stuff comes from Zen and other similar. (Zen & the art of motorcycle maintenance is an excellent introduction to these ideas). I've also read up a great deal on many mystical and meditation traditions and practised various forms. Currently being as much as practicing.
Unlike Dawkins (Dawkins argues against religion) I believe that utilising certain aspects of our wetware that make no immediate rational sense (such as mystical and religious experiences) can be very enjoyable and also have deep meaning even if it is subverted from its original intention, so whilst in rational language I am essentially atheist (I'd say non-dualist, but that would be a contradiction in terms.) in outlook. I still attend and thoroughly enjoy Buddhist, Quaker and Universal Worship Services.
how can you sell any solution to people who CANNOT understand the problem, much less the solution. etc
Yes, that is the crutch of the problem.
Essentially we have not evolved enough yet to be able to take conscious control of the situation. Any attempts we make will be sheep in wolves clothing.
It is an ironic position to be in.
I have no idea how bad it will get. Or how long it will take. But the one thing I am certain of is that no serious change will happen until things get bad. It is at this time that I always remember my favourite quote.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy. -- Max Ehrmann
Blessings, peace be with all.
THIS is your example of human ingenuity!? ha ha!
GANGSTERS IN PRISON??? hahahahahahahahhahahahahhaha!!!
Allow me to quote from one (How to Manage Change Effectively, by Donald Kirkpatrick, 1985):
"It is a basic tenet of human behaviour that any belief or value that has been previously successful in meeting needs will resist change. This applies even if there are better more successful alternatives to meet those needs."
There are huge problems in trying to objectively judge the motivations of humans in general, and trying to predict the future, esp. future human behaviour. And to relate it to the original article:
"He particularly interested in working out a 'logic' framework on the human behavioral aspects of everyday life, and believes we can parse much of our behaviour into a simple set of 'if-then' analog algorithms, evolutionarily designed, context dependent."
Dieoff guy is a classical megalomaniac in my opinion, as are many of the commentators on this board. Just listen to statements like these: "I studied modern economic theory on the assumption that our political leaders would work to change the flaws once I was able to point them out. I became aware that something was fundamentally wrong in our political system when I ran for public office." Notice: he had the flaws worked out before he took the education. Afterwards, he's suprised that people won't listen to him or vote for him! Yet we are supposed to believe this is a man with profound insights about society and human nature?
Misunderstood genius syndrome all over...
"No scientific predictor - whether a human scientist or a calculating machine - can possibly predict, by scientific methods, its own future results" -- Karl Popper.
Popper's "The poverty of historicism" and "The Open Society and its enemies" should be mandatory readings to all would-be prophets.
Again, irrespective of what you think of Jay Hanson and his views, the problems facing the planet will be solved (or not) not by technology but by addressing the way we see ourselves on the planet, and using all the bells and whistles in the human brain (including the cultural triggers) to get down to consuming and living at levels the world can sustain. Period.
The timing, based on how fast our stocks deplete and how quickly we harness our flows, is an open question.
Humanity currently uses about 400 quads (quadrillion BTU) of energy per year. The calculated power available from wind alone, world-wide, is about 72 terawatts or about 2180 quads per year (of pure electricity, no conversion losses). Solar energy has no limits until several times that, and once you get yourself off Earth you've potentially got the entire output of a star to work with.
The die-off scenario assumes that we cannot bring ourselves to do what we know how to do, and cannot forego current consumption in order to invest. I don't see that.
I also think that if it got to the point where it was an absolute emergency, the government would step in and mandate that all our resources go into developing the new energy resources. A "war on energy" as it were.
The only fix I can see is to tax the bad stuff but not the renewable stuff and let people sort out what works; people will invest money in things which aren't taxed (look at tax shelters). We have to do this soon, or we won't have the margins to make it move fast enough.
Versus :
The only fix I can see is to tax the bad stuff but not the renewable stuff
WHO is issuing taxes?
A Poet indeed...
But WHY would a government do that if "the propensity of governments world-wide [is] to allocate money to efforts which benefit the well-connected"?
Popular support can sometimes override the influence of special interests. This requires an unusual focus of public attention on the issue. We may be getting to that point; another hurricane season like last one might be sufficient all by itself.
What do you think "popular support" will ask for after "another hurricane season like last one"?
A LOWERING of taxes!
Because they are stupid.
And this has always been, this is why dictatorship works so fine a large minority of the populace is just too happy to contribute to the demise of the whole, and their own.
Discussions went beyond that to include "even if we get past the immediate fossil fuel energy problems we still have a good chance of killing ourselves off with climate change, resource degredation of water, soil, and air along with the wars that will accompany those issues. Coal won't last long either."
To me the issue was 9 to 10 billion people drawing down all planetary resources, not just fossil fuel depleation.
Sorry EP,
That bit of "sound" logic from the circular saw made my noodle spin one revolution too many.
We know how to do it (i.e., "how to bring ourselves to do it") which is why we cannot bring ourselves to do it because we know how to do it?
Can you bring that around one more time without letting it chase its own tail?
Engineer Humor: circular logic (get it? ha ha)
(Right click & view image for a close up of the logic circuits)
Detroit knew how to make very high MPG cars in the 1970's. Detroit could not have built them if the knowledge was lacking, but the failure to build them given the knowledge was due more to a lack of incentive. The US had the knowledge to develop better nuclear power plants years ago, but again the incentive was lacking (a great many people willed them not to be built - which some of them now regret).
The natives of Easter Island stripped it of trees because they probably didn't know any better. We have options they did not; we know better, but the knowledge does nothing without the will to use it.
Otherwise we are all-knowing emperors with no clothes on.
Make it so Scotty.
Not to mention the inefficiency of the way we use the current 400 quads.
I've always found Jay interesting to read, but he's just plain wrong in his conclusions. Some people will prosper post peak and some won't - evolution in action. But we won't all die off unless someone is nutty enough to start hurling nuclear weapons around...
The original post probably should have mentioned Jay's last post at The Dieoff Q&A rather than his farewell to dieoff.org, just as a warning to those who take dieoff too seriously:
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2006/05/farewell-jay.html
[Of course, we may try to adapt to peak oil by burning every last bit of coal and tar sands and shale and methane hydrates that we can find instead of harnessing all that renewable energy - in which case global warming may induce a repeat of the permian extinction]
Prove Jay's theories wrong Big Guy. Really, I am personally calling you out to prove him wrong. =) I want you to:
A. State your income (a proxy for the economic activity you are engaged in. (economic activity = energy consumption)
B. Voluntarily take a 75% paycut
C. Report back after 2 months or so to this forum and others.
Regarding Jay's last message, here are some relevant quotes for you:
"the truth will set you free but it will make you sick"
(unknown)
"the problem with knowing the truth is sometimes you find it." (me)
"he who brings great knowledge also brings great sorrow" (somewhere in the Bible)
--Head Lemming (shortly after making his faith-filled pilgrimmage to river in Egypt)
It is transparently obvious that none of us who see what is coming have the power to save the world by our own personal efforts at conservation, though many or most of us make some effort in that direction because it doesn't feel right not to.
The moral imperative, if there is one, is to try to wake up enough people to actually make a difference. (And there are a number of possible kinds of "difference" that it could make, depending on how it all plays out.)
Gav says Jay is wrong. It seems Gav thinks people will be willing to powerdown. I say "prove it with your own action." Not asking you to get 100 people to do it. Just asking you to "be the change you wish to see" and in doing so prove Jay Hanson wrong.
The hope for powerdown (and I thoroughly agree that it is a very slim hope) comes from the possibility that enough people will "get it" that voters (perhaps especially women) will, in effect, say to politicians: "your policies are guaranteeing misery for my children and they must be changed".
Also, Gav didn't really spell out in what way he found Jay's theories flawed. It seems a bit straw-man-ish to ascribe to him a belief that "people will be willing to powerdown".
For a while I tried to assemble evidence that would prove the dieoff (or at least collapse) theory.
After some time, I decided I couldn't do it without ignoring inconvenient facts (at least not on the basis of peak oil alone) - and, like you, I've studied a fairly wide range of related subjects in depth (I've also worked in the oil and power generation industries).
In fact, if I just looked at the science of harnessing our available energy sources, I ended up concluding we could probably grow our energy consumption over time until we reached a plateau defined by the amount of energy we could sustainably harness - mostly from the sun and the wind - whether or not we choose to do so is the question.
Arguing Jay's case based on psychology or genetics is the only way to go, because you can't do it on energy alone (although I'll hasten to add that I'm not trying to cast doubt on peak oil theory, just that people tend to discount a lot of viable alternatives, for one reason or another - and, of course, this means that economies can no longer be based so heavily on oil and gas as energy sources).
Rather than saying "oil production will decline and there will be dieoff", I would say "oil production will decline, and things will change"...
Interesting comment, and nice website. I'd like to respond to your more optimistic "forecast". First of all, you are Australian, so that may explain some differences in expected outcome. In America, whenever someone predicts a more optimistic view, I have to wonder if they "get" the economics of our country, as well as the state of our government. If the scientists and engineers and accountants could take over and do what would be logical to solve this countries problems including PO I'd have a much more optimistic view myself. Daily headlines in my local news are a reminder of what is to come, considering as of yet, we haven't had gas shortages or significant price increases.
Kalpa--
(Where in America do you live ... and does that moniker mean you are Superman's father?)
There you go again, believing that some "specialized" sub-population of ours has a monopoly on truth, justice, and the American Dream-weaving way.
Scientists and engineers and accountants are humans.
Humans are irrational.
Therefore it is highly unlikely that "they" will do what is "logical" regardless of their titles.
Go ahead and laugh, but once this planet is un-terra formed to be more hospitable to our CO2 breathing species, we will take over. Nee-haha. Nee-haha.
It's not a war on "terror" you idiots.
It's a war on Terra.
Thanks.
I guess I should point out that no one who knows me well would call me an optimist. I'll also note that Australians are somewhere between British (often overly pessimistic) and Americans (often overly optimistic) in their outlook.
I am a realist though, and I try to base my pronouncements based on the facts (as far as I can discern them) rather than just feelings or ingrained beliefs.
I'm not sure why my statements are taken as "optimism" though - I'm not saying that economic turbulence or resource wars etc aren't possible, not that are leaders are competant - just that civilisation won't collapse (due to peak oil) and cause the death of most of humanity.
Its not that an extreme position to be arguing...
Sorry for the absence of spelling checking - make that "nor that our leaders"...
Well - I could write a long post on this (and I in fact I will when I get back to posting in a few weeks time - look out for a long winded essay I'll call "Our Energy Future") so I'll refrain from trying to disprove the dieoff theory in this response.
But the short version is to simply repeat E-P's point - there is enough renewable energy available to meet far more than our current energy needs even if you only consider solar and wind.
There are also a number of other energy sources of various levels of desirability (biofuels, tar sands, NGL, coal to liquids, nuclear etc) that could meet our current energy consumption for a period of time.
And, of course, there are huge efficiency gains that can be made in all areas of energy consumption.
I believe that some people (and countries) will adapt to oil depletion well, and some won't - but I think peak oil initiated dieoff is just a myth - an interesting one, but no more true than myths about the end of the world in 2012 or whatever.
On a personal note I'd point out my energy consumption has dropped dramatically over the past 3 years or so - I used to fly somewhere every fortnight - now I fly maybe twice a year. I used to have a long commute - now I walk to work and rarely drive long distances at all. I'm putting solar panels on my house this summer.
Think of reducing oil consumption (out of necessity) as largely a reconfiguration exercise - of your own lifestyle in particular and of the economy in general.
And I don't believe anyone's income needs to drop as a result.
[I might add I don't have any problem with peak oil fear campaigns as a way of getting people to wake up - be it LATOC or, at its most extreme, dieoff - but I don't think doomerism is all that helpful once people are aware of the problem]
I think I'll paraphrase one of the Marx brothers and say that I wouldn't want to be a member of any camp that would have me :-)
Do I think technology will save us ? Well - while I tend to despise knee-jerk libertarian or conservative responses to peak opil that basically say "have faith, the market will provide" or somesuch mystical nonsense, I think that the key questions to consider are:
- How much energy do we need to run the world in a way that can provide a decent standard of living for 6 billion people (increasing up to a peak of around 9 billion) - which needs to be done without destroying the environment
- Is there enough energy available to us that can be harvested to provide this,
and/or,3. Can we make enough efficiency gains to use the available energy
If you look at all the alternatives, the answer seems to be yes to all 3 of these.
Maybe we can debate this when I get around to writing my post - I'm never particularly fixed in my views and will consider counter-arguments to any and all points...
If Peak Energy were the only problem AND expected to be smooth enough then may be, just may be.
But Peak Energy is not the only problem, hence guaranteed collapse.
The only interesting question is: What can possibly be scavenged?
I suggest this as a possible approach to the investigation of this kind of questions and assessment of the responses:
What normative duties do we owe to future generations? [PDF]
Ruminations of a lawyer!
Well - you're right that peak energy combined with all the other limits to growth makes the problem a lot more interesting, and collapse is a possibility.
I wouldn't agree its guaranteed though - but I'm glad to see that the idea that energy isn't the only problem is being acknowledged - I see the difficulty to dealing with peak oil as being one which doesn't involve exacerbating other problems - hence my bearish attitude towards shale, ctl, tar sands, some biofuels, nuclear etc
Yeah damn it. When will you? What is this hibernation business? Yours is one of the best sites on covering global concerns. Keep up the great work. :-)
Initially this was so I could get a few other jobs done, but I promptly managed to put my neck out by spending too much time working so now its more because I need to spend less time in front of the computer...
Good point.
We have two choices:
But we have three choices:
* Curl up and die.
* Do something about it.
* Do something about it, then curl up and die.
But then... curling up and dying qualifies as doing something about it... so...
We have one choice:
* Curl up and die.
The problem with Jay's theories, well not really a "problem" but more of why they aren't accepted readily by the typical peak oiler is this: once you understand the genetic aspect of the "thermodynamic-genetic collission" it becomes next to impossible to sell/promote sustainability or a powerdown type ideology, which is the political baggage many peak oilers bring with them to this issue.
It's also hard to make yourself more popular (politics) if you say "well the choice is between everybody being broke and everybody being extinct but since we're wired not to voluntarily go broke we're goiong extinct. Have a nice day!"
Sometimes people will say to me "Matt you know doom-and-gloom sells books don't you?" I say well yes it does but it sells much better if at the end you either have a solutioin or promise/suggest the reader's tribe will somehow ascend to some higher level of status be it the Christian's "millenium of peace", the enviromentalist's "great turning", etc.
If you don't have that at the end of your doom and gloom schpiel, you're a lot less popular and make a lot less money and a lot less friends/fans/readers then you would if you could believe in something akin to "the great turning."
So it's a bit of a weird paradox: people can't come to see that Jay's model of social fitness is highly accurate without impairing their own level of social fitness. Thus people have a strong incentive not to understand the most important aspect of the problem.
Mine's the latter, plus, even more base, to say: 'told you so.'
With all due respect:
Piffle!
Both you and Jay exhibit the limitations of the autodidact. There are lots of things (such as history, archeology, the history of scientific methods, and a few dozen other topics from art through zoology) where you have shown that you are not particularly familiar with the literature.
Your line of reasoning, though plausible, is excessively narrow and dogmatic.
I make no claims to knowledge of the future. IMO, it is frivolous to do so.
Of course, Jay may be correct.
But the "moderate" optimists (e.g. Lou Grinzo) have an equal chance of being correct.
As stated before, I live as if each extreme has a fifty-fifty chance of coming to pass; that way I should be ready for anything in between.
And why have you found a mate yet, if your theory is so fine? Where are your first four children? Time is a wastin'.
Best wishes,
Sailorman
Regarding a mate and 4 children: see my post below. That's also kind of a personal attack. If you want to engage it that then so be it: a man as "successfull" with the ladies and in life as you claim to be would not feel the need or have the desire to come on an internet forum and repeatedly announce his success to the world.
I don't claim to "know the future." But humans are wired to maximize their social fitness. In an environment of declining resource availablity the outcome is going to be perpetual conflict, at least on a macro or intertribal level.
(Oh boy, and talk about somebody who cannot take a joke . . . .)
The problem with your logic, Matt, is that you are surpressing heaps of relevant evidence. When you look at that evidence (and again I'll cite Lou Grinzo), you will not come to your deterministic conclusions.
Also, you claim to have some understanding of evolutionary biology:
- How many classes in college biology did you have?
- How many classes in human genetics did you have?
Just to be fair, I had six biology classes in college and one in general genetics plus one in human genetics.I am puzzled as to what your claim to knowledge is based on.
And please, learn to take a joke.
I get the sense you're engaging in a pit of a dick size contest. First it was "you've got no wife and 4 kids" and now it's "you haven't taken 6 classes in such and such."
If my conclusions are inaccurate, why is the world lurching towards increasing inter-tribal conflict in resource rich parts of the world just as those resources are going into decline? And doing so at an ever accelerating pace?
You might point to a counter example here and there but the reality is that for every $1 being spent on potentially peaecfull or sustainable ways of dealing with this there are $1,000,0000 being spent on the old fashioned way: going to war to take stuff from the other tribe.
With all due respect and no attack intended or implied on your integrity or good will:
What you learned in law school is how to make the weaker argument appear the stronger. That is the main thing taught in law school, ever since law-school teachers were called sophists by Socrates c. 399 B.C.E.
When it comes to biology, I pay attention to biologists.
If I need a lawyer, I go to one of the two honest and competent ones;-) I happen to know and do business with in the state of Minnesota.
It is beyond my understanding as to how three years in law school supposedly gives you the skills to assess the claims of e.g. Robin Wright (one of my favorites, BTW) or Richard Dawkins (not one of my favorites).
Note that assessing credentials is not ad hominem fallacy where credentials are relevant.
Demanding credentials in an internet debate where one person is anonymous = dick size contest of the worst kind.
And the "lawyers are trained to make the weaker argument look stronger" is translated into realspeak "your dick (curriculim vitae) is not as thick as mine."
If you truly felt you had the more persuasive argument on this particular matter you wouldn't be demanding I whip it out.
I'm really sorry to see you demand that I whip my dick out. I hate to embarrass others with their relative inadequacy;-)
But there is a much more important point.
Stuart does not claim universal knowledge. Khebab does not. Even Leanan does not. I don't.
Please excuse me for asking, but is it not correct that credentials (schooling plus experience) is relevant?
So Jay Hanson has single-handed a sailboat for four years. Good. That gives him boat-handling credentials. But as an engineer, where does he get his "seer" credentials from???????
So while you may (emphasis on may) have a valid point about credentials here, you might also be wrong. This might be one of those cases where credentials are less important than you think.
Just something to consider, Don.
Has Jay Hanson or any of his devotees presented a testable hypothesis or built a machine that makes him someone worth listening to. If he is basing his predictions on data gathered from other authors then his logic is the equivalent of the logic of theologians, not that of scientists. I predicted that we would eventually invade Iraq in 1991 because Daddy Bush didn't finish the job he started. Does that prediction make me a prophet? Absolutely not.
Some people are mercenaries. Perhaps you are one (it seems to be common among lawyers). If so, thats your business -- it doesnt concern me.
However, your constant commentary that ALL posters are motivated by money or some other form of greed or desire gets really tiresome.
How about moving on to another topic?
I suggest you lobby our TOD overlords for an "ignore" button. If and when such a button is implemented you can plug my name into it.
For the record: t's not "greed", it's social fitness. You clearly don't understand the point or you would not have used the word greed. For some it is friends, some money, some social power, recognition, etc. As I usually state, these things are not inherently good or bad in and of themselves. That judgement depends on your tribal norms, the particular situation, etc.
Given the topic at hand here: Jay Hanson's writings, much of which focus on human behavior and motivation, my commentary regarding people's motivation's is quite relevant. You don't see me over on the Cantarell thread yelling, "Dave the only reason you think Cantarell is peaked is cause you're trying to do X" now do you?
Throughout human history, we have seen a lot of bad behaviour, but there are always a few who act selflessly, and put the welfare of others first. I trust, when the going gets difficult, that we will see some similar nobility again. The best in the human spirit often becomes apparent under the worst circumstances.
Let's say I link on LATOC to an article on TOD. Why am I doing that? Deep down, it advances my own fitness: having a more complete daily update tends to attract more readers to my site thus resulting in me accumulating more more social fitness.
Is that "greedy" or "mercneray"? I supposse in some twisted way you could characterize it as such. I'm not doing it for purely altruistic reasons though.
Peak Oil is loaded with psychological implications. I don't think you can begin to address those unless you understand motives, including your own. As an example:
"Do you really want to promote sustainability, peak oil awareness, or do you want to promote your own social fitness?"
Somebody who thinks they really do want to promote sustainability will ultimately end up depressed and/or broke since they will be aiming for something that is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
Attempting to raise PO awareness while not impossible is generally met with failure or (at best) minor success. The person ends up depressed and can't quite figure out why. . . Well part of the reason is they really understand what they were trying to do by promoting PO awareness.
If said person understands their true motives (advancing social fitness) they may encounter success and perhaps as a side effect depending on what avenue(s) they choose to pursue this fitness actually succeed in promoting a less consumptive lifestyle.
Lots of people undertake tasks that they know can only be partially achieved. They take joy in their accomplishments, even though they are unable to wholly change the world. It doesn't have to end in depression and bankruptcy.
I promise you, altruism does exist. Things are not either-or, nor exclusively black or white. Sure, the world has experienced awful things. And they make the moments of beauty and grace all the more precious by their contrast.
Lots of life is about the journey, not arriving at a fixed destination. Asking "Are we there yet?" is the wrong question. As Gertrude Stein said about Oakland, "There is no there there." Enjoy the ride, even if you have to do something that doesn't improve your social fitness.
Related, Google "Lanier's Second Law" (edge.org world question center 2004) -
"You have to draw a Circle of Empathy around yourself and others in order to be moral. If you include too much in the circle, you become incompetent, while if you include too little you become cruel. This is the "Normal form" of the eternal liberal/conservative dichotomy."
It's true that we don't always realize what our motives are.
It's also true that sometimes we _don't_ behave so as to maximize our inclusive fitness. (these instances could be viewed as pathologies from an evolutionary standpoint, if you'd like)
Inclusive fitness makes me uncomfortable because it explains altruism as a means towards the end of maximising offspring. Then the whole concept breaks down: altruism becomes "altruism," just another self-serving way of getting what I want. It reduces the idea to a bad pick-up line in a singles bar. I can't help it(!), but I think we're better than that.
So if instances of altruism or kindness are pathological, or even subconscious, bring 'em on. And let's hope that those pathological organisms have hordes of children, and that they teach them well, and that people give them lots of food and land because they are nice. And maybe, through genes and culture, good becomes more prevalent.
For some it includes only self, for others self plus relatives, for others religion, for others country, for others world.
And at different stages of life we may draw the boundary differently, also it might change depending on our level of perceived 'safety'. (We reach out to the people of New Orleans but if there were a thousand simultaneous Katrinas we likely wouldn't.)
When it extends to cute kids from other countries, or pets, or pandas, it isn't doing much for one's inclusive fitness, in any significant sense of the term.
Of course, instincts are mechanisms they are not teleological, have no "intelligence", so they work whenever the stimulus is close enough to the "right" goal.
Neither these failures nor the individual variability (different radii) disprove the fact that these behaviors have been selected for their incidence on inclusive fitness :
http://faculty.ed.uiuc.edu/g-cziko/wm/03.html
Of course as the conditions that prefer the continuation of a strategy change then the strategy can become either more or less "preferred". The individual doesn't necessarily need to understand why "they are the way they are"; perhaps they don't "want" to be altruistic, they just *are*.
Oh, and Matt's member is bigger than yours.
When we returned, normally law-abiding big dog found the provocation too much to bear, and let fly.
am getting the strangest feeling of deja vu...
Though its possible you meant Robin Wright, I think you meant Robert Wright.
All Ive read is The Moral Animal which I thought was quite good.
http://www.gcd.med.umn.edu/html/faculty%20pages/wright.html
I make mistakes every day. Everybody makes mistakes.
The question is:
Do we promptly acknowledge and correct these mistakes and learn from them.
I learn by making mistakes (e.g., to type slower;-)
Ahem...
When was that ?
When Rush Limbaugh is called out over statemts he's made such is his defense when he's shown to be wrong.
Is that your final answer?
Sailorman, with all due respect:
Piffle!
I don't really know what you mean by "moderate optimists" but I assume you mean "no real problems", a rough road perhaps but in the end we will work things out.
If you look at a graph of human population growth, say on a 20,000-year scale, for the firs 99 percent of it looks like a horizontal line. Only if you look extremely close can you see a slight rise over the thousands of years. Then about 200 years ago it starts to rise sharply. And the last 100 years, of 0.5% of the graph, the line looks vertical, like it is going straight up. Only if you look extremely close can you detect a slight tilt to the right in the line.
Now if I were moderately optimistic, I would say this trend can continue. Perhaps a little rough going, but no real problems that we cannot work out in the long run. Sure water tables are dropping, the planet is getting warmer, the land is either blowing or washing away as deserts get larger, thousands of species are going extinct every year, grain supplies are dropping, and a host of other problems are starting to take their toll on the mass of human flesh.
And if all these things are not enough, we at the cusp of peak oil. And as energy starts to dwindle the food supply will surely do likewise. And as people start to starve, they start to get angry. They will blame the government, or the governments of other nations. They will blame their neighbors, they will blame the capitalists, they will blame "the powers that be", they will blame everyone and everything except the real culprit.
The real culprit is the evolutionary success of one primate, one animal that has so successful in multiplying its numbers that it has dramatically overshot its niche.
But if we are only moderately optimistic...well hell, our way of life may last another thousand years. Well, perhaps not but at least there is an equal chance that we will come out of this crisis with only a few bumps and knocks.
Yeah Right!
Yeah, I miss Jay. He just loved this type of debate, and so do I.
Ron Patterson the Darwinian
Most famous black man during the 1960s: Martin Luther King known for the saying "I have a dream"
Most famous musician during the 1960s: John Lennon or the Beetles know for singing about peace, love, justice, etc.
Most famous black man AND most famous musician in 2006: rapper Fifty Cent known for the saying, "get rich or die trying."
Point is this:
During times where energy availabilty is increasing (1950s and 1960s) idealists and optimists are breeded. The idealism or optimism gets programmed in by age 25 and, more or less, stays the same throughout life.
During times where energy availability is plateauing, more realists get breeded. Per-capita energy availability peaked in the mid 1970s in the world although the US has continued to climb but only because we have the most guns. As Fifty Cent might say, "get oil or die trying."
I think the older "optimists" are that way, often, because of the environment in which their neural connnections were formed, not because of a realistic look at verfiable reality.
but truth is subjective you say? Of course. There are only degrees of accuracy. To me, however, the perhaps most accurate model of what is "verifiable" is looking at how the money flows.
How much money being spent on endeavors the general TOD readership would characterize as optimistic? This includes renewable energy, organic farms, bicycles, mass transit, etc.
How much money being spent on pessimistc endeavors? This includes war, dirty energy, ICEs, etc.
If you follow the money, it's clear us pessimsts have the more accurate model of reality. That's where the money is going $1,000,000 to $1. But the older optimists can't truly understand the long term implciations because their neural connections were formed in the social-economic soup of the 1950s and 1960s, a time in which there always seemed to be a solution to whatever our societal problems were. ("if we can put a man on the moon . . ." thinking)
My question for Microhydro is, "How has your pessimism about the state of the global financial markets benefitted you?
If I remember correctly, MH has made more money in 2 years since becoming aware of these matters than in previous 20 years.
During a time of abundance, the optimist will kick the pessimists ass any day of the week.
But during a time of scarcity or decreasing abundance, the pessimist has the advantage. Think of two caveman during a famine. The optimist runs around burning up energy because he is optimistic he will find food. The pessimist gets depressed and goes and lays down.
Who lives longer? Who wins? In this case it's the pessimist because he is not burning up energy chasing what does not exist. He might live long enough by conserving his energy that maybe a mastadon will wonder into the campsite or there will be some rainfall or something.
Now if there was lots of food out there then the optimist would get it and get more females while the pessimist sits alone in his cave. But in a famine the pessimist has a chance of living longer and then dining on the optimists' carcass once he expires.
Have a nice day =)
Yes, my cautious approach to finances (learned from "Greatest Generation" parents) meant that I missed out on all the great liquidity driven asset bubbles of the Greenspan era. Being a PO pessimist since reading "Limits to Growth" in 1972 didn't help either.
But now that TSHTF, like a "rough beast, its hour come round at last - Yeats", my time has come. Even after a down week, my peak oil investments are still up 200% (the initial nest egg - my life savings - has tripled in nominal value). Short term volatility is very high, but the secular trend completely confirms PO economic theory.
That's EXACTLY the point. Humans are not smarter than yeast.
Now if you want to believe that technology will save us, or our wonderful new age liberal ideas will, or your 60+ year old humongous dick will, go right on ahead. But that's not what will happen.
We will either (a) fall off an energy cliff due to effeciencies in the overall system that allow us to guzzle healthily up until the end or (b) gradually do a slow slide downward, because ineffeciencies in the system slow the fall.
In neither case will it be a willing transition, we as a species will be dragged kicking and fighting, by our hair, through it all. We won't buy SUVs when we CAN'T buy SUVs, we won't burn gas when we CAN'T burn gas, we won't have 14 kids when we CAN'T have 14 kids, a point which interestingly we've pretty much passed in the "civilized" world - ppl are still having a lot more kids in the farming/warlord world that we call the 3rd.
Calling someone a failure according to the criteria of the McDrive-In society is nuts. Calling someone a failure according to the farming-warlord model is nuts too, because a whole lot of ppl are going to die with no regard to their merits, you might as well just take some random drop grub-grubbers and hand them the crown as Kings of the remaining human race. I myself don't have kids either, and deep down, it's because I don't want to subject kids to what I went through, only as far as I can tell worse, since the whole trajectory for everyone but the top 10% or so in the US has been DOWN.
I'd call Matt a success, and I'd call him a success if he were living in a cardboard box but knew how to forage. He's won the crown of success in my book simply because he's done what very very few have, he's set aside career and careerism to follow what's so obviously coming down the pike right at us. I doubt his web page is making money, I doubt he is either, frankly. He's subject to every "hit' in the book including being stuck in Guantanamo for having his page, since as we've been seeing, just about anything can get you put there, including citing publicly published articles.
Everything written and studied by a real scientist concerning Peak OIl points to one thing, that we're in for a very bleak future. No amount of wishing or ad hominem attacks is going to get us out of this. What's especially striking is the Tainteresque decrease in returns for increasing complexity - I'm seeing it myself, where people washing windows are making more than engineers, especially out of work engineers but engineers in general. Where a guy collecting bottles and cans is making more than most of the office workers in the valley. Where I myself am looking at the bright future, and it's the brightest indeed, in tooting my horn (literally!) on the street or sketching portraits in coffee shops on a $5 sketch pad, it will be one or the other, depends on how the horn goes. Everyone is finding this out, Clifford Stoll was ahead of time about a decade on this when we wrote Silicon Snake OIl, all this wonderful tech is just a way to get people working harder and harder for the samep pay. Now you not only have to work to support not only the mass of humans, their animals, and machines, but the damned computers too. The computers were supposed to become smart enough to pull their own weight, but AI has been a real failure. We're not headed for an Asimovian future, we're headed for a Malthusian one.
So let's stop with the pissing contests and discuss Peak Oil and your (and my) crappy future and face it.
Though I am no singularitarian I expect some wondrous/nasty surprises (depending on your point of view) from AI.
How will this interact with the various decays and collapses is an entirely different question.
I mean this will not bring some "miracle cure" just making things more "interesting".
"May You Live in Interesting Times"
In the last 12 months I've made an income comparable to what an attorney at a small firm would make. After self-employment taxes, loan repayment, etc, it is reduced by a significant percentage. Overall it hasn't been enough to start my cult but I can't exactly complain either.
You won't see my pleaing poverty or presenting myself as some type of peak oil martyr.
And my solar site has shown great promise given I've only had 2 products for sale, one of which is probably beyond many people's ability to pay (the sun oven is $200 or so).
Overall, I'd have to say my subconscious has served me reasonably well. My career as a prophet of doom may not have been quite as monetarily profitable as a my career as an attorney but I've gained in social capital whatever I may have lost in financial capital. As an example, I just got an email from a female TOD reader inviting me to possibly live in her getting-off-the-grid community as "seed crystal."
You can't beat that.
Best,
Matt
:-)
Cohort is one lens; culture is another. Only after I emigrated from the US did I truly realize how strong and pervasive American culture is. The most energy-intensive culture on earth is (not surprisingly) a key model for the rest of the world. There is approach-avoidance (kind of hate Americans, but love their stuff), but the US seems to be the archetypal model nonetheless.
The world needs a more appropriate model, but that will take decades to establish. Culture changes real slow.
What part of American culture do you see from differently colored lenses now?
Just curious.
Obviously fish cannot see the ocean they swim in.
The contrast: NZ works on a high-tax, moderate economic growth, high-social service model: free universal hospital care, subsidized universities, camp for all schoolkids, accident insurance for all including tourists, no right to sue for damages, housing available to everyone (though still refused by a few of the mentally ill), government budget perpetually in surplus. You start to think this is normal, and it changes your filtering.
I'd probably agree with most of the posters on TOD about the facts of America. The difference comes in the emotional sphere. The US now looks huge, wealthy, and naive. My eldest son--half his life in each country--describes Americans as "soft" and "whiners." American individualism has helped build some of the best the world can offer, but now seems to have a more apparent darkside: self-centered and self-absorbed, unaware of how others think, dangerously violent, even primitive.
The cultural trick for peak oil is to turn the strengths of American culture--ingenuity, energy, resolve, boundless self-confidence--towards solving [OK, mitigating] the problem. Unfettered individualism, looking out for #1, will lead towards the possible future that Matt Savinar and James Howard Kunstler let us glimpse. And we deserve a better future than that.
If anything, I think the young'uns should be more optimistic, what with being imbued with that spirit of youthful invulnerability and all. We greybeards OTOH are fond of reminiscing how things were so much better in the olden days and how the modern world is going to hell in a handbag. There's a reason for these stereotypes - sometimes age and experience does teach us that things don't always get better.
/curmudgeon
Do you think a pilot's logbook is irrelevant to his or her ability as a pilot? :-)
BTW, I am very uneasy flying in a plane unless I know the chief pilot has at least 5,000 hours at the yoke.
In general, these young whippersnappers do well to find the feces with a wad of bum fodder . . . even using both hands.
So there!
As a pilot, you would know that it's the low time and high time pilots that are the most dangerous. The low time pilots because they don't have a lot of experience, and the high time pilots because they get overconfident and bungle something. Pilots that manage to accumulate 5,000 hours generally fly oceanliners with wings and that shouldn't count as flight experience. You've used a good example, but I don't think it works in your advantage.
(Kant. Get it?)
Don is a windbag about all he's read and claims is authorative. When it comes to debate, he doesn't post "this link to X work explains why you are batshitinsine", instead he hand waves and hopes no one notices.
I thank you in anticipation of your response to this challenge.
The RR thead where you claimed to 'know' some 'mechanic' who 'knew' that Alchohol had better mileage than gasoline.
I'll also mention the biofuel thread where he claimed you could grow and harvest switchgrass without ever fertilizing. His "proof" was two 404 URLs, and a political piece he tried to pass off as "peer reviewed research."
In regard to "peer reviewed" literature, the source I cited was based on multiple peer-reviewed studies, which you can easily verify by reading it.
I regret posting links that do not work, and since having done so on that one regrettable occasion, I no longer post links.
Thank you for your phenomenal memory.
And I tracked down at least one of the 404 papers he posted. It did NOT prove what he claimed. I doubt there is any research that does. You cannot keep harvesting any crop without putting something back.
BTW, switchgrass grows and has been harvested for generations WITHOUT FERTILIZER in one of the biggest fields in the county where I live. Such data is not hard to find.
Alas, none are so blind as those who will not listen;-)
And yet you can't be bothered to provide links to this data. Because I'd LOVE to see a magical place that is able to take material from the soil and not replace it.
Is this field owned by your automechanic?
Do you know how closely switchgrass is related to alfalfa?
Do you know how closely switchgrass is related to alfalfa?
Alfalfa has a root system that can go down 20+ feet, that is why it is a good feedstock for animals
But why are you not providing links to this 'switchgrass field' and instead now trying to change the goalposts to alfalfa?
Just go to "Switchgrass Sally" if you must have a website. Were I you, I'd go to the library and cultivate the reference librarians; they are some of my favorite people on earth.
Hey, look over there!
Ever talked to farmers who grow one or both crops?
I am really, really against censorship, even self censorship but this would rather be spam filtering.
Removing mindless content free drivel.
Are you on this list?
Look in the mirror.
Try again?
He has no reason to lie to me.
I believe that we can learn true and valid information by listening carefully to people who know more than we do, especially from people who have a great deal of experience.
He always grows more than one crop, e.g., corn and alfalfa. He likes switchgrass, but because all his land is prime he can make more money (most years) in other crops; alfalfa (because of its higher protein content) is a more valuable crop at the moment than switchgrass, but even so he has done nothing to eliminate switchgrass or other "weeds."
Just yesterday he was out on the tractor for fourteen hours getting the second cutting of hay, i.e., mostly alfalfa but also some rye grass, some wild oats and a bunch of other stuff too.
He never fertilizes any crop except corn, never irrigates anything.
The corn is in better shape here than I have ever seen for the end of July. The "green corn" full moon will actually bring a good time to harvest some of the bountiful corn crop; we have had 100% ideal growing conditions with just enough rainfall plus hot, very hot sunny days between the thunderstorms.
Sometimes he grows soybeans. In the six generations his family has owned most of the best land around here they have grown practically any crop you can think of, with the possible exception of sugar cane;-)
I live on Frenchman Road. The "Frenchman" in question was his fifth or sixth generation back great great great great great grandfather who came here sometime in the middle of the nineteenth century.
Guys like this know things that most of us do not.
Jim Wortham & Barbara Whitener, FORGET THE GAS PUMPS--MAKE YOUR OWN FUEL, Madison, Indiana: Marathon Book Co., 1979.
ISBN 0-915216-43-4
To the best of my knowledge, the useful information in this book (as is the case with so many others) is not available online.
BTW, the scientific method includes logging observations. Do you have any objections to that method? Log books are the essence of science and a prerequisite for the replications that are at the heart of scientific methods.
Here is another one for people who would like to know how easy it is to actually run your car on ethanol, rather than to posture:
Nice try to re-frame the argument.
But the discussion was Alchohol had better mileage than gasoline. not run your car on ethanol,
Rather than admit you were wrong, you try to move the goalpost.
It seems to me that we have here a blatant example of the straw man fallacy--where you attack a position I never stated.
It is not clear to me what you think I actually claimed? What PRECISELY is it that you believe that I said.
Please do not quote out of context.
Thank you.
May be he gets paid for that, that's no too kind to you to try to ruin his business :-)
Note that soil is being rebuilt all the time from natural processes including rain and wind. The trick is not to deplete the soil faster than it is being rebuilt, and this is a trick mastered by many many cultures over the past six thousand years--and by the family that owns the biggest farm in my county and that has been using sustainable practices for six generations--and before that for probably sixty generations in France.
You claimed that fuels with higher alcohol contents has better preformance. "The real world performance on E-85 is superior to the performance (both in terms of mileage and power) than the performance on regular 87 octane gasoline." http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/14/165254/278#195
It is not clear to me what you think I actually claimed?
Perhaps not understanding is how one gets "God Clearance."
Now when the Twins win five games in a row, that may be a meaningless coincidence. On the other hand, maybe it is not;-)
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/7/17/9305/06286#31
So, would you care to explain how you have not failed in your above claim?
Excuse me, but just where are you coming from in this regard?????
Yes this is legitimate in a controversy, not friendly but legitimate.
And even a real "attack on integrity" is legitimate.
May be you failed to study Schopenhauer?
(Don, this is not to be meant as personnal attack as we did not engage in a controversy, yet...)
Now Kant--there was a philosopher.
Bragging about your class stauts a few decades after the fact? Well I can do you one better: I finished in the top half of my law school class.*
Best,
Matt
*top half of the bottom half, that is
That fact raises my already high opinion of you. People in the top eighth of Boalt Hall's graduating class, for example, have corrupted and polluted their minds beyond repair.
Yours underwent only moderate and nonpermanent damage, as shown by you high quality posts. (Well about ninety percent are high quality, and who am I to cast stones?)
(What was that crashing noise at the nearby greenhouse? :=)
definition of Integrity
You, Don attack the identity of the alpha:
(and you claimed you were above such)
Both you and Jay exhibit the limitations of the autodidact.
autodidact /awtodidakt/ * noun a self-taught person.
Your line of reasoning..is excessively narrow and dogmatic.
Dogmatic: adj 1: characterized by arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles
So you, "Don Sailorman", are somehow claiming that the ideas of thermodynamics as cited at dieoff is unproveable? And why point out the self-taught claim./...do you have some issue wit self-taught claim? If you have an issue with self-taught, please show us copies of *YOUR* formal education. Links to photcopies about your years of education will be useful. Esp. the parts wher you know all abpout the methods of oil extraction, that way "we" all "know" about how you, "Don Sailorman" is a noted authority via your training at the hands of Aristotle
But the "moderate" optimists (e.g. Lou Grinzo) You, "Don Sailorman" keeps "quoting" this lou fellow. Fine. Why don't you provie the actual data that SUPPORTS your postion? Right now you have a bunch of hand waving about how this "Lou" is somehow more powerful than the laws of therodynamics that Jay has cited and the alpha has refernecsed.
If Jay is so wrong, where is YOUR well developed web site refuting what Jay has had to say?
My website is under construction. It will doubtless make me wealthy and famous--after all, isn't that why we do everything according to somebody;-)
Which of course brings up two rather opposing questions. First, if we truly believe there are no solutions, why are we compelled to spread this gospel and make ourselves look like millenialist Hale-Bopp kooks? And the second is, what if we're wrong, and some kind of composite "solution" within a suitably circumscribed domain is in fact possible? We could be wrong, you know. Not saying we are (and I don't even think we are) but we could be...
I remember telling a colleague about PO last year. I was then out of touch with him for a year, and saw him again in June. He asked me whether I still believed in peak oil, and I said that I did, but that I didn't go about talking about it so much anymore because I'd come to terms with it. I told him that the difference between me and my friends/colleagues was that when the disaster finally comes, I'll have already come to terms with it whereas other people will really be freaking out about it. There is some comfort in being at peace, so maybe that's the reason to keep proselytizing.
In our culture, and perhaps all human culture,s offering seemingly viable "solutions" to problmesis a great way to increase one's social fitness.
I think you're brain is trying to grapple with how to best raise your social fitness. On the hand there seems to be no **real* solutions. But the brain does not want to accept that because if it did, opportunities for increasing social fitness would be reduced. So in a fit of mental gymnastics, the brains says, "ahhh . . . there MUST be solutions, I am simply not seeing them because I am a lazy ass looking to justify for my own lazy-assness!"
This has the effect of getting the person back to working towards and offering solutions (at least temporarily) which raises the person's social fitness, or at least that is the intention.
I do feel the brain can rewire itself to reconcile day-to-day activities with the knowledge that there are no *real
solutions. This is particularly true for brains such as yours (female brains) as women's brain matter is composed disproportionatley of white matter which is responsible for forming and reforming neural connections.I have considered writing an article on this reconciliation and rewiring process but it is very difficult thing to explain elegantly.
As for the second part of it, I don't know about that...If it were really about my social fitness, then I already would have gotten off my lazy ass and tried to make a difference (compare, for example, peakguy, who got into it about the same time that I did and now has his own community organization up and running). No, I think I'm just a lazy, selfish ass.
Jay did propose the implementation of a "sloth society" whereby most people would essentially be paid to stay at home and do nothing. This would have the effect of reducing economic output (demand for energy) to the bare minium necessary to produce food, medicine, etc.
So you may think of yourself as a "lazy ass", in truth you may be a model citizen of a sustainable society!
Where do I sign up?
See H.G. Wells, Aldous Huxley, and most especially Kurt Vonnegut, "Player Piano."
http://www.zpub.com/notes/idle.html
I also enjoyed this meditation on the virtues of sloth a few years ago...
http://adamantine.wordpress.com/stuff/quitting-the-paint-factory-by-mark-slouka/
There are definitely solutions. But defining 'solutions' presupposes that we know, on a deeper level, what the meaning of life is. Is it the most humans? the most happy humans? the most happy sentient creatures? the present value of the most happy sentient creatures of all futures generations weighted by their sentience?
Peak Oil, overshoot, climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty, hunger, etc are all symptoms of a full planet. Solutions for the few may be different than for the many. I have no doubt that community (based on strong reciprocity) will be key to future human life on the planet. Successful areas will have communities surrounded by communities surrounded by more communitities. The ones at the center will be much more insulated from chaos. This will be a cultural phenomenon that will not spread everywhere - to understand the mechanisms of how it could spread is one of my core interests - there is a large intersection with that path and Jays ideas.
I firmly believe in evolved behavioral constructs, but I also am inclined to believe in multi-level selection - where between-group selection pressure is as large as within-group selection. In any case, even if the dieoff crowd is right and the human population is cut in half, that implies that the other half will still need a road map towards sustainability. The more we understand of our behaviour, the more we a) can steer society towards less painful crash and b) improve the lives of future generations of those who survive and (more subtlely) c) live a life worth living by the feelings we get from our efforts(keep slugging both for ourselves and for a better world)
Cuba after the Soviets stopped the oil
http://www.globalpublicmedia.com/articles/657
Sweeden and Switzerland during WWII
http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/economic-dependence-rationing.html
The US in the early 30's during the great depression.
speculation on human nature vs. models of collaspe? Is history a social science?
A PO related curiosity is that one of the problems during WW1 where the lack of US lamp oil wich gave a major boost to general electrification to replace oil lamps with light bulbs.
Significant technological and industrial development happend between WW1 and WW2. The WW2 equivalent to the WW1 electrification were a massive electrification of railways, some of that investment is still in use since it is durabe stuff. Most of it will soon be gone, in large part due to high speed trains needing higher line tension and so on. They also used less efficient corossion protection back then.
During WW2 we had extreme weather, some very cold winters and some very dry summers. An odd solution to this where to use certain kinds of paper pulp as emergency food for cows.
Trade were continued in a more cynical way then during WW1
and that lead to much of the emergency civil defence stockpiles being larger at the end of WW2 then at the beginning. Wich is good since you dont know when its going to get worse, store the excess while you can.
We have not had any "rehersal" for PO although much of the investments done during earlier short lived oil crisises have been maintained and much of the then started practices have continued to be followed.
I guess there is a reasonable chance that PO will give cyclical depressions, we have to instuitutionalise the learning in each cycle to be better prepaired for the next one.
What is going on right now are broad but not mobilization level investments in railways, almost everything new is electrified. Continued investments in the large district heating and district cooling systems, most often combined with electricity production. The trend for nuclear downsizing is changing to building athough so far only with upratings. All levels of the grid infrastructure seem to have have investments above the replacement rate with a focus on making it storm resistant. E85 is established and biogas is being estblished country wide.Private investments seem to be booming ethanol and biodiesel production capacity beyond the local farming output. Wood pellet production is booming and heating oil use is quicly going extinct as has been a trend since the 70:s oil crisis. The car fleet is mostly large, old and inefficient but all local car manufacturers are working on hybrids and "green cars" are popular. There is a general drive for efficiency in heating and cooling and so on in buildings and business but lots is left to do.
All in all its fairly ok for not having experienced a small peak within a generation. The details I would like to add are more urban rail and planning and taking a chance with a mass installation of electricity outlets for plug in hybrids and EV:s. If all public parking intended for one hour and up had such it might make the Swedish market into a good test market for such wehicels. And we have a grid that could handle it both at peoples homes and at public parking places although there would be need for transformer upratings since a success with a full carpark is several kA at 400V.
The following years will be quite intresting. I wonder if I could establish myself in the wood pellet making business?
There are 'solutions' - but many people won't like them.
The energy consuming life is simpler.
I remember telling a colleague about PO last year
One can not 'unhear'.
maybe that's the reason to keep proselytizing.
If no one knows of a bit of data, no one can form their own opinion. To talk about the data with others MIGHT start them thinking and acting in a more positive way
Yup. There are many solutions, but people sure aren't going to be happy when they are forced to switch to them. How does that Monbiot quote go? "Fighting like cats in a sack?"
My wife and I are working on creating a relatively sustainable lifestyle (energy self sufficient house, permaculture garden, greehouse with solar powered bathtub, etc.) on the edge of a small town, where we have a lot of friends and relatives. THere is very little interest in peak oil issues right now, but I expect a sea change at some point, with a massive rush to "get sustainable."
Therefore, we figure that we'll figure out as many solutions as possible (how to productively garden, for instance), and when the neighborhood suddenly wants to garden, we can give advice and crank out vegetable plant starts in the greenhouse. A packet of seeds can start dozens of plants, and usually you end up with too many.
We figure we'll ask people to "pay it forward" and thereby help jumpstart the transition.
I don't believe there will be any progress towards effecting a transition until the evidence for a "conventional wisdom" deadend is unavoidable.
Twenty five years ago, when I got out of the military, I went through a desert survival course through Brigham Young U. (I was one of the few "gentiles.") They taught and firmly believed in "survival as a community." Survival as an atomized individual has little meaning.
Any progress towards sustainability after the crash will be local and community, and the Mormons will be way ahead of 98% of the gentiles. You can convert when the going gets tough, or you can do what they do and start your own "transition system."
And as for Jay Hanson, I first read his stuff in the late 90s, and it was well put together; but it was just an erudite compilation of what many of us have thought since the "back to the land" movement of the 70s.
To summarize, it's conceivable that there could be a 90% dieoff over the next century, with most of it coming through military action (history is one social science which is VERY relevant. Try reading about the late middle ages!) But the other 10% still equals 650,000,000 people. The people who will survive are those who work together as a community and find sustainable solutions; who are lucky (location, soil fertility, being in the right spot after possible climate change, etc.), and either collectively protect themselves or become "new peasants" under the new miitarists (they need to eat too...)
Well, so much for jaw jacking. Time to finish my greenhouse and put up the new shade structure!
Ok, there are a few of us who plan on surviving by being ready. Fine. But, unlike other forums, TOD is gentiel (sp) and doesn't get into discussing whacking people who want to take what you have...and that's what it will eventually come down to. I'm one of the old farts here and may not see this but I am not discounting this possibility.
This entire thread is full of mental masturbation from people who aren't doing it and, probably, never will. Here are the two potential futures; Jay's and muddling through with some kind of status quo. There is no middle ground. Yet, there seems to be this impetus to believe that life can go on as it is if we only...
I've posted this link before but I'll do it one more time:
http://www.giltweasel.com/stuff/LightsOut-Current.pdf
Six hundred pages of what might happen after an EMP. This probably has more applicability then most of the stuff here.
Todd
Maybe I'm hoping that someone else will say, "yes, but" and show me a solution.
I am convinced the planet as I know and love it is doomed but I haven't completely given up. Although, all the shit hitting the fan the last few weeks, especially regarding global warming and grain shortages is hard to take.
On the other hand, if the chickens are coming home to roost right now rather than next decade, maybe we need that. A short term catostrophe and series of catostrophes of some sort may be just what we need to wake people up. Or will they just demand that government fix it. Fix the food prices. Fix the gas prices. But don't make me take any responsibility.
Sadly, these catastrophes may signal that we are already beyond the point of no return.
Need to go out and plant some more seeds, I guess.
---------------------------------
From: the Independent http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1191932.ece
Amazon rainforest 'could become a desert'
And that could speed up global warming with 'incalculable consequences', says alarming new research
By Geoffrey Lean in Manaus and Fred Pearce
Published: 23 July 2006
The vast Amazon rainforest is on the brink of being turned into desert, with catastrophic consequences for the world's climate, alarming research suggests. And the process, which would be irreversible, could begin as early as next year.
Studies by the blue-chip Woods Hole Research Centre, carried out in Amazonia, have concluded that the forest cannot withstand more than two consecutive years of drought without breaking down.
Scientists say that this would spread drought into the northern hemisphere, including Britain, and could massively accelerate global warming with incalculable consequences, spinning out of control, a process that might end in the world becoming uninhabitable.
The alarming news comes in the midst of a heatwave gripping Britain and much of Europe and the United States. Temperatures in the south of England reached a July record of 36.3C on Tuesday. And it comes hard on the heels of a warning by an international group of experts, led by the Eastern Orthodox " pope" Bartholomew, last week that the forest is rapidly approaching a " tipping point" that would lead to its total destruction.
The research carried out by the Massachusetts-based Woods Hole centre in Santarem on the Amazon river has taken even the scientists conducting it by surprise. When Dr Dan Nepstead started the experiment in 2002 by covering a chunk of rainforest the size of a football pitch with plastic panels to see how it would cope without rain he surrounded it with sophisticated sensors, expecting to record only minor changes.
The trees managed the first year of drought without difficulty. In the second year, they sunk their roots deeper to find moisture, but survived. But in year three, they started dying. Beginning with the tallest the trees started to come crashing down, exposing the forest floor to the drying sun.
By the end of the year the trees had released more than two-thirds of the carbon dioxide they have stored during their lives, helping to act as a break on global warming. Instead they began accelerating the climate change.
As we report today on pages 28 and 29, the Amazon now appears to be entering its second successive year of drought, raising the possibility that it could start dying next year. The immense forest contains 90 billion tons of carbon, enough in itself to increase the rate of global warming by 50 per cent.
Dr Nepstead expects "mega-fires" rapidly to sweep across the drying jungle. With the trees gone, the soil will bake in the sun and the rainforest could become desert.
Dr Deborah Clark from the University of Missouri, one of the world's top forest ecologists, says the research shows that "the lock has broken" on the Amazon ecosystem. She adds: the Amazon is "headed in a terrible direction".
Fred Pearce is the author of 'The Last Generation' (Eden Project Books), published earlier this year
This is a planetary emergency, is it not? The war of the worlds begins now and there is no one at the helm to fight the battle.
I am someone who collects information, much of it not good. When it depresses me I have the choice of sharing it with others or keeping it to myself.
If I share it with others they may get motivated to change, or get depressed and do nothing as they've given up. If I share it with others I get a greater sense of belonging and understanding rather than facing this alone.
Lately I have been keeping a lot to myself. While certain activist types seem to be motivated by threats, others seem turned off. Without offering solutions, even if they hold out the slimmest of chances, I don't think people will be motivated to do anything accept curl up within themselves.
The Great Turning may be impossible, true, but at least it could lead to some productive behaviors. And if that is so, and if it offers even the slimmest hope, then I am all for it.
Afterall, the world is complex. We can't actually know the future. We can just do the best with what we've got right now.
I'm reluctant to say this but I find myself growing quite frustrated with people who preach a "Great Turning." To be perfectly frank, I feel as though they are bullshiting me and I'm a bit tired of being bullshited. (Note this is not directed at you.)
What evidence is there of a Great Turning? You know the facts surrounding the multiple disasters (energy, climate, financial, etc.) and none of them are improving. No, just the opposite they are rapidly deteorating. And anybody who pays ANY attention to the news can read all they want about this.
Perhaps not coincidentally, people who say there is going to be a Great Turning are always and I mean ALWAYS well off white people living in nice homes here in the states or the UK. So they are largely insulated from these disasters, at least for the time being, observing only from television, books, and perhaps the occassional short trip at best. So when I hear somebody say or read somebody write about a "Great Turning" I am reminded me of a quote from a very relevenat Guardian article, "Look on the Dark Side"
Just replace the word "God" with the word "GAIA" or "Mother Earth Goddess" or "Great Universe" or "Benevolent Intelligence" or whatever the speaker's/writer's quasi-diety seems to be
"The rich man in his palace can reconcile himself to the plight of the poor man at his gate by reminding himself that this is part of God's bright and beautiful plan; those who suffer poverty and oppression in this life will be recompensed in the hereafter. When thousands die in an earthquake, we can tell ourselves that God knew what he was doing."
"With unseemly haste, people rush to put an optimistic gloss on a disaster or to suggest a patently unworkable solution."
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1152940,00.html]
Damn, now you tell me.
I thought you had to show "good works" on this side ... and also large pyramids or schemes of that sort.
I have not yet read the original study. However, the scientific cynic in me says "This is absolute proof we shouldn't cover rainforest in plastic panels." I assume the plastic is impermeable, otherwise the water would get in. I think there may be a validity question here: is this method really like a 2 year drought? They may have smothered the forest, not just dried it out.
my short term plan.
Water Outperforms Oil, Luring Pickens, GE's Immelt, Guy Hands
Now, I completely agree. My plan:
Make money
Make friends
Get your fat ass into shape
I think community