Why We Disagree on Peak Oil and Climate Change: Part III - Our Belief Systems
Posted by nate hagens on May 1, 2007 - 11:16am
(EDITORS NOTE: The below post was edited and updated in 2007 as Peak Oil - Believe it or Not)
In the first two parts of this series, we looked at some of the factual reasons why people disagree on the timing and importance of Peak Oil: gross versus net oil production, better technology vs depletion, productive capacity vs flow rates, differing definitions of "Peak", etc. This post will address some social and psychological reasons why the urgency of our energy situation may not be being addressed on an individual level and only at a snails pace on the governmental level. Among the phenomena we will explore are a) why we have beliefs and how they are changed, b) our propensity to believe in authority figures, c) our penchant for optimism, d) cognitive load theory, d) relative fitness, e) the recency effect, and several others. The fact is, even if the world's energy data was transparent and freely available to everyone, it would be an open question whether people would agree on any near term action to mitigate future oil scarcity. This post is a first stab at examining our cognitive belief biases.
Our societal infrastructure was built with and expected to continue on cheap liquid fuels. This fixed infrastructure coupled with a human demand drive for more may result in a once-in-a-species crisis once our planetary resource and ecosystems can no longer keep pace. But Peak Oil ultimately is not about geology or technology. At its core it is a human problem. An overlooked human attribute will play the pivotal role in our failure or success in mitigating and adapting to long term challenges of both Peak Oil and environmental challenges like Climate Change - that of our collective cognitive belief systems and the resulting behaviours they engender.
This post will outline many of the behavioral tendencies we can expect to encounter as we attempt timely and logical solutions to declines in per capita energy availability. It will culminate in an examination of our belief systems themselves, and how we process new information. As in my recent posts, I preface this one with a discussion I had this weekend with my friend Thomas, (who fittingly has still 'not had time' to read the oildrum story on steep discount rates):
N: Thomas - Im writing another story for theoildrum.com and would like your comments since you seem to represent the 'non-believer camp'.
T: Its not that I don't believe that oil will peak someday - its just that the doom and gloom people are always wrong - somehow something will come along and in 5 years you'll say "well, how could I have known about 'XXX'? No one knows the future - including you Nate.
N: Ive never said when Peak Oil would be, only that it would eventually mean the end of economic growth as we know it - and that technology and capital can't 'create' energy. The market will be too late to react to the signals once they come. The asset allocators on Wall St have used a formula for the 70 years of stock market history based on cheap oil and high energy gain. That era is over - new rules or maybe a new game.
T: No offense buddy - I know you're very intelligent. But there are thousands of smart people on Wall St and elsewhere analyzing data - don't you think its a little odd that YOU'RE opinion is the right one over all those people whose full time jobs it is to pore over oil demand and supply figures?
N: Well, when put like that it always shakes my confidence, but I do believe the street is missing the main tenets of Peak oil - that environmental limits and declining net energy will overtake conventional market and technology solutions. And by the way - there ARE a lot of analysts are talking about Peak and its implications - the new GAO report on Peak Oil came out last week and pointed out how unprepared we are..
T: Now you trust what the Government is saying? You used to say the government energy forecasts were terrible and we shouldn't believe in them -now they write something that fits your position and you use it for support?
N: Were you always this argumentative? Wait -don't answer that -Ive known you since grad school. Can you honestly say that you've read things on theoildrum and other sources for objective information on this topic?
T: I have 3 kids and work 60 hour weeks so I choose how to spend my reading time. Can you say YOU'VE read all the research saying we have plenty of oil until at least 2040 after which there will be plenty of substitutes?
N: I've started from scratch 3 or 4 times on the core Peak Oil tenets, thinking I might have something very wrong, but Ive been over it enough to unfortunately feel pretty confident I'm right, though less certain on the timing.
T: Nate, I shouldn't tell you this but our asset management arm is in the top 10 in the world in terms of assets and do you know what our number one position is?
N: Starbucks?
T: No. We're short oil futures. We think its going back to $40 well before it goes to $100.
N: Thomas this is all besides the point. I'm not predicting what will happen in the next 3 months or next 3 years - what I'm saying is that very soon, in our lifetimes, energy is going to be scarce and cause ripple effects we cant even imagine. The bullish supply forecasts either siphon that 'energy gain' from other economic sectors via inflation or by robbing it from the environment via water and ecosystem depletion and increased GHGs.
T: Whatever. And even if you're right. We're here to live life. I'm not going to sit around waiting for 'the next big change' when I can enjoy life with my kids and live large. I work hard you know.
N: Actually you're a grifter. But you're still my friend, even though you're closed minded at times. Later.
The above discussion is in many respects a synopsis of this post - that despite facts, we exhibit certain cognitive biases that prevent us from acting on complex or frightening subjects outside of our day to day realities. What follows below is a brief overview of 10 cognitive phenomenon that may inhibit wider understanding and action on oil depletion. (Caveat - Neuroscience is a complex and growing field that has many valuable contributions to offer. In discussing human tendencies for various behaviours, I am of course generalizing, as are most of the scientific studies - when I say 'people value the present more than the future', I make that claim in the same vein that 'men are taller than women (on average)' )
COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY
 |
 |
| "Chocolate Cake?" | "or Fruit Salad?" |
Cognitive load theory suggests humans have a maximum capacity of working memory. At around 7 'chunks' of information, our working memory maxes out and we can't accept anything else without losing some of the previous 'chunks'. Try remembering the following numbers 1-9-1-4-7-6-7-5-9-5-9. Its quite hard to do. But if they are rearranged in chunks 1-914-767-5959, it becomes much more manageable. Numerous studies have measured this phenomenon - a notable study by Shiv and Fedhorkhin(1) asked a group of people to memorize a two digit number, walk down a corridor and at the end choose a dessert - either chocolate cake or fruit salad. A different sample of people were then asked to memorize a 7 digit number and walk down the corridor (while internally reciting this 7 digit number) and also choose a dessert. When required to memorize the 7 digit number, almost twice as many people chose the chocolate cake as in the sample only memorizing the 2 digit number - the implication being - 'my short term memory is full - I cant access my rational, long term decision-making hardware - just give me the damn cake'.
Of course, in a society with cell phones, taxi-cabs, internet, coffee, soccer practice, Grays Anatomy, corporate ladders and a plethora of other chocolate cake-like stimuli, meaningful contemplation and education about oil depletion and the environment usually represents the fruit salad. Many people are just too cognitively taxed to take on much more.
RECENCY EFFECT
Cognitive psychologists have recognized that people tend to overweight the most recent data and stimuli they receive in their decision-making processes. A possible reason for the recency effect is that these items still linger in working memory when recall is solicited. This recency effect has two important relationships to the peak oil and global warming issues. First, we collectively assume that today will be much like yesterday and tomorrow will be like today - grocery stores chock full of oil-subsidized tasty treats, gas stations with cheap and easy fill-ups, and a plethora of novel entertainment and diversion options preclude our mind from thinking tomorrow will be any different. Second, in the various campaigns to educate and inform the public and policymakers on the dangers of oil depletion, any 'recent' optimistic piece in the mainstream media that dismisses Peak Oil has a tendency to mentally 'overwrite' some of the prior Peak Oil education one might have achieved.
Part of the reason I looked into research on the recency effect is that I noticed myself yo-yo-ing on peak oil and climate change depending on who I talked to or what Id seen. I started to notice a pattern that my 'belief' was highly correlated to whatever I'd read or whoever I'd spoken to most recently. Since there are so many unknowns on both topics, to hear demonstrative language from confident sources does a lot to sway ones opinion, until and if one has time to methodically explore the arguments during subsequent individual research.
I am not a climate expert but do know enough to believe global warming is being anthropogenically influenced and is of at least moderate concern. As a graduate student under Robert Costanza, a scientist very concerned about climate change , I felt almost embarrassed after viewing The Great Global Warming Swindle. Even though I recognized a few factual mistakes, the rhetoric and confident tone in the movie pulled me in - the general tenor made me feel that climate change is relatively benign and concerns about it are overblown. That is, until the next morning when I got a series of emails from my professors about its content after which my opinion completely flip-flopped again. I expect this is a common experience. The central issues of climate change and oil decline are so broad and complex that both science and advocacy fall victim to the recency effect. Advertisers however, must be aware that the recency effect is both valid and powerful, otherwise we would have long ago decided on which product is superior between Miller Lite and Bud Lite on the facts alone.
STEEP DISCOUNT RATES
"The rational vs emotional discount rate"
As discussed in a recent oildrum post, we have evolved neural mechanisms to steeply favor the present over the future (measured by what economists call ‘discount rates’). The higher the rate the more one is 'addicted' to the present moment. Lower discount rates suggest more control of the neocortex in subverting mammalian impulses of 'living for the moment'. Different products are discounted at differing rates. Different subsets of people (drug addicts, young people, gamblers, men, risk-takers, low math scorers, alcohol drinkers, etc) have steeper discount rates - are less able to act for the future and are easier pulled in by short term desires.(2) Steep discount rates work backwards as well - the oil crises and gas lines in the 1970s are like stories in the history books - nothing that carries too much emotional weight in the present - its almost as if our action and motivation triggers are like a daylight map, only caring about the areas that are lit up - the dark areas are too far beyond our ken.
We have evolved to have instant access to our emotional minds in times of stress or danger - a million years ago too much rational thought would have essentially been suicidal. Oil depletion, climate change and loss of planetary ecosystems are long lead time problems. As such, information leading us to believe a peak in global oil production is either a) no big deal or b) beyond 2030 is essentially not 'received' by our emotional minds. The average person and politician will process such information as a free pass to continue the business as usual path. This is especially true if the assessment comes from a confident, respected, mainstream source (such as CERA), because it trickles down through corporate hierarchical society. Collectively it will be difficult to act until these issues become 'in the moment' too.
BELIEF IN AUTHORITY FIGURES
"I have it from high authority that there is plenty of Oil Resource"
theoildrum.com contributor says "Net energy to fall - society needs to change 'metrics of success' quickly"
Think about your initial reaction to the above two assertions. Depending on your walk of life, your gut reaction and thought process might differ. However, science (and history) has shown that humans have a propensity to be externally validated - we believe in and follow instructions from confident authority figures. Though theoildrum.com contributor is clearly confident, he certainly is not an authority figure, at least outside pike fishing circles. The Pope however, influences billions. With few exceptions, most voices advocating immediate steps for mitigating peak oil are not what society would perceive as 'authority figures'.
But what if the tables were reversed?
NEWS FLASH ---“EXXON-MOBIL SAYS THE WORLD HAS PASSED PEAK OIL – THEOILDRUM.COM SAYS NOT TIL 2030”
Imagine if that headline ran through the media around the country. Corporate leaders would hold emergency meetings on how to lock in prices or even supplies. (Some might liquidate their 401ks and not even show up)…. Politicians would be on television urging people to wear sweaters or even winter coats…. A gasoline tax would be quickly implemented…. Purchases of wind turbines and solar panels would soar… Tuna and chocolate hoarding...Cats living with dogs – real Old Testament stuff.
However, the situation is precisely opposite that. Astute, reasoned analysis by concerned individuals gets easily drowned out by rhetorical op-ed pieces in respected newspapers. Portrayal of concern for peak oil as a 'chicken little', 'Cassandra' and 'boy who cried wolf' phenomenon by a credible news source effectively erases what nagging concern or belief about oil depletion someone had started to foment.
Sociology recognizes that we have a propensity to believe in authority figures. Though the why of this is yet to be sussed out, Richard Dawkins believes it is an adaptive byproduct of children who unquestioningly followed adult instructions during the thousands of generations of our ancestral environment.(3) Presumably, the penchant for adults to easily believe things that are confidently told to them is a carryover from the children who did NOT eat the berries, touch the snake, or swim over a waterfall – these children survived to have children of their own. Social psychologist Robert Cialdini has written a book related to this phenomenon, on how certain people can have outsized influence on others using certain authoritative tactics. (I wonder aloud if Messrs. Jackson and Yergin own copies)
Irrespective of its origins and as uncomfortable as it sounds, we DO inherently believe in authority figures, as the famous and controversial Milgram experiments evidenced. 65% of volunteers delivered what they thought were fatal doses of 450 volt electric shocks to human subjects while being calmly assured to continue by the experiment 'administrators' (doctors in lab coats). The other 35% of participants still delivered high voltage shocks to the point of unconsciousness but refused to administer the 'highest level' shocks. Interestingly, none of these 35% insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check that the victim was O.K. without first asking for permission. So much for independent thinking. In interviews prior to the experiment respondents predicted that only the most 'sadistic' 1.2% of participants would be willing to hurt another participant with electric shocks, yet 100% of the participants DID administer the shocks. The power of authority figures is indeed strong.
To be honest, when preparing this post, I read and reread CERAs analyses and interviews – the recency effect combined with the utter confident tone they were written in made me (again) question that maybe I have this all wrong – that we have smooth sailing until 2030. But, after some malted milk balls and a quick review of my colleagues work, which at a minimum shows CERA does not incorporate net energy, understand Hubbert Linearization or include environmental externalities, Peak Oil again had me very worried.
RISK AVERSION
Risk aversion is a financial and psychological concept that posits consumers (people) prefer a certain but possibly lower payoff than an uncertain but possibly higher payoff. With respect to Peak Oil, there is such a societal Sunk Cost that even if the average person or politician is on board with the understanding of fossil fuel depletion, the risk of stepping outside the warm cocoon of modern grid-connected energy intensive society can be emotionally daunting. Too, there aren't too many blazed paths as of yet illustrating exactly what one person or family can and should do to adapt. Our society is SO dependent on oil that most alternatives are too risky for the average family to pursue. Or at least that may be the perception.
RELATIVE FITNESS
My Dad is stronger than your Dad. And Peak Oil is not a 'theory' buddy
As evidenced by the size difference between males and females (sexual dimorphism), our species is midway between a tournament species and a pair bond species. This is suggestive that in our evolutionary past, selection pressures for male/male competition at least partially contributed to higher mating success (though not as much as in sea lions). The advent of language in tribal living expanded the scope of reputation and its influence on mating competition. An individuals comments, actions and opinions thus contributed to increasing or decreasing his status within the tribe. One could argue that a good part of human communication is concerned with getting other people to think, behave and believe as we do. At the same time, those others are trying to get us to behave and believe like they do – it’s the culmination of our biological and political (social) heritage.
This concept has many demand side implications for Peak Oil not the least of which will be some variant of resource grab when per capita liquid fuel availability declines. But it also plays a large role in peoples differing and sometime entrenched viewpoints on the topic of Peak Oil, irrespective of their future actions. My friend Thomas has a career in finance - his income is dependent on his clients buying stocks, which are in turn dependent on the economy growing. He has 3 children and a huge house full of gadgets and requires alot of fuel to continue his planned trajectory (though he admits he could be happier on much less). A Peak Oil world as I've painted it could be perceived as a threat to him, his family and his lifestyle. For him to accept my worldview is in some ways admitting that his own life is built around the wrong premises. Similarly, if our current Disneyland culture continues to extract resources and environmental costs and the day of reckoning comes well beyond my lifetime, perhaps I have wasted some of my time on this planet unnecessarily calling attention to what I view as urgent risks associated with net energy decline and human social traps.
Oh, How sweet it is to hear ones own convictions from another's lips. - Goethe (1749-1832)
Some who are very vocal about the urgency of Peak Oil will take a 'perceived fitness hit' if information comes to light that delays or moderates the impact of a peak and decline in world oil supply. Similarly, those who think we have plenty of oil production and flow capacity for the next 20-30 years will look foolish (e.g damage their reputation leading to a 'perceived' drop in fitness status), if it turns out we never see 90 million bpd and have 5% annual depletion rates beginning in a few years. In truth, for many the facts are mostly irrelevant - their belief systems are relatively immutable and new facts coming to light that support their convictions are viewed as 'victories' even if they add pain to the world as a whole. Similarly, new facts contrary to their beliefs are perceived as 'failures' and are responded to defensively. Curiously, it puts certain people, myself included, in a position of cognitive dissonance - I sincerely hope society manages to amass an armory of silver BBs and reduces consumption enough so that Peak Oil is a seamless transition to a sustainable future, but if that happens, most everything Ive written about in the past few years will have been incorrect. (But maybe I impacted the experiment...;)
Those oildrum.com readers who've participated in these forums for some time now are especially aware that certain people seem to be 'rooting' for peak oil and an end to the current capitalist consumptive system. I believe at least part of this is even though post peak oil they will have less 'absolute fitness', their 'relative fitness', compared to Joe-Mortgage-Trader-Millionaire-Next-Door, will increase. In the end, we are wired to respond to relative fitness.
BELIEF IN OPTIMISM
People vocal about the risks of Peak Oil are often viewed as pessimists, though I suppose they prefer the word 'realists'. We are taught from an early age to 'look at the bright side' and 'every cloud has a silver lining'. Humans do in fact have a penchant for optimism, and this sets up for an immediate bout of cognitive dissonance when discussions of peak oil nasties are undertaken.
Individuals have a tendency to be overly optimistic, and therefore naturally discount 'pessimistic' viewpoints and worldviews. Adults are particularly vulnerable to self-deception when comparing their own intelligence and attractiveness to others.(5) Research has shown that we systematically exaggerate our chances of success, believing that we are more competent and more in control than we really are. 88% of people think they are better drivers than average. 94% of professors believe they are better at their jobs than the average professor, etc. (By definition, almost half of those surveyed are 'overly optimistic'.)
There are good neural explanations for being optimistic. Even if the pessimistic view may be the more accurate, the stress of incorporating the particular negativity into ones worldview releases a cascade of stress-activated hormones that can seriously compromise a persons health.(6) In addition, pessimism can lead to depression, which suppresses the normal functioning of important neurotransmitters such as serotonin, which in turn can lead to reduced physical activity, mood swings, and a number of other physical symptoms and diseases. Optimistic attitudes also reduce secretion of cortisol, a stress hormone that inhibits the immune system, as well as produce more helper T-cells (4). The placebo effect is a well known but little understood medical phenomenon that improves patients physical response with no actual medication. In depression patients, placebos increase wellbeing by an average of 30-50%. Apparently, when we 'think' positively that something is helping us medically - even if its a sugar pill, it 'works'. We are now seeing that the brain is helping this healing to occur through a different neurotransmitter mix.
"Peak Oil - Glass Half Full or Half-Empty?"
An optimistic outlook actually is neurochemically self-fulfilling. Optimism leads to increased frontal cortical activity which itself is a strong predictor of idea generation, positive emotion and overall liveliness of thought. Similarly, sadness is marked by decreased activity in the frontal cortex, which has the negative side affect of reducing the number of overall thoughts and ideas produced. Cognitive neuroscientist Antonio Damasio points out that our brain exaggerates reality - when the glass is half full - the brain adds a little more for zest - when the glass is half empty, the brain subtracts some and things seem worse than they really are.
Being introduced to peak oil can be quite a shock. Its tough to be cheerful about the facts and implications about oil depletion, though ultimately we definitely could (and should) be happier with less energy. But initiation to the concept of upcoming shrinkage of the lifeblood of society can easily cause internal conflict in a species obviously wired to gravitate towards optimism.
GROUP THINK / HERD MENTALITY
We originated in tribal settings where consensus was important. Consensus building and group projects are taught and experienced in our culture from an early age - though in an era facing true scientific problems, the warm fuzzy group decisions can backfire. One famous example of 'Groupthink' was the Bay of Pigs invasion, where President Kennedys key advisors had serious misgivings about the strategy, but in group strategy sessions refused to speak up for fear of disrupting the seemingly overwhelming consensus. The invasion went so badly that the President specifically ordered his staff to speak up and offer dissenting opinions in future discussions, an order that may have averted a war during the Cuban missile crisis. As most media is quick to dismiss Peak Oil, our nation could use another such warning against 'groupthink'.
"Monkey-see-activate mirror neuron Monkey-do"
There is comfort in the herd. The recent discovery of mirror neurons helps explain why our brains are prone to absorb the beliefs and behaviours of others. Neurobiologically, when we see someone performing an action, whether it is a yawn, a smile or eating an ice cream cone, unique parts of our brains respond in the same way as if we were performing the action ourselves.(4)
Homo Sapiens See - Homo Sapiens Do.
Interestingly, USC neuroscientists (Arbib and Rizzolatti) are suggesting that the origin of language began as facial expressions and hand gestures - these communication tools, along with actual speech, are regulated by Brocas area, a small knob found in the left hemisphere of the cortex. As we will see below this has important implications.
BELIEF IN MAGIC, MYSTICISM, CORRELATION, ETC. (AS OPPOSED TO SCIENTIFIC METHOD)
Knowledge is a disposition to behave that is constantly subject to corrective modification and updating by experience, while belief is a disposition to behave that is resistant to correction by experience. Eichenbaum, Howard – Boston University (5)
The previous nine points were tenderizer for the meat of the article to follow. If you've read this far you're either unemployed, retired, a psychologist, a blood relative, my girlfriend or someone on the edge of a paradigm shift. Thank you in any case.
The difficult transition to a lower energy gain society by definition has a 'best path'. Also by definition we won't ever know what that path is, or at least until well into the future. How we collectively assimilate beliefs, attitudes, science and policy will be the key determinant in how we sink or swim with the Peak Oil tide. Unfortunately, we have baggage.
So far we've looked at our propensity to believe in authority, optimism, recent events, group behaviour, etc. Taken together, these leanings might suggest that we have some sort of pre-packaged neural software for abstract systems of 'belief'. In truth, we actually have no choice BUT to believe. From the moment of birth we depend on others to instruct us about the world. While young, we are given a specific language, a specific religion, a smattering of science and history and all the while we implicitly assume we are learning facts about the world. But we are not. We are simply being told what to believe. Though this is of course practical, it has resulted in 6.5 billion different (but overlapping) belief systems, somewhat modifiable as we grow up but increasingly less malleable as we get older.
What is a belief?
As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘belief’ is:
1. A feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. A firmly held opinion
3. Trust or confidence in.
4. Religious faith.
The English word 'belief' originated in the twelfth century, as an adaptation of the German word gilouben, which means 'to love' or 'to hold dear'. It was first used in association with religious doctrines referring to one's trust and faith in God - faith rather than fact being the operative word, as this particular type of belief cannot be tested by the rigorous proofs developed by science.
What is the Scientific Method?
a. Observe some aspect of the universe.
b. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
c. Use the theory to make predictions.
d. Test (attempt to falsify) those predictions by experiments or
further
observations.
e. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
f. loop back to "c" above for another test. (8)
Famed scientist Richard Feynman offers an excellent description of 'good science' vs. 'cargo cult science' here.
At the cottage where I write this, there is the unmistakable sound of sandhill cranes calling for mates - when I first heard it I had no idea what it was. The fourth time I heard it I was with my father who identified it as a mating pair of sandhill cranes. The 10th time I heard it I witnessed the actual cranes by a pond. Mentally, my brain created a hypothesis and eventually ‘tested’ it to be 'true'. A certain sound represents sand hill cranes mating. Our ancestors discovered all they needed to know about the natural world in a process something like this one.
However, many stimuli in our society are much less clear cut. If I see a blue BMW sedan with an attractive blonde in the passenger side 2 or 3 times in a week, my mind will naturally extrapolate the 'ownership of a blue BMW' as a signal of successful male competition, when there could be myriad other explanations for the womans presence (the mans personality, his looks, his intelligence, his sister etc) The fact that he owned that particular car could have been completely random - yet my brain observed this pattern and extrapolated it forward.
"An early hominid couple, forming beliefs.."
During the 2 million+ years of hominid brain growth and development, the environment was roughly constant – in most cases for at least for thousands of years at a time. Here we developed ‘pattern-recognition’ systems of beliefs, the precursors of what economists today call ‘correlation’. The human brain was exquisitely designed to favor correlation over causation. We did not evolve mechanisms to follow regimens like the scientific method because our species would have been systematically snuffed out by predators on the african savannah and a different species might be facing oil depletion. Our neural architecture was being built to adhere to correlations we observed in everyday life, because in these stable environmental timeframes, most correlations DID lead to causations. The periods of largest brain size increase in hominids were probably when some tribal leaders got good at noticing patterns and successfully made tools, or repeated routines that added fitness - these genes and thought processes then multiplied.
"The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to [science] which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms." The Biological Basis of Morality, E.O. Wilson
Our stimuli laden modern world presents us with millions of small sample size events that offer our built-in pattern recognition systems plenty of fodder for creating 'beliefs' in situations where the scientific method never comes into play. Our pattern recognition system is essentially misfiring in a world of too many patterns – “NFC wins Superbowl and stock market goes up" (I had clients investing on that one) – “I can’t date guys who are Virgos” – ‘Walk under a ladder with a black cat and get really bad luck’ –‘Your second Chakra looks a little weak today’ ‘The market will solve it’ etc. We unknowingly conflate correlation with causation, a danger that is learned to be avoided early on in the career of a scientist. And overriding it all is the theme of relative fitness where we attempt to justify, through social persuasion, that our 'patterns' are the correct ones. The upshot of this tendency is that charisma, rhetoric, advocacy, and politics can all too easily trump the scientific method, just when our species will need it most to tackle climate change and the attempted transition to renewables. (Note: Scientists are humans too, and are not immune to these neural processes – clearly when they write and publish they are accessing the rational neocortex gray matter and take their time to get facts and figures right – but in everyday communication – once emotion gets involved, the built-in genetic priorities fall back on belief systems.)
Our individual constructs of reality are based on beliefs - some beliefs are changed by new information, reflection, and analysis - others are virtually immutable. (Though my friend Thomas has a decent 'factual' understanding of Peak Oil - he may never incorporate it in the larger sense into his belief system.) From recent results of research into brain injury along with those from experiments on animals, we have begun to chart the neural processes active in distinguishing emotions, fantasies and facts. With fMRI and PET scans we can watch as a priest prays or a monk meditates or even when a person encounters new information that is discrepant with a prior held belief. On brain scans, meditative and transcendent states are in many ways similar to when a person experiences pleasures from sex, music or a good meal.(4) The very concept of the peaking and subsequent decline of oil - a vital resource to our lives that may become less and less available is a very difficult one to understand let alone accept. The 'knowledge' we obtain from scientific research on energy largely depends on how our brains interpret the evidence. These interpretations are subject to the same rules that govern our perceptions of reality - they are replete with generalizations, assumptions, misunderstandings and mistakes. By the time newly acquired knowledge reaches consciousness, each of us transforms it into something that fits with our own unique worldview. This process of reconstructing reality is the foundation from which we build all of our beliefs about our world.(4)
But sometimes, reality is not reality, even to ourselves.
Our time bomb is mysticism. It's delivery system is language. And it's hiding place? The unfathomable coils of our DNA. Reg Morrison The Spirit in the Gene(9)
And finally we come to what (for me) is the most fascinating piece of the human neural puzzle. In the discount rate post last month, I pointed out that we have developed a ‘triune brain’, with the 3 layers representing the 3 main periods of our organismal development (reptilian, mammalian, neocortex regions largely corresponding to primitive, emotional and rational thought). However, the neocortex itself is split into two hemispheres, the left and right, separated by a thin straplike connector called the corpus callosum. Neurobiologist Roger Sperry states that patients who have the corpus callosum removed (split-brain patients) behave as if they have ‘two separate minds, two separate spheres of consciousness…in regards to cognition, volition, learning and memory.’
Only our left brain hemisphere has a ‘voice’ for communicating with others – emanating from 'Brocas area’, the speech control center of our brains. Any findings and opinions analyzed by the perceptive and intuitive right hemisphere must first travel through the left hemisphere before leaving our mouths as communication. If you’ve been following along, you might see how this might relate to Peak oil or climate change.
In a famous split brain experiment by Michael Gazzaniga at Dartmouth, a patient with his corpus callosum removed, was shown two large pictures – in front of the left eye – some snow – in front of the right eye, a picture of a bird’s foot. Beneath each image were a series of smaller images, only one of which was related to the image above. When asked to point to the picture below that was linked to the birds foot, the right hand (left brain) correctly pointed to an image of a chicken. Similarly, the left hand (right brain) correctly chose an image of a shovel to relate to the larger snow image. When asked to explain the decisions, the verbally controlling left hemisphere offered the obvious explanation linking its own choice of a chicken to a bird’s foot. HOWEVER, when asked why the left hand (right brain) had chosen the shovel (for the snow scene), the left brain replied that the shovel had been selected for cleaning out the chicken shed! Though our brains are not privy to their own internal workings, the left brain should have admitted it did not know why the right brain chose the shovel because it had never seen the snow scene –but instead it fabricated an answer to fit its own part of the story.(10)
Though most of us fortunately still have our corpus calllosums intact, new research is suggestive that the socially conforming and editing power of our left brains is powerful when dealing with pre-existing or strongly held beliefs, like 'we have plenty of oil', or 'the market will find a solution'.
Reg Morrison succinctly concludes the following:
“It seems our loquacious left brain cannot abide a vacuum. As it ghostwrites our right-brain narrative, it obsessively fills in any gaps and injects snippets of its own propaganda wherever it can. Here then is the source of the so called ‘false-memory syndrome’, and no doubt the origin of most of our mystic visions and spiritual fantasies...By endowing the human brain with its language facility, evolution has ensured that human genes will continue to bypass the cerebral cortex at will, disguising fact with significance and imagination into perceived fact” Reg Morrison – The Spirit In The Gene(9)
CONCLUSIONS
As humans, we have tendencies towards certain behaviours that can now be scientifically measured. While the neurosciences are still expanding and are now asking more questions than they have answered, it is clear that our minds are not entirely rational - providing us with 'facts' does not automatically guarantee we will use them to solve problems. Competing voices, both from within and without, can easily morph those facts into something different than the pure scientific form they originated in.
Our modern education system, from which arises the standard for our culture and the education of our children, is anchored by an archaic and incorrect premise: that knowledge can come from the human mind based on assertions that require no proof or verification. The origins of this error go back to ancient philosophers who were likely geniuses but did not have access to the real scientific data and physical methodologies available to us today. Many modern philosophers and social scientists still adhere to the fallacy that knowledge comes from thought. New evidence from the cognitive neurosciences is demonstrating that pure thought cannot spontaneously come from a brain designed for correlation, emotion and relative fitness. Special steps need to be taken to teach, understand and adhere to the scientific method, which in turn builds knowledge.
In the calm before the storm, we need to take stock in what our assets and liabilities really are. We have energy assets and liabilities and we have mental ones as well. As energy events conspire, and the average person becomes more stressed, we may distance ourselves even further from the rational aspects of our collective behaviour. Plans should be made ahead of time to address local, regional and national energy (and environmental) problems with hope but careful skepticism, for its unlikely we will get too many second chances. Robert Rapier and I share some viewpoints and disagree on others, but one thing I have always respected about him is his immediate skepticism of high claims. Whether he is an expert on a topic or a novice, he approaches a problem from a scientific, provable, verifiable foundation. If more of our countries civic leaders followed the scientific principles of 1)observe something in nature 2) make a hypothesis 3) test the hypothesis using physical methods and 4)repeat until statistically satisfied, we would find ourselves better served and better prepared for an era of energy declines. We must marry facts about geology and the environment with facts about our neural tendencies.
THE BOTTOM LINE
1) Facts are important and we need to continue to analyze and accumulate them about the natural world. But knowing how our brain will respond to these facts is equally important.
2) Peak Oil is a geologic phenomenon. Global warming is atmospheric climate science. But the words that define them both also represent belief systems. Certain people will 'believe' they are real and others will not, largely irrespective of what future facts come to light.
3) Humans have been the most successful species on the planet. On a planet now full of humans, our neural tendencies to look for magic solutions will be a blindspot that needs to be acknowledged. Seeking causative forces through scientific methods as opposed to offering correlation as proof is an important step.
4) The stigma of determinism and fear of sociobiology needs to be discarded. The answers to the large scale human problems cannot be solved by facts and science of the outside world alone - we need to incorporate facts about who we are into the equation. The nature and nurture debate has raged for too long without meaningful synergy - there is no nurture without nature.
5) The mere recognition of our tendencies to react positively to authority figures, optimism, recent information, etc, gives our brain a neutralizing agent against these real human phenomena.
6)The motion picture "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" is nearing a climax. Lets collectively write a happy ending.
P.S. Though my conclusions may seem a little strong, I too am subject to the recency effect and The Spirit in the Gene and some articles on the scientific method were the last pieces I read for researching this piece...;)
References and Further Reading
(1) Shiv and Fedorikhin, "Heart and Mind in Conflict: Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Human Decision-making", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 26 1999
(2) "Intertemporal Choice" (pdf) Chablis et Al, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics 2007 (to be published)
(3) Dawkins, R. The God Delusion 2006
(4) Newberg, Andrew, Why We Believe What We Believe Free Press, 2007
(5) Gilovich, T. How We Know What Isn't So - The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life 1991 Free Press
(6) Sapolsky, Robert Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers
(7) Eichenbaum, H. “Belief and Knowledge as Forms of Memory in Schacter and Scarry (eds) Memory, Brain and Belief Harvard University Press 2000
(8) Jay Hansons easy to understand laymans description of the scientific method.
(9) Morrison, Reg The Spirit in the Gene (Thanks to Jay Hanson who introduced me to this concept and to Reg)
(10) Gazzaniga, Michael The Minds Past
Further Reading:
Cosmides and Tooby, The Adapted Mind
Taleb, Nissem, Fooled By Randomness (Thanks to Kurt Cobb who gifted me this book)
Pinker, Steven, How the Mind Works
Pinker, Steven, The Blank Slate
Boyer, Pascal, Religion Explained
Cialdini, Bob, Influence
Why We Disagree on Peak Oil and Climate Change: Part III - Our Belief Systems
PDF version
100 comments
Why We Disagree on Peak Oil and Climate Change: Part III - Our Belief Systems
PDF version
100 comments
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
jbunt
Humans are indeed complex, and many time present a conflicting paradox. For example (based upon 40 years of annecdotal observation of people who have an actual monetary stake in the event), if interest rates are rising sufficiently to say that a trend is in place, then the majority will see that trent continuing, no matter how high they get. Only when the trend turns down, will the majority believe that interest rates are going lower, a belief that the majority will hold until the trend reverses back up.
On the other hand, standing at the roullette wheel in Las Vegas, if red comes up 10 times in a row, the majority, if forced to bet, will bet on black "because red cannot keep comming up."
With respect to the two examples, for some reason people seem to follow the first one. People go to the gas station and there is always gas there. So, there is no shortage of oil, end of discussion. If the price is going up, it is the greedy bastards at the oil companies that are at fault. I view it as kind of the "draining bathtub." Assume that you are living in a world in which you were living under a giant bathtub drain, and you got your water by turning a valve causing water to come out. You had no way of measuring the size of the bathtub. For 100 years, everytime you turned the valve, the water you needed came out. But, people who had skills that you knew nothing about claimed that the tub was being emptied and not refilled and would shortly run out. But, such things had been said in the past and been proven wrong, and even now there was a vast disagreement among such experts. Well, a majority of humans would probably not listen to such arguments. They do not reject them as such, since they do not understand what the experts do, but it is just too uncomfortable to accept their allegations. In fact, you, and everyone that you know, continues to get all of the water that you are willing to pay for.
In the 70's, to get people to cut back, the government used "the line theory" to get people to believe that there was an actual oil shortage when the Arabs took ownership of the oil feilds from the US major oil companies and instituted an embargo. In Texas, you could get gas only between 6 am and 6 pm. In addition, you could only go on an odd or even day, depending upon your license plate. In addition, you were limited to only 10 gallons. Ergo, long lines. People then thought, gee there must be a shortage, look at the lines. You could put the same restrictions on supermarket shopping, get long lines, and convice people that there is not enough food.
If peak oil is about to occur, or if it has occurred, the majority will not act until they see the "trend" change, i.e., they go to the gas station and cannot get all that they want. If the majority of politicians believed that peak oil was a threat, they could now institute rationing to postpone the event and/or mitigate its effects. But, that is probably political suicide, so the odds are that we will all have to wait until the actual peak oil event forces rationing. And that is when all hell breaks loose.
A while back I saw an article, where 20 people from a wedding party all died when the Toyota pick-up they were riding in went off a cliff. Aside from the logistics of how they managed to fit 20 people in a Toyota pick-up, I thought this was a pretty good analogy for the US. We're all packed in the back of the pick-up coming home from the party and we're letting THEM drive.
You would be surprised (or appalled)at how many people one has to fit into a pickup truck if poor. In Saudi Arabia I remember seeing a small pickup truck driving at high speed next to me. The open back was totally filled with migrant workers so that the front wheels of the truck bounded into the air for long spaces of time. You can also imaging what breaking and steering ability the driver must have had - or the Saudi accident rate.
Anecdotal evidence was that the local record was 57!
Interesting article Nate.
Personally i heard of PO in august 2004, when i sat in my car listening to a radiointervju with Professor Kjell Aleklett, where he said that GW would not be a problem due to hydrocarbons because they were running out.
Immideatly when i came home, i GOOGLED ASPO, and surfed to other PO links. I had no problems to grasp the facts and had no initial denial behaviour. Then i have followed the subject daily since then, and i also started personal PO preps that 2004 fall.
By what i have read here in TOD and other places, i am convinced that PO is NOW.
What is very weird, is that it seems that i am very lonely in this belief of PO. Relatives that i talk to do not believe me, and propably think that i am some kind of doomer.
It is like living in a paralell universe with other people, it is a somewhat strange feeling. No one i know of is doing any preps, or for that matter has heard of PO(other than from me, whom they seem not to believe), and why should they know of PO, or believe in what i am saying, since there is nothing about it in mainstream media?
Swede, yes, but what is the decline rate? ASPO's latest graphs show oil + gas down 40% by 2050, that is less than 1% a year (coal extraction in 2050 is predicted to be no less than today). The latest meme on climate change calls for 80% reduction in CO2 by 2050 or approx 2% per year. So, climate change will not be mitigated by peak carbon; we need to reduce even faster than declining supplies!
Yes you could be right JN2
But on the other hand, there is some scientists that somewhat dismiss this carbonhydrate burning as a main reason for GW. It could be that 95% of GW is caused by solarheating, cosmic rays and so on. We have had theese climat changes back in history.
Anyway we can not do anything to mitigate the climat change, and pretty much nothing to for example get China to burn less coal.
I think we are doomed to a climatchange and a die-off. The only thing that we can do is to personally prepare as best we can.
Best Kenneth
Hi Swede,
that is also my experience. Peoples inertia is just staggering. I also daily try to convince smokers to stop smoking: success rate may be 20-30%. Mostly they stop if it is already to late i.e. lung cancer, larynx cancer, etc. It is puzzling but seems to be related to the i.q..
But concerning PO also very bright persons don`t seem to "get it".
Well, I guess I will continue to prepare though I haven`t done much yet besides self defense, gaining knowlegde, driving a SMART car and simplifying my life in general.
Best regards J. Daehn
Nate: Re cognitive theory, there appears to be widespread agreement on TOD that oil supply growth, economic "growth", and increased standard of living are very highly linked/correlated. This tenet is considered to be so self-evident that there is never any evidence presented to substantiate it. IMO, global oil supply peak was 2005-2006. Oil prices will rise as supply declines. Demand destruction will occur. Effects on individuals will be varied, with the overstretched suburbanite falling off the cart right after the working poor. There is no evidence that the sequence of events I just described will slow down global growth. This is not 1977. The economic engine of the planet is China, not the USA.
What will be driving said economic growth of China (or the world), and more importantly, what will it literally be fueled by?
Joules: EROEI has been steadily declining. Global oil supply growth has been steadily declining (on a % basis) for approx 25 years. Global oil supply is currently on a 2.5 year plateau. Global economic growth is strong. China's growth is phenomenal. The USA is steadily losing ground. These are not theories, these are facts. Will circunstances change in the future? Probably. Currently, why do you think China is growing so strongly while global oil supply has plateaued and EROEI declines?
You did not answer my question, but I will posit an answer to yours. Look at this graph:
I don't see a plateau in China's oil use, do you? Of course, that doesn't prove causality. An economist will tell you that economic growth is driving oil consumption.
My argument stems from the laws of thermodynamics. Rewritten for economists, the first law is that money cannot create energy. The second is that energy will always degrade to a less useful form. Consider the following diagram:
The center square labeled "Economy" includes people, buildings, cars, machines, ideas, information, etc. All of these have embodied energy, and none can be created without the input of energy and raw materials. Many human-related things can limit the inputs, such as a lack of technical knowledge and (importantly) economic or political disfunction. On the output side, the economy discards that which it cannot use--trash and waste heat. Both of these arise from inefficient processes and the fact that things break down and buildings crumble (second law). Massive quantities of emitted CO2 is becoming our biggest trash problem, but the floating island of plastic in the Pacific is probably more visible from space.
Now, the economy CAN grow in spite of declining net inputs of energy and materials, ONLY IF that this decline is more than offset by increasing efficiencies on the use of energy and materials. The US has benefited tremendously in the last 20 years from increased efficiency. China is currently benefiting from vastly increased efficiency (machine labor much more productive than human labor) and increasing energy input.
Peak oil is about having an economy built for a given level and type of energy input having to deal with a steep decline. There is certainly the potential for dramatically increasing the net energy input by utilizing solar, wind, fission, fusion, etc., but the physical infrastructure, political will, and technical know-how are not in place. We can continue to become more efficient (such as by implementing Alan Drake's Rail Plan), but these require those things as well. And there are fundamental limits that we will eventually run up against WRT efficiency. And right now, we are running out of time.
Joules: If you are talking about American suburbia, yes you are running out of time. American suburbia is not the planet. Germany uses approx 25-30% less oil than 30 years ago, with a far larger economy. I know, there is a "thermodynamic" explanation. How much "thermodynamic energy" is Goldman Sachs using to print their money. If you think energy usage and wealth creation are the same thing you should do some more thinking/reading.
If you think that wealth is simply the supply of money, there is no hope for you and I won't even encourage further education.
I was kinda skeptical, but it looks like you're absolutely correct. EIA consumption tables show that Germany (as a whole) consumed 14% less petroleum in 2004 than in 1980 (2.65kb/d vs. 3.08). Pushing back to 1977 - before the second oil shock - would undoubtedly show a larger decrease.
Real per-capita GDP grew by about 1.8% during that time (link) and population grew by a bit more than 10% (link), meaning the overall economy grew by something like 80% (in real terms) during a 14% fall in oil consumption.
You are factually mistaken.
Anyone can check this for themselves, as I just did and as you should have before you made the claim:
For the whole available series, from 1980-2004? Increasing
For the last 20 years? Increasing
The last 15 years? 10 years? 5 years? Increasing, increasing, increasing.
Three of the top five year-on-year percentage increases were within the last 5 years of the dataset, and 6 of the top 10.
Anyone at all can check this for themselves if they don't believe me. Indeed, I heartily encourage it - please, look at the data, do the math, check for yourself.
Moreover, that you should assert something so blatantly untrue - and not be challenged on it! - in the discussion about an article on how people who don't believe in peak oil ignore "the facts" is terribly ironic.
And telling.
We hope that you will see the value of submitting and voting for these articles on the various link farms, including digg and reddit (though we seem to have been "black listed" at those latter two of late...). Nate's (hell, everyone here's) deserves to be read, let's get him as many eyes as possible.
Thanks!
Some OPEC countries sense there is room to expand production and were planning to do so.
OECD economic growth and OPEC per capita gasoline consumption continued to fuel oil demand. Volvo posted record profits this year. These last few years auto sales soared in China, Russia, and India. Gasoline consumption was up 2.5% in the US while world oil production did not exceed 1 percent growth YOY. The US summer ethanol blending will create additional costs for US motorists.
There was additional refinery capacity expansion creep with expectations of builds in oil production. China put a cap on coal to liquids investments. There was a lot of action in the Tarim Basin and interest in the South China Sea. Offshore projects might take 4-10 years or more to bring onstream after funding approval and subject to rig and crew availability. Old single hull tankers were being converted to FPSO's, there are currently about 200 such vessels in use.
The oil industry is subject to price volatility, yet OPEC has consistently succeeded in preventing $40 oil.
That was a great article, Nate. Definitely going to bookmark that one. Thanks.
PS - love the Ghostbusters reference too :)
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
Glenn Beck had a short story last night on his program on CNN. He also has a story on his website.
http://www.glennbeck.com/perfectstorm/index.shtml
Finally!
Ahh. The peak oil story and the reptilian brain story come together.
That'll be a fun combination.
| The problem will solve itself.
| But not in a nice way.
Well, Beck is a global warming denier.
His preferred solution to peak oil is probably massive
coal use, including coal to liquids: climate catastrophe.
Both greenhouse warming and peak oil arise from scientific, geophysical facts, and it's again a reptilian brain failure to be very concerned about one (peak oil) and dismiss the other as "hype" or "baloney".
Scientifically: in fact, quite accurately and profoundly measuring and comprehensively mapping the properties of the atmospheres and oceans is easier than doing the same in deep underground rocks.
Established, and irrefutable laws of thermodynamics and electromagnetism more clearly and securely explain and predict global warming than attempting to guess about factual occurrences back in geological time which produced oil.
On the monkey brain:
Humans are evolved to see threats primarily coming from other *humans*, especially strangers, or perhaps, vicious animals. This triggers an emotional response---i.e. a powerful cognitive "shortcut", a survival approximation, which enhanced survival and reproductive fitness.
This is the driving origin of so much political identity and power---the fear-based, tribal kind. It gets votes, and it gets TV ratings.
All of the subjects mentioned on Beck's website quoted above are exactly of that nature.
The boogeyman is The Them---bad people, evildoers.
Peak Oil works here because the big blame can be put, somewhat legitimately, and fully emotionally, on the evildoers. (Global warming works in Europe, in part, because the blame can be put, somewhat legitimately, on evildoing Americans. Russians seem to get off, because Europe needs their CH4?)
By contrast, abstract, not-directly-perceptible scientific phenomena, e.g. most environmental issues, don't generate any evolutionarily favored emotional issues. Believing the effects require complex cognitive thought and education, and there is no "Them" evildoer to blame, as opposed to "all of us".
Science link and pictures of the day.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6613717.stm
Jupiter images.
Huge Volcano explosions on IO, and a huge gathering storm on Jupiter.
Just like here.
must be those jupitarians and those polluting spaceships. thats the ticket, yea, yea. Jupitarians, spaceships, solves GW on Jupiter,
Quid Clarius Astris
Ubi Bene ibi patria
Excellent post Nate! In keeping with the Goethe quote, I like most of what you write especially because I agree with it. I would also add E.O. Wilson's Sociobiology: The New Synthesis as a book to read to learn more.
I do quibble with some of the examples you use to illustrate your points. For instance, "Our pattern recognition system is essentially misfiring in a world of too many patterns – “NFC wins Superbowl and stock market goes up" (I had clients investing on that one) – “I can’t date guys who are Virgos” – ‘Walk under a ladder with a black cat and get really bad luck’ –‘Your second Chakra looks a little weak today’ ‘The market will solve it’ etc."
Please tell me you don't really mean to equate the ~10,000 year record of trade and commerce leading to solutions with astrology and Chakras?! I think someone's pattern recognition system is very sound if they see that the market has solved many things and produced an abundance of goods, services and opportunities. Just in the context of energy, the market built an oil industry that reaches the far corners of the earth, drills deep underground, pumps oil, delivers it, refines it and places it so close to your house that you can probably price shop before you leave your driveway. The market, not content with one solution, built alternatives like ethanol, and alternatives to that like biodiesel, and alternatives to that like mass produced bikes and alternatives to that like good hiking boots and so on ad infinitum. A dynamic market produces real solutions.
A small quibble really; this is a great post.
Those were examples of abstractions unrelated to eachother. But the 'market' IS an abstraction.
Since Ive been divorced Ive been on dozens of dates where astrology is one of the first topics discussed - in fact I can count on one hand the women I met who didnt believe in astrology. Astrology is just one form of mysticism but was the reason I bought the books on why we believe what we do.
If I werent distracted by this whole Peak Oil thing I was going to write a paper on disproving astrology. Prof Cloninger at Wash U has a huge genetic /temperament/personality database which he used to determine what % of our personality was genetic vs cultural.
I was going to base an average prediction by a handful of respected astrologers what each zodiac sign would predict about someones personality - then divide Cloningers sample by zodiac sign and test it. The hypothesis would be: each month would have a roughly normal distribution of lovers, control freaks, dreamers, etc and that the date of ones birth had no causative role in our personalities.
Who knows maybe Id be wrong.
Nate,
Probably the only time I will ever say this to/about you:
You sir, are an idiot!
Seriously dude, rather than try to disprove it and bitch about women being so into it, just go with it!
Example:
Hottie: Chimp, what is your sign?
Chimp: Well my sun is in cancer, my moon is Aries . . .
Hottie: I'm a virgo, blah blah blah
Chimp: You mean your sun sign is virgo? The sun is the masculine, so that means you're attracted to virgo men but then you have to look at the mars/venus signs to determine sexual compatability . . . .
Hottie: Really? I was born such and such . . .
See where this is going? Of course you actually have to be interested in this stuff in order to be congruent about it. . .
(Of course I'm completely single at the moment so I really am in no position to dole out the advice but you get my point)
Chimp
Only my professors would know about the study (and my left brain)..;)
Your study would have to go beyond just the sun sign anyhow, that's sort of like trying to predict somebody's job by their hair or eye color.
As an example: I have a bunch of planets in the 12th house which is:
Of course I make my living from discussing what is "apparent to everybody else but hidden" to my own tribe which is our energy predicament.
there are some very small seasonal patterns based on birth month in some human parameters. This is presumed to be differering ensemble effects of seasonal infectious diseases/immune responses, and perhaps temperature and activity, among pregnant mothers.
My favourite saying by Nietzsche is:
In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.
This is especially appropriate these days.
Market does work but the tragedy is that because it has worked so well in switching from DVDs to CDs, most of us believe that the transition from fossil fuel to hydrogen/biofuels will be no problem.
It's also true for some PO proponents: "oil production and human population growth are correlated therefore PO will induce a population reduction".
Unfortunately, investigating Causation is very often a long and tedious process requiring a good knowledge of the hidden variables that are truly controlling the observables.
Khebab, thats a good point. Unfortunately that particular example (like many related to this topic) is not one that can be easily tested until after the fact.
Natural gas (via fertilizer) probably has more impact on food availability than oil, other than oils transport and farm machinery roles.
The most obvious way of reducing the population will be by the growth of powerty following an economic crisis, like in FSU. Well before starving to death, people will simply receive less health cares, suffer from the cold due to increasing heating costs, drink more alcohol, and probably commit more suicides....
This is my first comment, but let me give this a shot. The following are all statements relying ultimately either on thermodynamics or conservation of mass.
I'd love for someone to point out the flaw in this reasoning, btw.
1. People are made of food.
2. Food is made of either plant or animal material.
3. All animal material originally comes from plants, since sunlight is the only source of energy, and animals are not photosynthetic.
4. Plants are made of the nutrients they extract from the soil, in the presence of water and sunlight.
5. Normally, nutrients in the ground are the result of decaying plants, decaying animals, or animal waste. Tigers, lions, and even "primitive" humans put their bodily wastes, including post-mortem wastes, directly in the ground where they become the necessary fuel for plant growth.
6. Modern humans sequester their bodily wastes, and instead use fossil fuels to supply the necessary nutrients to the soil. Through industrial farming, all plant and animal matter is used for production, and is not allowed to significantly decay into the soil.
Fossil fuels supply the nutrients, which supply the plants, which supply the animals, both of which supply people with the necessary matter and energy for conception, growth, and life itself. The wastes we produce as a result of our human lives do not go back into the living system to fuel future life.
Declining fossil fuels means declining nutrients to the soil, which means declining crop yields, which means declining industrial farm animal populations, both of which means declining human populations.
Unless someone can find where 6.5 billion people (each person consisting of an average of 55 kg of mass, for a total of 357.5 billion kg of mass) are going to start getting their food from, if not the fossil-fuel-supplied fields.
710, there is one important factor which you forgot: WATER!!
A lot of agriculture now depends on pumping ground water with diesel or electricity powered pumps. In many parts of the world, ground water is used for direct human consumption as well. In almost all the important food producing regions, the water table is now falling rapidly.
I mentioned water in item 4. Just mentioning water, though, certainly doesn't do it justice.
Drinking increasing amounts of water alone will make you gain weight temporarily until you relieve yourself. Eating increasing amounts of food will make you gain weight. Having a vast freshwater lake available to a tribe will not enable it to increase its population, unless there is food in the lake, or food growing alongside the like.
People are made of the water content of their bodies, but water, alone, is insufficient for life, there much also be a flow of energy (from sunlight, or for most animals, fats, proteins, and carbohydrates). There must also be a flow of matter (nutrients, vitamins, enzymes, proteins again).
Water is what allows these building blocks to work, and water is part of the system. Water is certainly necessary, but water is insufficient in and of itself for life. There must also be energy flow. There must also be an exchange of matter.
In people, this energy flow and exchange of matter come exclusively from food.
Okay.
Sewage doesn't get shot into space or anything - the minerals it contains are still going to get released back into the environment eventually. From the start of the wikipedia article on sewage treatment:
"Sewage treatment, or domestic wastewater treatment, is the process of removing contaminants from wastewater, both runoff and domestic. It includes physical, chemical and biological processes to remove physical, chemical and biological contaminants. Its objective is to produce a wastestream (or treated effluent) and a solid waste or sludge also suitable for discharge or reuse back into the environment."
From the sounds of it, the large majority of materials in sewage are returned to the environment in short order.
By "nutrients" you mean "nitrogen", since that's the only fertilizer component whose production significantly involves fossil fuels (link), and even it can be produced without fossil fuels - it's just that natural gas is currently the cheapest hydrogen source. Others, such as potassium and phosphorus, are also sourced in non-renewable manners (mining), but are not related to fossil fuels, and none of them are related to oil.
That's a common error, though.
Substantial amounts of plant matter are rapidly turned into fertilizer in the form of manure from animal feedlots or decaying crop residue from prior crops.
Indeed, I see no particular indication that a substantial minority of farmed plant matter does not make it back into the ecosystem. Perhaps you would care to cite evidence that such a thing occurs?
So, basically, your sixth point is incorrect, meaning that all your conclusions based on it are also flawed.
Nice article Nate.
You show clearly why even people of scientific bent and training have a tough time grasping peak oil. I see it as a near impossibility for those who don't think scientifically, either by training or natural hardwiring.
Clearly all the other modes of Human to Human decision making and influence dominate in non scientists. Even scientists revert to non science approaches often to achieve ends. I observe (without supporting data!) that scientists almost always revert to other modes of thought when dealing with non scientists, because scientific logic doesn't work.
So we have the same problem in peak oil that the climate scientists had with global warming. It takes years for the scientific community to come to consensus on the data and agree on consequences. Upto and even after this consensus the general population of the world has no concept of what they are supposed to do to address the problem. Only when this consensus message is repackaged as non science communication (years after the scientists have reached consensus) does the message resonate with the general public.
The difference is that peak oil deals with the energy supply, so not motivating the general population to change behavior early likely results in disaster for the species. I see only one solution to this. We need a charismatic leader that understands the energy issue internally. That leader can then parlay/interpret/spread the message (whatever the definition) quickly to the general population who are then self motivated to proactively change their behavior in the correct way.
I am open to other options (i.e. paying for marketing) but I suggest we get on with the search for that leader as the quickest and cheapest way to move forward on Peak oil.
MURPHY's LAW
TOD has an audience full of leaders. We have the technology at our finger tips to motivate the general public, and we now have a perfect tool to do so... A Crude Awakening.
Good article,
cognitive load theory sounds about the same as bounded rationality. very interesting concepts.
This fact has always fascinated me! the placebo effect is probably one of the greatest mystery in medicine. It clearly demonstrates that believing 100% in something is making you stronger. I always wondered why evolution has chosen to promote this kind of mechanism. It's fascinating that beliefs (religion, superstition, etc.) that are disconnecting you from reality seem to increase in fact your chance of survival.
great article by the way.
I have to agree with you there. as a newbie to this site who can find no way of denying or getting round the arguments presented i wish i could go back to blissful ignorance,i really really do.Paradoxically this makes me less inclined to convert others to P.O .If were as doomed as people think,if the horrendous chaos ahead is going to happen whatever we do what aim will it serve.The Titanic had lifeboats,looks like ours floated off.
Take the blue pill, wake up in your own bed, and believe whatever you want to: Rupert Murdoch wants to buy the WSJ. Anna Nicole's baby is leaving the Bahamas. Let's get a couple 40 oz's!
The placebo effect is purely a power of invocation that facilitates healing. From an evolutionary (species/individual survival) perspective it makes a lot of sense even tho it may be mysterious as to how this works.
But to misapply this singular healing effect in all the ways that your statement does is IMHO a vast conflation of the placebo effect.
Your explanation is like trying to use Heidegger or Nietzsche to understand chemistry. There is already a well developed body of social psychological science that uses proper experimental techniques and data to understand and draw conclusions about the mechanisms behind group and individual behavior.
I think its more like using Darwin to explain social psychology. To me, and this is a postulation, all sociology and psychology will soon be unified by biology. Those sciences have pieced together how we behave without having an understanding or explanation of how that behaviour originated.
In any case, for purposes of this post and this topic (peak oil)it is enough to know that these phenomenon exist, irrespective of their origins.
From a medical standpoint I wholeheartedly have to agree! This is what I`ve always suspected and now the picture is getting clearer every day.
Best Regards,
JD
You've presented a variety of (mostly patronizing) reasons why people might not agree with your conclusions, but from my reading of your three articles, you appear to have largely ignored one very simple reason:
People think you're wrong.
There can be lots of reasons for that, but the simplest and most likely one is that other people have different sets of experiences, different training, and different underlying biases than you do, and hence will intelligently and rationally interpret new information differently.
Differently, not necessarily "incorrectly".
Your articles appear to have taken as a given that you're entirely correct, and that anyone who disagrees with you must be fundamentally in error. That's a great starting point for a sermon, but a terrible starting point for any attempt to understand or to help others understand. The overall impression is "here's why those primitive, foolish sheeple don't agree with us", which isn't very productive.
It would be more useful to sit down with your friend, lay out your case, see what he objects to, see where your responses to those objections go, and try to figure out where you and he fundamentally disagree on something that neither one of you has the facts to back up one way or the other, and then examine how important those belief differences are and why you hold the position you do.
For example, you and your friend appear to have a fundamental disagreement about whether market analysts will figure out what is going on.
If you want to understand why you believe differently than someone else does, it's easier to rigorously analyze your beliefs rather than theirs. And usually more productive, too.
Thanks for your feedback Pitt. I have had many such discussions with Thomas and others and have concluded that environmental and ecosystem encroachment, net energy and flow rates are the biggest 'factual' differences in my opinion vs. he and others. I am by no means certain that my view is the correct one - My own beliefs on both Peak Oil and climate change, as I indicated in this post, have been very fluid, no pun intended.
What happens if I am wrong? Not much. What happens if they are wrong? Quite a bit. Sorry it sounded like a sermon to you - I do feel quite strongly that the areas I am writing about are at the heart of the problems we face, and try and include as many references as possible as these are not my ideas - Im just connecting some dots.
Low ability to judge assymetry of consequences is another weakness of human cognition, isn't it?
I have been struggling with the challenge of having constructive conversations about peak oil since 1998. One aspect of that challenge has been a consistent failure on my part to be able to convey the complexity of the peak oil situation (involving relative rates and reams of detail evidence) quickly and clearly.
Over time to now, my thinking also has shifted to view the peak high-quality-energy-dilemma at a more meta level, i.e., our addiction to growth in throughput feeds not only our peak high quality energy dilemma, but also a myriad other limits to growth.
With that in mind, and Donella Meadows' essay, "Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System" (pdf) also in mind, recently I began an experiment to try to illuminate Bartlett's exponential growth thesis more succinctly, an 8.5 min YouTube video clip, "Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?".
Now I'm looking for feedback. (-;
--
Authentic learning ends where faith begins.
Are Humans Smarter Than Yeast?
Hello Chay,
First, Kudos to Nate for an excellent keypost! I will DIGGIT shortly.
Great video!--my feedback: blowback forces are quickly coming to the fore, thus IMO, you need to add more to the Cliff explanation. Hence, I would like to see more video and discussion of Exponential Decline.
For example: Zimbabwe and Zambia life expectancy is rapidly pummeting. From memory recall of CIA Factbook, I believe it is now around 35 years due to rapidly rising deathrates. It would not surprise me to see this approach an average life expectancy of 20 years or less until this area bottoms out at a more sustainable equilibrium with their environment. Such is life.
Dr. Richard Duncan's Olduvai Gorge Theory does an excellent job of predicting future declines due to energy shortages. Check it out by googling it if it is new to you.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Chay,
Imagine yourself trying to have a constructive conversation with Sir Isaac Newton regarding photon entanglement within the realm of quantum mechanics.
Much as the guy was a genius, he would probably see you as being stark raving mad. The reason is because his educational background and cultural mythos do not allow for a God that plays dice with the Universe. Even Albert Einstein revolted against the idea.
You simply cannot have any random conversation with any random person. They have to share some background belief systems with you. Otherwise, despite the fact that you see your position as being totally rational, they see it as being "way out there".
People think you're wrong.
There can be lots of reasons for that, but the simplest and most likely one is that other people have different sets of experiences, different training, and different underlying biases than you do, and hence will intelligently and rationally interpret new information differently.
Of course, that's a possibility, but I don't think it's the most likely when you talk about ensemble population averages, as opposed to the readership of this blog.
I have found that most people are rational about their specific, everyday activites but large-scale, global, scientific issues require much more evidence, specific knowledge, and intellectual temperament that but a minority possess. The reason for this is also understandable because getting there requires talent but especially work that has little value for most.
Of course it's an 'elitist' statement, but it is also likely to be true in these areas.
An interesting note: consider how easily the average person accepts athletic elitism and deference to their superiority versus intellectual elitism. Evolutionary origins?
jbunt
"intellectual temperament that but a minority possess"
Great point. I wish that I a dollar for everyone that I have met that believes that auto's would get a 100 miles per gallon, except that the oil companies bought the patents. Or, that there are 100's of ships being held offshore until the price rises.
"If you want to understand why you believe differently than someone else does, it's easier to rigorously analyze your beliefs rather than theirs. And usually more productive, too."
Nate points out that he has started from scratch with the PO issue a number of times, questioning his own belief.
This piece has more to do with him trying to figure out why other intelligent people might view the issue differently from him, assuming the same facts are there for them to find/read.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
Retreading the same road won't get you to a different destination.
I'm suggesting he dig out his key assumptions - beliefs he's relying on that he doesn't have the evidence to rigorously back up - and look into why he holds those beliefs. It can be hard to identify those beliefs - we often gloss over them - which is why I suggest looking for "irreducible disagreements" with his intelligent-but-unconvinced friend.
If his intelligent-but-unconvinced friend disagrees on a specific point, there's a good chance the evidence isn't there. And, if Nate believes the evidence is there, then that is the irreducible disagreement - their opinions regarding the strength of the evidence.
Examining those kinds of specific disagreements on core beliefs will - I think - be much more productive than trying to explain in general terms why "they" don't "get it". Example belief differences from his opening dialogue:
- Assumption.
- Conflating oil with energy.
- Assumption about the practices and competence of asset allocators.
- Assumption about the knowledge of asset allocators.
- Assumption regarding the future of energy production, asset allocator competence, and technological progress.
- Assumption that The Oil Drum is objective verging on authoritative.
- Assumption that a peak in oil supply will lead to scarcity of energy.
- Assumption regarding unseen details - unless he's ponied up to read the details of reports like CERA's - and changing the subject by saying "wellll, even if there is more oil, we're still doooomed because that's bad for global warming."
From my perspective - as a practising, publishing scientist who is well-versed in rational analysis and evidence-based argumentation - that conversation is an example of neither. While I appreciate that it was a conversation, not a serious attempt to convince his friend, it's not so dissimilar from the majority of things I've seen written on The Oil Drum - chock full of unexplored and unsupported assumptions which are absolutely crucial to the conclusions reached.
If you want to know why people don't believe you, examine your assumptions. If you can't justify those assumptions - to them, not to yourself - you won't be able to convince them through a rational argument, and may well not be right at all.
Pitt,
The conversation was purposefully polarized to show how peoples beliefs can differ and served as a foundation for this post. It was a conversation, and youre 'assuming' that those are mine and Thomas's positions.
If you send me an email address, I will send you my own academic writing on these subjects which are impossibly (but necessarily) too dry for a volunteer-based broad public forum like theoildrum.
Nate the Younger.
I enjoyed Nate's article and agree that what's in our heads is going to be very important in dealing with peak oil and climate change.
I do not think that biology plays the all-important role that Nate ascribes to it.
There is no need to go to the level of the "three brains" to explain most current attitudes. Sociology and social psychology, which Nate also discusses, are more relevant.
Propaganda, advertising, group pressure, ideology -- these are the obvious phenomenona. It's much easier to do something about them than physically re-wiring everybody's brains.
The use of biology to explain behavior has a bad history -- it tends to be associated with authoritarian conservativism and racism, as for example the "scientific" racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries. My objection to sociobiology is not that it is wrong, so much as that it is naive and ignorant about social factors.
Bart
The use of biology to explain behavior has a bad history -- it tends to be associated with authoritarian conservativism and racism, as for example the "scientific" racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries. My objection to sociobiology is not that it is wrong, so much as that it is naive and ignorant about social factors.
You probably know this but other readers won't parse the nuances in this paragraph. Sociobiology was developed starting in the 1970's by scientists looking at how genes affect behavior in organisms that form colonies like ants and bees. As molecular biology has expanded, sociobiology has explanded along with it to explain the behavior of 'higher' organisms such as apes and humans. It is especially good at explaining the behavior of individuals in kinships. This is completely different than the eugenics movements of the 19th and early 20th centuries. This movement was a way to justify already held racist beliefs by measuring craniums and the like.
I would add that sociobiology isn't ignorant about social factors at all, it just correctly proves them unimportant.
The diminishing return of our dependence on spellcheckers?
YOU'RE - YOUR
desert - dessert
overweight - overweigh
P.S. Nate, I much appreciate perhaps your central point - that we're all easily deceived by our own cleverness and past success (individual and collective).
Nate wrote:
I am a hard core determinist and an avid reader of sociobiologists such as Pinker, Dawkins, Wilson and others. I had no idea this had anything to do with peak oil however.
But now that I think about it I can see the connection. People disbelieve in peak oil, or rather the consequences of peak oil, not because of any facts that are presented to them but because it violates their world view.
And that world view is that things will go on as they currently are, or get better, for the rest of our life and the lives of our children and grandchildren. Doomers are hated as if we were the Devil himself. After all we are attacking their world view that things will just get better and better, that this warm and cozy world that will keep us in safety and comfort for many decades into the future.
Ron Patterson
Nate's article is interesting and provocative, thanks for sharing your ideas and knowledge.
Personally, I think we can "rise above" many of our intellectual limitations because we have the ability to refect and step outside ourselves and imagine ourselves watching from a distance and analysing our own cognative processes.
I don't believe our responses to Peak Oil are mainly based on our ability to understand complex information. Peak Oil isn't that hard to understand is it? But doing something about it, is another story. When confronted with many of the great problems we face as a society people have a tendency to step back because they know they have so little influence on society so why bother thinking about it?
We should be looking at how Power and Wealth are distributed in society, if we are serious about dealing with the Peak Oil problem. Many of the solutions we touch opon are Utopian. Expecting an economic system which has brought us to this place in time, will suddenly turn itself inside out and becoming something else. It won't happen. I mean we can't even save the tiger or the orangutan and now we want to save civilization!
Our current econmic system is a form of socially sanctioned criminality, a form of planetary rape followed by murder. Harsh words, but isn't this what we're really doing to the planet?
The current economic system will continue with all that implies. The massive disparity of wealth and power will grow increasingly wide, and Peak Oil will only make the gap wider. Modern Capitalism does a "great" job of producing stuff, most of it rubbish, but a very poor job of distributing that wealth fairly, but once again this is built into the system. Unless we look at fundamental power relationships we'll be going round in circles forever.
jbunt
Well, for 200,000 years the economic spoils went to the person who could beat the crap out of you. For the last 500 years, it goes to those who can think better than you. So, what system do you want to go back to??
With respect to planetary rape, everything that humans have ever made (roads, buildings, cars, furniture, houses, etc.), eaten, consumed, etc., including all of the oil, will fit in a 40 cubic mile space.
What the hell does that mean? Is there any intelligence at all in that statement? The tragedy lies not in what we have made but what we have destroyed Jbunt. We are losing 1% of the remaining topsoil each year. Many rivers no longer reach the sea. Great bodies of water like the Aral Sea and Lake Chad are drying completely up. Fisheries are being depleted and the extinction rate is 1000 times pre human levels. Deserts are expanding and rainforest are disappearing. Water tables are dropping and weather patterns are changing. Yes, we are destroying the world.
Ron Patterson
- The destruction of the natural world is not the result of
global capitalism, industrialization, 'Western civilization'
or any flaw in human institutions. It is a consequence of
the evolutionary success of an exceptionally rapacious
primate. Throughout all of history and prehistory, human
advance has coincided with ecological devastation.
John Gray, "Straw Dogs"
jbunt
Some of us are intelligent enough to read about the history of the world back to Pangea, e.g., and forward. 60 million years ago the north pole had a jungle like environment with dinosaurs, etc. Who was responsible for destroying that world? I guess humans were. If you think that changing a few rivers will change the world, you are nuts. In fact, if you think that humans have the possiblility of destroying the earth, you are even more crazy than almost anyone that I have ever met. Can we change some things? Of course. But, destroy the earth? You must think that humans have the power of a god! A one square mile meteor striking the earth has more power by a significant magnitude than all of the nuclear bombs set off at once. And, the last time I checked, the dinasaurs are gone, but the earth still looks okay to me.
I probably should not feed the . . . but what the heck:
We are not about to destroy the planet itself. We are destroying a large part of the comparingly tiny zone between the floor of the oceans and the upper stratosphere (or whatever) that is our ONLY habitat in the universe right now*. The rest is barren rock or glowing lava or plain vacuum. I hope you get the point.
Species always died out -99% of all species that ever lived are history- but never before at such a rate. That`s the point. Agreed?
*and space colonization is a damn hard and daring and frustrating thing to do - travelling bazillions of lightyears over generations to distant planets that might not be worth the journey :-((
jbunt
Is not the "tiny Zone" between the ocean floor and the upperstratosphere larger than the earth itself? I think that the previous comments were regarding the earth, without focusing on space or the atmosphere (yet).
You just made that up. Which was stupid, considering one guy's sig has a cubic-mile-based measurement right in it.
The amount of oil consumed in a year - 30B barrels - is about one cubic mile. We've consumed about 1,000B barrels. Ergo, we've used up 80% of your "40 cubic mile space" with just oil, and it's pretty obvious that oil is not 80% of world production by volume.
Making shit up isn't helpful, no matter which side of the debate you're on.
Thank you, Nate:
for this absolutely essential piece of the puzzle. It's hard to appreciate just how programmed and inflexible we are, until we're forced into a paradigm shift without a clutch.
My Organic Chem professor taught his classes about the irreplaceability and finiteness of petroleum in 1974, and he lived his dogma, too. But it wasn't until this century, when the wick burned low, that it came to the fore of my worries. Still, between Jevon's Paradox and the stubborn denials of the Administration, it seemed like there was little point to agitating for change.
Now I've been selected for a focus group to be held tomorrow, in which each of us will present what we think is the biggest issue in the coming election. Guess what I said was mine.
Your timely contribution will help my preparation much more than any facts-and-stats cheatsheet ever could. Thank you.
- N
My preliminary opinion of this piece is that it's the best short essay ever written by any human at any time on any subject.
Good 'un, Nate!
Of course, it is the most recent thing I've read.
I dont write these posts for kudos or praise but to explore issues that I am interested in that I feel should be more broadly discussed.
However, your comment made my day...;)
As much as I agree with everything in the essay, there's often a self-congratulatory air of "despite all the flaws in human cognition rampant elsewhere, here at the oil drum, pure reason prevails."
Bottom line:
1) Facts are important.
There's almost no need to go past this first item on your list. The thing is, we're not all working from the same set of "facts." In the New York Times today I read that "We have enough coal for anywhere from 200 to 450 years." Isn't that a relief? I don't believe it for a second, but that's only because I read the Oil Drum and the Energy Bulletin, unlike the vast majority of people who, if they've read anything at all about the world's coal supply, have read that we have enough supply to last for hundreds of years.
At the end of the day, concepts like "peak oil," "limits to growth," and energy return on energy invested have a very low level of general awareness. The Congressional Peak Oil Caucus has, what, two members? The GAO has issued a peak oil report? Fantastic! How many reports did the GAO issue in 2006? Etc.
The level of knowledge and awareness is more salient at this point than all the other factors listed. Far more people know nothing about peak oil theory than dispute it because of faulty cognitive wiring.
Peak oil peaks out of the underbrush as a public issue when gas prices spike. So, in other words, once the crisis starts in earnest, people will think about it in earnest. It's not because of a generalized weakness in cognition, but because the issue can't possibly rise above the white noise of all other pressing issues absent that crisis.
You may be interested in the recent, free, online book by psychologist Robert Altemeyer. He discusses the "authoritarian personality", this type believes in a strong leader and tends to follow the belief system they are brought up in.
Here's the link:
The Authoritarians
His concerns are mainly with the political implications, but his work is general enough to apply in cases like this as well.
Robert, I would like to add to that. Stephen Leeb in "How You Can Thrive When Oil Costs $200 a Barrel" writes of Milton Rokeach. Rokeach proposed a paradigm of two personality types, the 'authoritarian' and the 'open minded'. Regarding authoritarian persons, Leeb wrote "Those who like hierarchies and are equally comfortable giving and taking orders are authoritarian personalities. [Sort of the definition of a politician, no?] Their ideas about the past and future are highly idealized and they have little sense of anything outside the present, or how the present might be changing. An authoritarian leader therefore tends to ignore growing problems until they make their effects seriously felt".
Conversely, I'll suggest that the vast majority of people on this site fit Rokeach's model of 'open minded' as described by Leeb: "Open-minded people have a broad perspective on time. They base their expectations for the future on a realistic appraisal of the past and the present".
Finally, I'll mention one of the threads on Matt Savinar's site, regarding personality profiles. A number of the vistors have taken a Meyers-Briggs test linked at the beginning of the tread and them posted the result in a tally. Interestingly enough, the last time I visited 38% of the participants were members of a group that represents only 2% of the general population. Way, way, way skewed!
I'll now propose a theory for us to kick around: psychologically, POers are not representative of the general public. If true, this could lead to a couple more theories: 1) most of the folks on this site don't really understand the worldview of the majority of the puplic, and 2) the majority of the public will not and cannot 'get it' until "effects seriously felt".
Personally, I'm not depending upon any timely and meaningful response to PO or GW by the US leadership or general public.
Hello TODers,
FWIW: Interesting link came up when I googling along Asimov's Foundation concepts of predictive collapse and directed decline and Zimbabwe:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art17/
-----------------------------------------------------
Collapse and Reorganization in Social-Ecological Systems: Questions, Some Ideas, and Policy Implications
ABSTRACT
We tested the explanatory usefulness and policy relevance of Holling’s (2001) “adaptive cycle” theory in exploring processes of “collapse,” also called “release,“ and recovery in regional social-ecological systems (SESs) in Zimbabwe and Australia. We found that the adaptive cycle is useful in recognizing changes in system behavior during the various phases. However, our small sample of cases did not generally show either the sequential passage of stages or the prerelease decline in resilience that adaptive cycle theory implies. In all cases, however, the reasons for releases were apparent with hindsight. On the other hand, our examples mostly supported the proposition that resilience is controlled by slowly changing variables. Although we found the adaptive cycle, and complex system theory in general, to be useful integrating frameworks, disciplinary theories are required to explain causes and effects in specific cases. We used theories linking distribution of political power to institutional change; to investment in natural, human, social, and physical capitals; and to access to financial capital. We explored patterns of change of these capitals before, during, and after release and reorganization. Both the patterns of change and relative importance of the different capitals during reorganization varied widely, but the importation of resources from broader scales was often a key to recovery. We propose that the resilience of most regional or national SESs can be explained in these terms. The capacity to self-organize emerged from our studies as a critical source of resilience. Although rebuilding this capacity at times requires access to external resources, excessive subsidization can reduce the capacity to self-organize. The policy implication is that cross-scale subsidization should end when self-organization becomes apparent, because subsidization can increase the vulnerability of the system as a whole. When the aim is to recover without changing the system fundamentally, the focus should be upon conserving or investing in the elements of capital critical for this. If the current system is not viable, it is necessary to invest in forms of capital that will enable fundamental change. It will also be necessary to stop investing in the capitals that maintained the unviable regime. The political difficulty of doing this is why SESs so often remain maladapted to current conditions and opportunities and eventually reach the point of collapse.
------------------------------------------
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
There is a large investment to be made in understanding the world in all of its facets. It goes beyond simply preparing oneself for a career and is usually only had by those who enjoy the pursuit without expectation of monetary compensation. A vast majority of the electorate do not fit into this category. Even most of the college-educated have jumped through hoops without daring to look up, down, left or right or without actually connecting the immense number of facts into understandable patterns.
I often mention topics like Peak Oil or monetary inflation to family and friends and I can see them bouncing around inside the person’s head without any place to land like an enzyme without any substrate. Sometimes I think their hostility may be because I'm making them feel ignorant rather than destroying their world view. These same people often use instinct when deciding upon someone for elected office, sometimes the same criteria they use when choosing a sexual mate such as facial bilateral symmetry, a gorgeous mane of hair, a nice smile, apparent wealth, confidence and sense of humor. Maybe that’s why the candidates want the $400.00 haircuts. If the candidate passes the appearance test the voter may have one other issue in their heads like abortion or gay marriage or gun control and that’s what they vote on. There is not a complex world made of thermodynamics, ecology, overshoot and Peak Oil in their heads.
Most people will vote for someone like themselves or someone they perceive as being “a good guy”. The good guy is usually very much like the people that elected him/her. The good guy will hire or assign specialists, scientists and the like to advise him/her. The advisors will broach the subject with the leader and the advisors will still get that empty vacuous look and will find advisors that tell him what he wants to hear. So our leader, the conductor of our train, has been advised that the bridge ahead is out, gone, nowhere in sight and he says “No, there’s no way, it can’t be out. I’ve been over that bridge a thousand times. Besides that, we have the best repair crew in all the lands and they’ll fix it before we get there.” All of the passengers are in a hurry to get to their (monetary) destinations and there will be hell to pay if he stops the train. He guns the engines and the train lurches ahead. The advisors gather their belonging and move to the back of the train. They pull the coupling pin on the last car and it coasts to a stop. They watch as the locomotive barrels on towards its destination of wealth and riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiches. Better start moving to the back of the train.
Nice name - I wanted it but it was already taken so I had to choose this one..
Good anecdote too. "good guy" is someone who best represents their tribe, or at least the feeling of such.
Dopamine, well said!
I'd like to add a supportive anecdote of my own, a verbatim quote from a friend of mine: "Dumb it down for me, Errol." I have give her credit for honesty and not being intimidated into silence.
Nate - an interesting article and one which likely could be exanded considerably.
You did not venture into the realm of the psychological, or should I say characterological, nature of homo sapiens at least when it comes to what are recognized (by some) as disorders or anti-social behavior. Perhaps rightly so, for it is a minefield of somewhat contentious, conflicting views. However, I do believe that we witness daily in our own lives (if we are willing to observe), and in the lives of those around us, and on forums and blogs (including this one) one important, common trait:
Blame Shifting (a.k.a. Narcissism when in its extreme form for interpersonal relationships.)
I am struck by the so-called consumer group, discussed yesterday and above, which blames "the" oil companies for concocting a shortage and at their whim raising gasoline prices. What said group (and similar groups and like minded individuals) refuse to acknowledge is the choice individuals make when deciding to buy gasoline. Individuals choose to use petroleum products because it makes their lives easier, richer, etc. Instead of accepting their own needs, and perhaps acknowledging how poorly they are going about in meeting them, many people will blame others for somehow not doing what is right in their eyes.
One of the greatest differences between American culture and Japanese culture, to which I am now sensitive, is how in the US a type of narcissism is accepted that is just not allowed in (traditional) Japanese society.
It also strikes me that what sometimes passes as good analysis is just re-iterating the group think, as you mentioned above, while also blame shifting. Case in point is yesterday's article by Jerome a Paris, where he writes:
To be accepted by the group-think at DailyKos perhaps Jerome believes he has to insert the above, but that type of polemics is not very good for understanding what goes on inside of Russia or the complexities of Asian international relationships (and the resulting complexities of US responses to them.) Still, it is a type of blame-shifting, in this case it is all VP Cheney's fault (which I understand is a pretty common theme on DailyKos.)
One more note: that you mentioned astrology in dating is interesting... in east Asia I encountered less emphasis on the Western (Sumerian?) astrological signs, but a great deal of interest in blood types. It is a common question - What is your blood type? People believe in all sorts of strange things...
"The previous nine points were tenderizer for the meat of ... if you've read this far you're either unemployed, retired, a psychologist, a blood relative, my girlfriend or someone on the edge of a paradigm shift."
LOL. I won't say which. Wonderful post! You went above 7.
I don't fear the decline of oil & other energies; I fear our responses. Great to have a thoughtful study of our programming/developement applied to our energy problems.
One area that comes to me in reading this post is dependant (sheeple) personalities & our (US) heritage of independence (PBS did a special on this yrs. ago). I flucuate in my thinking on this issue as we tend to minimize group/socialness importance but in general I think our genetic traits towards independence will be important because whatever peak oil is it will require adapting to tremendous change.
I'm not sure the scientific method holds up for most social/psychological analyses due to complexity.
Thanks again for a great post.
Nate, thanks for a very thoughtful essay.
Although you didn't mention it directly but as it was alluded to throughout, here's something I think worth commenting on.
'Prophets' and the word 'prophecy' are misunderstood.
As David Ehrenfeld, in Beginning Again, explains: "The business of prophecy is not foretelling the future; rather it is describing the present with exceptional truthfulness and accuracy. Once this is done -- and it is an overwhelmingly difficult task -- then it can be seen that certain broad aspects of the future have become self-evident, while other features, including many of the details, remain shrouded in mystery. This is prophecy."
WRT to PO prophecy, obviously it depends on whose analysis one depends on or accepts. Lacking independent and transparent verifiable data about the known global reserves, production rates, etc., the best we can do is try and make "astute, reasoned analysis" of present day information WRT the same.
Despite the problems inherent in this I am willing to give more weight to those individuals who attempt to offer such PO analysis based on the information that we do know, and do so in a way that is open to debate. That some of the PO "now" prophetic analysis foretells of potentially bleak and ruinous prospects -- even if the prophets don't subscribe personally to such outcomes -- does not mean it is absolutely right or wrong. The future is after all unknowable in all its details but a broad outline is dawning, and it doesn't bode well as presently charted.
AFAIC the merits to prophecy is in preparing people willing to heed the warning for the necessary and/or likely unavoidable changes to come. However, by just looking at how our Climate Change prophets are not well heeded while we collectively carry on as if this CC tomorrow can be mitigated tomorrow, I'm not very optimist; I'd say the same seems true to me about PO.
As you note: "The fact is, even if the world's energy data was transparent and freely available to everyone, it would be an open question whether people would agree on any near term action to mitigate future oil scarcity."
I suppose what I find intriguing in all this discussion of our "belief systems" is what sets apart the folk inclined to prophecy which offers an around the bend, over the horizon type understanding from the here and now. This particular article focuses in an admittedly generalized way on the "cognitive biases that prevent us from acting" or responding to such "facts" as we can best understand them, yet some people do. I have my thoughts on these atypical character traits. I wonder what yours or anyone else's are.
Nate says to his friend Thomas:
"N: Ive never said when Peak Oil would be, only that it would eventually mean the end of economic growth as we know it - and that technology and capital can't 'create' energy."
Thomas misses the glaring fundamental error.
Corrected reply: "Your correct, NOTHING can CREATE energy. It is already loose in the universe. But ONLY technology and capital can release it or capture it for human benefit."
SO FUNDAMENTAL to the discussion....oil is nothing but filthy black muck without technology and capital, and sun is nothing except something that burns your skin and wind is nothing except something that blows the tree limbs down on your yard, and the atom is nothing except an imaginary concept.....without technology and capital to release it's energy.
It worries me to have to say this: Is the reason that most people react so poorly to peak oil's impending doom theories is that they instinctively recognize them as nothing more than technically veiled theories of nihilism and misanthropy?
Posit: Human's are bad
Posit: Human industries and endeavors have been bad for centuries, from the very start
Posit: Fossil fuel has given humans the power to accelerate their essential badness.
Posit: All efforts to replace fossil fuels or reduce their consumption will fail because humans being bad will always make bad choices
Posit: Any success in changing away from fossil fuels is bad because it only allows humans to continue in their essential badness, so success at alternatives should be viewed as failure.
Posit: Humans being bad should recieve the worst possible outcome, because that is what they deserve.
Posit: Anyone who does not believe the above in it's entirety has only one good reason not to believe it: They are bad.
Sadly, this is the type of logic we get when we attempt to replace science (which by it's very nature is always uncertain and "wrong" in that the job of the next researcher is to prove a new set of maxims that will of course obsolete the old set, or at least prove the old set incomplete) with certainty and absolutism (I'm right, your wrong, and if you cannot see that, you are clearly ignorant and inferior, or are lying, covering up and are morally deficient.
Why do we disagree on peak oil and climate change? Because, as humans, we disagree on just about everything.
I am glad not every man wants the same things I do. If they did, they would all want my car and my wife.
:-) Fight on!
Roger Conner Jr.
Remember, we are only one cubic mile from freedom
Great point Roger - I didnt want to put words in my mouth but you are exactly correct. Of course, the missing step is that in order for technology and capital to function we have to keep an infrastructure moving that has a 90% plus fixed component to liquid fossil fuels and NG for industrial fertilizer - these are not plug and play pieces, but I am hopeful we can reduce that fixed % and have more variables in the equation.
p.s please upload photo of your wife and car.
Roger: Great points. IMO, what most TOD posters miss is that there is a liquid fuels problem but liquid fuel for transportation is not nearly as important as electricity for other uses. Again IMO, the sprawling nature of American society has infected the intellectual reasoning of TOD and made most posters convinced that life without suburbia (the American way of life) is equivalent to the apocalypse. IMO, the transition to urban living in the USA is the main way that peak oil will affect most readers of this site. No Mad Max, no riots. Lots of upside potential for rundown areas of big cities that have employment prospects. Fortunes have been made in Harlem RE in the last 20 years- this template will be repeated.
excellent Nate, I completely agree! I was wondering what your though were on hydrogen? I know scientist think it 30-50 years away. This was a recent announcement by GM.
General Motors is anticipating that around 2010 you'll see these vehicles start to be deployed for fleet applications," says Goldstein. "It's going to be probably 2015 before these vehicles are available to the average consumer."
Thanks and keep the good fight!
This quote clearly displays the hubris that infects modern man. The sun, which "is nothing except something that burns your skin" provides all of the energy that supports all of the life on planet earth. The sun existed for billions of year's before the rise of homo sapien sapien. The "imaginary concept" of the atom is one of the fundamental building blocks of the universe. You statement seems to infer that before the existance of nuclear power or atomic weapons, the atom was meaningless because it wasn't being harnessed by technology and capital.
That may be one explaination but, I defy you to show me that a large percentage of Americans can even define nihilism and misanthropy. I think fewer still would be able to use these terms as a basis for rationalizing a "Pollyanna" attitude towards our current environmental destruction and waste of natural resources. Loss of biodiversity, poisoning of the air and water, and large-scale loss of animal habitats are occurring. These are facts. Likewise, the declining production of oil is also an inevitable fact.
I think the impending doom that people express, comes from the recognition that there is so very little personal or political will to make positive changes. 30 years ago, our government attempted to conserve energy and save lives in highway deaths by limiting the speed limit to 55 MPH. This idea as well as other simple conservation measures (have you ever seen how many empty offices in NYC leave the lights on all night?) are politically impossible to implement. As long as energy is cheap and the true cost to the environment is not reflected in its price, we will feel entitled to waste as much of it as we want. You don't have to consider life to be pointless or hate human beings to observe the effects of relentless economic expansion and to envision the consequences.
The fact that very few people in this country are aware or ever even discuss the topic of PO shows that certainty and absolutism fall on the side of those who believe that the market will allow us to grow or invent our way out of this problem. I would never accuse you of being ignorant, inferior, or morally deficient for thinking positively about the future of mankind. I might accuse you though, of being pompous for this comment:
I'm absolutely sure I could care less about your car. I'm not sure I could say same about your wife without seeing her and having a conversation. Peace out.
... for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. -- Kurt Vonnegut
Part IV ?
In other words what do the people in the Former Soviet Socailist Union (FSSU) say to themselves after the collapse? How do they mentally cope with the cognitive dissonance between what they were taught and what undeniably happened?
Nate,
Great Post.
I was wondering if there will be a Part 4 dealing with post-collapse psychology?
How will we in the post-collapse Westerm World deal with reality after the inevitable Peak hits?
What will the Cornucopians say to themselves, to the rest of us?
What will the "economists" say?
(I know TODders will have a brief second of I-told-you-so pride that will quickly evaporate with the comprehension that we went over the cliff with the rest of them. There was no linch pin to pull and disconnect the caboose from the rest of the train. That was just a childhood fantasy dream.)
"what do the people in the Former Soviet Socialist Union (FSSU) say to themselves after the collapse? How do they mentally cope with the cognitive dissonance ..."
What is the best way to find out? (what questions could we pose to them, so the answers would shed the most light on this?)
My guess is that any time there's potentially a "Boy, were you hoodwinked" subtext to the issue, the questions must be posed extremely carefully and impersonally to yield an unbiased answer.
step back said:
"(I know TODders will have a brief second of I-told-you-so pride that will quickly evaporate with the comprehension that we went over the cliff with the rest of them. There was no linch pin to pull and disconnect the caboose from the rest of the train. That was just a childhood fantasy dream.)"
I’m sorry if you are not financially or mentally prepared to move to the back of the train and decouple the caboose. Will you be upset when you and your family are headed into the chasm while others with better sense have decided not to follow? Perhaps you will be raptured into the great unknown just as you start to get that sinking feeling. There are ways to survive or at least improve your odds and a slight improvement in odds may mean the difference between living and dying. Read this childhood fantasy dream at www.paulcherfurka.ca/Population.html. I know that many jealous small-minded people will resent those with enough foresight to make preparations for their families and will try to pull down those that are ready to survive, but part of being ready to survive is being out of reach of the desperate. I personally have had enough of the stupidity of the sheeple and the lies of our government and religious buffoons and don’t feel it is my duty to stick around for the last joy ride into the valley of death and broken dreams.
Nate,
your one hell of a writer!* I really love to read your sociobiological articles and I learn a lot. Thanks!!!
Joerg Daehn, MD, currently in Switzerland
*I am not a native speaker. If that sound funny to you please correct me.
PS: I have to admit that I am not getting the chicken foot/snow/shovel stuff though. May have to read the original book.
Doc Daehn
The part of split brains was done at 1 am on monday night before this post-sorry if it was a bit rushed.
Essentially the point is that the left brain holds Brocas area which is the only part of our brain used for speech communication (and presumably other non-verbal communication in chimps, etc). In split brain patients, when the left brain is asked a question that it knows nothing about - there is at least a possiblity and even probability that it will respond with something out of its own hemisphere of knowledge, without the knowledge of the right hemishphere (perceptive, analytical,etc).
The upshot is that we may 'think' that if we have all the facts that our brains can calculate out the best path/answer - but the communication center in the left brain gets ultimate say over what leaves our lips. There are more moving pieces that have different agendas than we may consciously be aware of - this would deserve a whole other post and indeed books have been written on it.
One amazing thing I find is the sheer amount of information available on subjects from aardvarks to zygote formation and about 500 academic disciplines in between - and little time to learn it all. Ive chosen to focus on the two which I think are most important - net energy and neuroscience. I would recommend Why We Believe What We Believe or The Spirit in the Gene if you are interested in that topic.
I think you covered a lot of interesting topics in this post. I am also impressed with the lengthy and thoughtful comments that readers have posted.
I have always been very liberal politically, but I have never shied away from listening to the "right-wing hate-talk machine". Sometimes I want to smash my radio or throw something at the TV, but I'm not afraid to hear opinions that I disagree with. What I want though, is for people to make rational arguments instead of using personal attacks.
I'm relatively new to the "blogosphere" but it has been my experience that most people are much more comfortable listening to things that they already believe in. I lurk at DKos and occasionally post, but it strikes me that many commenters there use the same tactics that wingnuts use.
I was having a discussion with a new conservative poster and he asked me "What would it take to get troll rated here?" Someone immediately shot back with this gem, "Well if your a troll, you'll get troll-rated, otherwise you won't." How can one refute such a well thought out statement?
Your article and many of the comments have helped me come to grips with some of the issues of denial. I'll be reading some of the sources you provided to further enlighten myself. Thanks for the great post. Peace out.
... for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. -- Kurt Vonnegut
Well there you again (even though this is your 1st post :-).
You make 1 unsupported assumption: that people are "rational" and thus are capable of making "rational" arguments. And 2nd, you kind of sense that birds of a feather flock to parts of the forest where the other birds are making familiar pigeon sounds. How true.
But that kind of all makes sense. We homo saps are herd animals. We like to stick with our "own kind". We like to feel that we "belong" to the mainstream herd. We don't like to feel like we are weirdo's at the "fringe" edges of society. If anyone is going to be marginalized, it's going to be that "other" fellow. You know. The one we make ad hominem attacks against.
I did not state that people were rational, only that I wished they would rely on rationality or logic when presenting an argument. Ad hominem attacks add nothing to the discussion. As far as unsupported assumptions, are you telling me that it is not possible to make a rational or logical argument? What support do you have for this statement?
I think the argument can be made that overall as a species or even in groups we are irrational, but individually, we all have choices to use our minds and think for ourselves. It is possible to recognize the social and psychological causes and foundations for "group think" as Nate has so eloquently laid out in this article.
We like to view the world in simple terms of right or wrong, black or white. It is rare that any issue can be addressed as simplely as this.
... for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative. -- Kurt Vonnegut
I am still absorbing this, with some processing.
I decided to make my youngest brother Peak Aware# but not my middle brother. My sister I am bringing along more slowly.
I have always prided myself on accepting reality and adjusting beliefs to match reality.
My analysis is that post-Peak Oil scenarios have so many unknowns that they cannot be predicted with ANY confidence. Yet many here must create future scenarios. Another topic perhaps ?
However, specific trends and parameters (such as business as usual is unlikely) can be discerned and I have concluded that the USA (and the world) would be better off with electrified railroads betwwen cities, much more Urban Rail, living in more energy efficient housing and housing patterns and more bicycle friendly environment.
All positive steps under a broad range of scenarios.
Best Hopes,
Alan
I'll echo the kudos, Nate. Another excellent article (meaning of course, as someone else already said, that I largely agree with your approach and conclusions).
There seems to be a canon of reference works forming that underpins this world-view, primarily centered around evolutionary psychology and ecology. Such books as "The Spirit in the Gene", "Straw Dogs", "The Blank Slate", "The Selfish Gene", "Overshoot", "Limits to Growth" and "Living Within Limits" (and many others I'm just finding out about) seem to form a coherent and useful foundation for investigating the questions of what is coming, and why.
Of course, like those canonical authors I'm a reductionist and as such amenable to their (and your) ways of thinking. The problems with communicating an understanding of Peak Oil that you've described so well apply equally to the question of why this set of underpinning realizations are likewise inaccessible to so many. One needs to be able to understand the assumptions before you can apply them to the problem, and accepting the assumptions appears to rely largely on being "wired" correctly, whether by nature or nurture.
The more I learn about this field, the more I realize that the fatalism many of us feel about humanity's trajectory doesn't just begin with the supporting facts and evidence of Peak Oil or Global Warming. It goes right back to the understanding that world-views are pretty much unassailable.
In an ironic twist, the reasons many can't accept PO or GW are the same reasons they can't accept the ideas of evolutionary psychology - reasons which are well explained by evolutionary psychology itself. This results in a fatal blind spot for much of humanity, especially those in positions of power, to whom evolutionary psychology has, also ironically, given uniquely effective tools.
Thanks for opening up this crucial topic in such an accessible way.
Thank you - your eloquent summation was quite spot on:
Of course all you say in your article can be used by the other side to justify the opposite. But the worst it´s the use of evolutionary psychology for your arguments. Because you are convince by rational knowledge that peak oil it´s a fact not by your darwinian past. What you make it´s a meta-analysis of why people belive or don´t belive in peak oil, now you have to answer why you make a correspondence between evolutionary psychology and peak oil and global warming. Have you done any experiment? do you have numbers to corroborate what you say? If so please post it, if not your theory is flawed.