Jay Hanson and Warsocialism.com
Posted by nate hagens on November 2, 2008 - 12:18pm
Monday at 12 EST Jay Hanson, of dieoff.org 'fame', will be Jason Bradford's guest on Global Public Media's "The Reality Report". It can be heard live at www.kzyx.org. (The last few times we advertised a guest, the station had bandwidth issues but we will post a link on TOD to the archived version in a week or so for those who want to hear it.)
Dieoff.org, despite it's unwelcoming moniker, was (is?) one of the biggest clearinghouses on the internet for referenced work on general resource depletion and likely human responses to it and probably the first to attempt to 'connect the many dots'. As many of you know, I got my own exposure to some of the issues related to overpopulation, our biological underpinnings and peak oil from perusing dieoff.org, which Jay Hanson constructed during many years of solitary reading and research. I highlighted Jay Hansons 'farewell address' to his listserv as one of my first posts on this site.
At some point, possibly soon, simple discussions on BTU assets and flow rates will be joined and superceded by the difficult broader questions that Jay Hanson (and others before him) has been thinking and writing about for almost 15 years. Recently, he has attempted to parse his ideas into short 'videos'. I've included links to several of these draft video segments below. (all of them can be accessed on his website). Jay's videos (and writings) are most definitely not politically correct, but then neither are many of the solutions, if any, to the upcoming energy crises we collectively face. The material in the videos will be considered offensive by some, especially young people, economists, and those who haven't studied history and biology. Jay's main conclusion is that declining net energy, combined with a global blanket strategy of digging resources out of the ground to grow unneeded consumption of stuff, ultimately leads to war for resources. Indeed, each video ends with the rhetorical question (in Mr. Moose monotone) "Is war the only answer?" I agree that a world war is one of many possible futures, but not an inevitable one.
I expect to get some flak for posting these here, but this is one man whose general track record of predictions requires his current thinking at least to be heard, if not heeded. In order to know what possible paths we have open, we have to first isolate which are not possible, given our supply/demand constraints. While I was a new Phd student in 2005, Jay and I started an email correspondence which quickly disavowed me of many of the utopian environmental views espoused in my field; a prominent one being that 'facts' alone are not enough to produce meaningful action. Jay's focus on cognitive neuroscience and evolutionary biology has been reinforced by the explosion of recent findings in peer review science on how the human brain actually works. Optimally, there should be a think tank(s) somewhere devoted to exploring and expanding these multidisciplinary connections and producing usable research. Perhaps there is, but I can't imagine who would fund it or hearing about the results on the evening news. (Could you envision Jay Hanson as the moderator for one of the Presidential Debates?....;-)
POLITICS
ENERGY LIMITS TO GROWTH
MONEY
CORPORATIONS
BEHAVIOUR 1
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.
On tomorrows radio show, I expect Jason will ask Jay what set him apart - why was he able to read over 3,000 books on these subjects and connect threads that most people still find opaque.
I will offer my own insight to this question. In 2006, Jay, Robert Rapier and some friends met for a 'peak oil retreat'. I've met people from all over the world with different backgrounds and disparate skills, and I can say with confidence that I've never met anyone like Jay Hanson. Though noticeably uncomfortable around people, Jay is engaging, funny, kind and quiet, but ruthless in detecting sophistry or social deception.
So - the reasons he compiled dieoff.org and no one else did. First, he has an incredible mind - I asked him to help me with a software problem related to oil markets because my programmer passed away without giving me an archive. An algorithm that had taken my programmer 120 billable hours Jay did in less than a day, and much cleaner - somehow he has an ability to parse subjects/paragraphs/books into a condensed sentence or two. Secondly, is his work ethic. Even 'on vacation' in Montana, he wanted to be working, diagramming, discussing these ideas for as many hours a day as possible. He never cared what we ate, because it was just a way of providing him calories to do more work.
But perhaps the most important reason he has been able to see through much of the facade that hides the real political machinery in our economy, is his reclusive nature combined with nearly unlimited free time (2 things that most people don't have). As humans, we sometimes even hide the truth from ourselves. Politics begins when we add another person to the discussion and its impact increases as 'n' gets larger. In a population and media dense society, many of us are constantly 'protected' by a cocoon of social unawareness where our small nagging inner voice of concern about resource depletion, is anesthetized by the cultural balm of ignorance/denial in large groups (until it's not). While not as reclusive as Jay, I notice that when I am around others, even smart, informed friends, my concern about peak oil/overpopulation etc. melts away. Combined with a unique mind, I think Jay's introverted nature has thus allowed him to cut out 99% of social influences in arriving at his conclusions, many of which (but not all), I agree with. Finally, despite the harshness of his messages, I believe Jay cares immensely about what is happening to the planet, and like me, is incredibly frustrated at the lack of viable progress/options available to us.
I lurked on several of Jay's forums until he closed them. A couple of things struck me: First, he absolutely believed his interpretations were correct. Second, that he did not suffer fools lightly. Third, that others had to put out the same kind of intellectual effort he had, before making comments.
I was somewhat amazed when he started the video series since, as far as I saw from his posts on other forums, that he had "bowed out."
I usually only listen to the morning news on KZYX (I'm in their broadcast area) but I'll be sure to listen to Jason/Jay Monday.
Todd
Todd, those who successfully impact others share a common trait of believing 100% in their own ideas. It's why the best salespeople go into politics or finance as opposed to lower margin used cars or mattresses.
Of course neither these salespeople types, nor Jay Hanson, are immune to self-deception. Self-deception allows us to believe our own schtick and thus be more persuasive. Jay's case IMO, is slightly different because of his personality. I sincerely believe that he doesn't care one whit what people think of him, and only cares about the ideas. I'm certain he would agree though, that he has gotten some 'dopamine' over the years from being ultimate tribal chief on his listservs.
I do differ with him on several areas in his videos. Although intended to be simplistic, the one on net energy is technically incorrect- we use very little oil in oil production - most of the energy input is electricity and natural gas (much of which can be accessed on site). So even when we do approach energy break-even for world oil production, we will continue to produce it an an energy loss, because it's value to society will be higher than the other lower quality energy inputs. I'm sure Jay knows this but to get into that amount of detail for someone seeing the concept for the first time would make the clip too long. And in any case, this is splitting hairs - if we are close to energy break even, we will already know the answer to the Mr. Moose voice question....
You've talked to Jay so my response is my gut feeling...I don't think self-deception is likely. He could be intellectually wrong and not see the error. However, I haven't seen anyone really poke holes in his position. But, there appears to be an underlying insecurity on his part since his fall-back position on the forums was that "I've studied this more than you."
Finally, his actions appear more in line with someone who has experienced, at least, the beginning stages of enlightenment. Truly enlightened people almost never are on the forefront pushing their ideas. People interested in this might search to see if the Zen parable, The Oxherder, is somewhere on the internet. This is a series of ten pictures outlining the path to enlightenment.
I'm sure Jay would throw up his arms at this. But, what the heck.
Todd
Nate,
Great post!
I found that many of mine understandings of the future came from reading articles on dieoff.org, but I found it hard to recommend it to others as I felt that the understanding of realities were worlds apart. Many people are in for some tough revisions of their world beliefs in the near future.
On trading “lower worth” energy sources with those of higher worth, like oil, is something that in my opinion already is taking place.
Look at China and its growing coal consumption to produce electricity which fuels (or fuelled) their growth in industrial output, generating huge trade surpluses which again is traded to increase imports of energy sources of “greater worth” like…..oil.
One simplistic way to look upon that is that China is now effectively trading indigenous coal for oil imports.
I dunno Nate, I think the connection between electricity generation and oil/gas production is a bit more complex than just saying "we use very little oil in oil production".
When we start building power stations, wind turbines, solar panels, hydro etc and their support networks with electricity then you can say the above.
Until then we are dependant on oil for electricity generation or more precisely the means to gather, construct and maintain the components, even a small amount of oil missing in a vital connection would spell the demise of meaningful oil production.
As you described in a reply above "why was he able to read over 3,000 books on these subjects and connect threads that most people still find opaque"........... Hanson sees the connects a little more clearly than others.
"I was somewhat amazed when he started the video series since, as far as I saw from his posts on other forums, that he had "bowed out."
I worshiped at Jay's alter for years until my personal excommunication. It always seemed like he was going to "bow out", but he always came back. Everyone needs some form of recognition to keep going especially after most of the illusion is striped out of your life and you begin to stand on your own two feet. We are all guilty of it or we would not be in these forums “strutting” our stuff. I'm surprised to see him go on a radio broadcast; things must be getting really lonely in Hawaii. Time to preen those beautiful feathers again...
==AC
The basic question the person wants to ask and answer is "Who am I? What is the meaning of my life? What value does it have?" And we can only get answers to these questions by reviewing our relationships to others, what we do to others and for others, and what kind of response we get from them. SELF-ESTEEM depends on our social role, and our inner-newsreel is always packed with faces—it is rarely a nature documentary. Even holy men, who withdraw for years of spiritual development, come back into the fold of society to earn recognition for their powers. [Friedrich] Nietzsche said of [Arthur] Schopenhauer that he was a model for all men because he could work in isolation and care nothing for the plaudits of the human marketplace. The implication is that he had his sense of value securely embedded in himself and his own idea of what his work was worth. Yet this same Schopenhauer spent his lonely life scanning the footnotes of learned journals to see whether there was ever going to be recognition of his work....The anthropologist Robert Lowie once said that primitive man was a natural peacock, so open was he in self-display and self-glorification. But we play the same game, only not as openly. Our entire life is a harangue to others to establish ourselves as peacocks, if only on furtive and private inner-newsreel images.
~Ernest Becker
For the record, I have pushed him several times to do a TV or radio interview and he always declined. I think he senses it can't hurt and might help to do so at this point. And in the end it's hard to be happy without a tribe
And your point is noted. What ARE the reasons any of us do anything? Why do I continue to spend time on TOD? It's a complicated answer, and I suspect 50%+ of my motives are unconscious - but a subject for another day nonetheless. As I've said, Jays work allowed me to make broad brush connections that would have taken me years (or decades) on my own. Perhaps the same is true for TOD and its community. Cultural transmission....
Perhaps the best outcome from Jay's videos (and posts on TOD) is to be proven wrong. Then we're one step closer to understanding/accessing the problem. But these types of ideas are difficult to prove wrong, except in hindsight. Therefore are they science? Or religion? The pieces that make up the thesis are based on science, but beyond that I'm not sure. It's clear that the cornucopian crowd thinks that since oil's price has declined that peak oil was a 'hoax'. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are in a much worse position with regards to future energy supplies today than we were a year ago. I noticed Fridays announcement on Platts by Chesapeake that "The US oil and gas exploration-and-production industry will likely take out of service between 300 and 500 drilling rigs in the coming months, as the industry continues to be wracked by the global credit crisis and soft energy commodity prices". That's between 1/4 and 1/3 of our rigs drilling for gas! I suspect similar details will be emerging on the oil side, all the while the ongoing depletion continues at nearly double digit rates, despite infield drilling and tertiary recovery.
In any case, I've poked a lot of holes in Jay's theories over the years, but mostly small ones. I look forward to hearing his interview.
Nate,
you wrote:
"That's between 1/4 and 1/3 of our rigs drilling for gas!"
Don't forget that Chesapeake means this number for the "US *oil* and gas exploration-and-production industry". Of course this is confusing as Chesapeake is only a gas company.
I had the distinct pleasure and privilege of meeting Jay early last year in Hawaii. I've been a big fan of his writings for more than a decade. A lot of it has to do with the fact that I have a similar personality, shy, reclusive, and a bookworm, although I'm not nearly as sharp. I can honestly say that he has changed my life for the better since it spurred me to escape the corporate rat race 12 years ago, move to the country and adopt a more fulfilling, less stressful lifestyle. I've also made better investment decisions.
What Jay has been able to do, as almost no one else on the planet has done, is to step back and disect the human animal to see what makes him tick. This, for me, has had a calming influence. As you have daily interactions with members of the species and watch the various crises unfold it can lead to a lot of anger and frustration. As Jay says we are committing suicide. But at least with my daily "brain food" from Jay I am able to understand why we are the way we are.
It's great to see that Jay is still fighting the good fight. I know he believes in his heart of hearts that nothing can be done to avoid the worst outcome but he's still making videos and now appearing on the radio, still looking for some angle that might lead to something positive. As he says lets all die with our boots on.
More power to you for all you've done Jay. If indeed he is right that we cannot overcome our genetic instincts and will have a tragic ending at least I've met someone who did overcome them. Jay is proof that intelligent life did in fact evolve on this planet.
Solar Dude as you know, I was there too, three stimulating mornings with Jay and still time to snorkel and visit other friends on the Big Island, The hotel was a delight. I was sorry that Nate and others were unable to attend
oh. Never mind
Nate,
Is it just me or do others see that Hanson slips form making the case for "Peak Oil" and then " the same energy laws that limit oil production limit all energy production".
In no way is wind and solar energy even remotely similar to the limitations that limit oil production.
All of the assumptions of "die off" are based on declining energy production, and thus declining resource availability. Assuming a growth in renewable energy, and a lot more options become available.
He slips in that he uses outdated charts, but there is little new that he could use!
What he means is that net energy is a direct application of the second law of thermodynamics...i.e. for every energy conversion there is always a heat loss. For us to access stored sunlight below the ground, there are physical principles governing its extraction. (e.g. # of joules required to pull oil up from X# of feet below ground, embodied energy going into the pipes and materials etc.)
The same principles apply to wind and solar. In order to 'harness' that energy and concentrate it into a form usable by current society there are energy costs. It is Jays conclusion that the wide boundary energy surplus from fossil fuels (measured as net energy per unit times number of units) cannot be replaced by alternative sources. The GROSS energy might be, but not the net. I disagree with him partially here - I think it's TECHNICALLY possible to increase our energy surplus by devoting the remainder of our fossil fuels to a massive local, regional and international scaling of all sorts of renewable infrastructure. But in order to do that, we would have to take that energy away from how it is currently being used, hence it becomes a political/human nature problem, and right back in Mr. Hanson's wheelhouse. We CAN do it, but will we?
For those interested, Jay Hanson was a prolific poster on the usenet group, sci.environment between about 1995 and 1999. I entered discussions with him at the time and over the years archived some 60 of his posts. I think that many of these posts later became the foundation of his essays on dieoff.org. I'm glad to have been able to contribute a bit to his thinking in a small way.
E. Swanson
As you probably know Jay was also active on sci.energy, sci.geo.petroleum, sci.econ and other groups.
Since I fathered such a human being, I must ask. Aspergers?!
lotheru's 'oh, nevermind' post is a revised post. The original was a similar guess as yours.
:-(
I have been observing the Burningman Project as a social experiment for several years now.
http://www.burningman.com/
Ive talked to a firstaid volunteer several times who has been there and works massive commercial rock concerts also. He said the difference is dramatic.
I find it encouraging that 50,000 people can come together in one place completely self regulated, un-policed, no Money exchange and have so little problems.
This goes against what we are told will happen if left on our own. It is hammered into us that things will quickly go Lord of the Flies.
I would be very interested if Jay has any thoughts on the Burningman project phenomenon.
The Burning Man festival is specifically a testimony to the power of petroleum to gloss over (with an oily sheen) our blaring self-deceptions.
Everything is carted into the desert by car, even fresh air (people hide from the sand and soot in polyethylene tents)
You just glossed over the social element which is big question of how we as a society might address the massive constraints we face.
In New Mexico we had Zozobra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zozobra
Same kind of thing but local.
Suburbia is the problem. Burning Man/Zozobra is not the solution.
I am lucky because I live in a rural place and can build a campfire, roast some marshmallows, drink a lot of beers, howl at the moon, and even try to walk on that fire. And then stumble (or god forbid!) drive home without recrimination.
We have overpopulated the earth.
The point is is it possible to get rid of TPTB who tell us the world will be chaos without them running things and then for society to come together, speak truth, then get down to the ugly, dirty, rotten job that has to be done.
I for one intend to make every attempt.
You are welcome to sit out in the woods howling.
In the end, it all comes down to sustainability. Very large groups, i.e. civilizations of any size at all, have never, in recorded history, ever lived sustainably. Small groups can and do. but millions, let alone billions? No.
So, the real question is, can we go all Darwin on ourselves and evolve ourselves and/or our behaviors?
That's one huge uphill climb. Still, how do we not try? Anyone with a child they love can't but try, can they? Without that motivation, I'm not sure I would. I'd be sorely tempted to go Leaving Las Vegas or to take a Long Walk were I not married with a very young child.
Cheers
Behavior = Genes + Environment
Burningman is a celebration and its participants aren't starving, desperate and panicked.
But if the environmental context changed, the behaviors would change too. If 1 day into Burningman, one-half of the food suddenly disappeared, one of two things would happen: either people would drive away to find food or things would get downright ugly.
Unfortunately ours is a global problem. There will be no driving away.
Why would you expect to get flak for getting exposure to Jay's message on a forum like TOD? Isn't this supposed to be one of the few public fora where you can do this with the hope that this will NOT happen?
Why? I would venture to guess it is because he is a generalist who distracts those raised as purebred specialists. We all live in an industrial society that favors a division of labor into expert fields.
Plus evolution threatens theists while ecology threatens all rationalists. I compete therefor I am
I have never really read any of Jay Hanson's pieces. I do link to some charts from dieoff.org that other authors have written, but not to him specifically. Is he pretty much a generalist as well in his writings, one who knows a bit about everything or just someone who speaks in generalities?
He assembled a large compendium of tragedy of the commons related stuff - his main contribution seems to have been to link it the the field of evolutionary psychology.
I don't think promoting his ideas is a good thing, because if you look at his "War Socialism" site (his follow up to "dieoff") you'll find a rehash of 1930's style ecofascism. It wasn't a good thing when the Germans tried it, and it won't be a good thing if we follow in their footsteps.
Here's his 9 point manifesto for those who aren't familiar with it :
Does anyone really want to idolise this guy ?
Sigh.
Gav, I was going to email you offline, but this probably deserves a public reply.
First off, I (we) are not promoting his ideas. As you point out, he connected environmental tragedy of the commons stuff with evolutionary psychology. He also studied historical wars and what caused them, how they could be started by innocuous events, how normal people could change relatively quickly in personality and behaviour in emotional situations involving peer pressured (Zimbardo, etc.) in depth. Because his conclusions are distasteful does not mean that they are incorrect. Nor does the fact that he has been right about a great many events in last decade mean that he is right about the future. Nor does any post we put up here imply we agree with its tenets, only that is from an 'expert' who uses logical thinking and lays out an argument relevant to resource depletion. The 'best' would be if this community could thoroughly debunk this line of thinking, with hard facts beyond calling it 'ideology'. I haven't seen anyone refute Benajmin Libets and more recent work of Piotr Wiekelman, Kent Berridge and many others showing the delay in conscious awareness of neural decisions and that emotions are essentially unconscious (occurring below awareness). (which is a central part of Jay's interpretation of barriers to understanding what drives us and thereby cultural change)
Secondly, I can't speak for others, but I certainly don't idolize Jay Hanson anymore than I idolize Euan Mearns or Robert Costanza. They have all taught me things, and are therefore a 'part' of my educational tribe (though CLEARLY different tribes). Out of respect for someone that during a certain chapter of my life was a mentor, I put links to his site on TOD, knowing it would be controversial. Because I know him better than most, I also consider him a friend, if his personality makeup is able to have such a thing. But I agree he can be a dogmatic bully at times - none of us is perfect in our behaviour, nor our understanding.
Finally, Jay is getting up there in years and not in the greatest of health. I don't suspect he will be around to 'see' some of his predictions occur - therefore his 'prescription' that you link above is one of the few he thinks will actually work, from the perspective of whoever is reading it, not something he 'wishes' to see. I give it credence only in the following sense. Of the 10 times I have scoffed at something Jay wrote/said as unrealistic and harsh, further reading and observation caused me to reassess my initial reaction 8 of the 10 times and acknowledge he was right. (he was wrong about reciprocal altruisms not being part of evolution theory and about something personal related to my life) But 8 out of 10 and my internal pattern bank says to not dismiss what he says too quickly. In my own life, I doubt I've met anyone with that track record vs. my own intuition/knowledge/experience. What you hear in my words Gav, is respect, not idolization. There is a difference.
No other editor or contributor of TOD was involved in my decision to post links to Jay Hansons website. (I'm not sure if thats good or bad).
Onward...;-)
In this entire thread, very few have addressed the facts or principles underlying Jay's ideas. People have simply resorted to slandering a supposed 'ideology'. I'm really blown away by this.
It reminds me of a passage by Noam Chomsky, who is often critical of Israeli state terrorism. Alan Dershowitz never addresses Chomsky's points. Instead, he labels Chomsky as "anti-Zionist zealot, anti-Israel, anti-American, and anti-Western." Chomsky discusses this slander in an interview with David Barsamian (emphasis mine).
ecofascism. It wasn't a good thing when the Germans tried it
The eco part of it or the fascism part? Perhaps the Green part of http://www.nazi.org is confusing. (ya just don't get to post links to nazi.org - home of the green libertarians with a nationalist bent!)
and it won't be a good thing if we follow in their footsteps.
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc
But lets go with a dictionary:
http://www2.truman.edu/~marc/resources/terms.html
To say 'follow in footsteps', then apply the dictionary wording - I'd like to have names of places that lack "stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government".
So when I see things like "I cannot subscribe to any fascist ideology, however muddled." and I read the above - I wonder how others are trying to square the circle of live today?
When I say "fascism" I do mean highly centralised, authoritarian government control - and the tendency to solve problems by military means and to victimise people who aren't part of the dominant ethnic group.
Jay's list includes all 3 and maps pretty closely with historic ecofascist ideas - it wasn't simple mudslinging (or, as Orwell noted, using fascist to mean "something bad").
As for whether or not Jay wants this to occur or simply thinks it will, I'll accept Nate and Jason's explanations - I used to believe this was the case, but after warsocialism.com was created I became rather less convinced this was so.
I agree with Eric Blair's comment above, Big Gav.
I see the USA -- and much of the west -- as having a centralised, controlled economy, a fusion between Big Business and Big Government, and belligerent militarism. Fascism in the USA is pretty much nationalistic in rhetoric, but links easily with neoconservative governments while displaying open hostility toward all others -- eg. "Old Europe" or "those French" whenever someone dares to oppose the corporatist agenda.
We spend huge sums of money on weapons and war-making already, Big Gav, and we are already deeply enmeshed in war for petroleum. We may very well be engaged in war for control of water in the Middle East or elsewhere already. If not yet, than soon.
I find it hard to describe the USA as anything other than fascist, considering that we have the key historic elements of fascism in place already -- again: centralized, controlled economy, fusion between Big Business and Big Government, militarism, and belligerant nationalism. We already have "Homeland Security" and military troops unConstitutionally committed to operate within the USA, as well as Blackwater and other mercenary armies formed to act outside the Constitution of the USA and outside of the law wherever they may be deployed.
What about this is not fascism? We are already doing much of what Jay Hanson describes above -- fascism is here, now, not something possible in the near future.
Naomi Klein and Naomi Wolf each do a good job helping to describe this with "Shock Doctrine" and "The End of America." Not many people are willing to look at the facts or analysis which shows that we are already fascist. Chalmers Johnson has done a good job of tracking this process as well.
I don't know that Johnson says that we are fascist yet, but he comes very close to it in describing our belligerent, nationalistic militarism, the police state that must accompany such militarism, and the corporate-government corruption especially concentrated in the military-industrial-congressional complex.
Jay Hanson's key question:What alternative is there to war?
I think that Heinberg's peaceful powerdown protocol is the best effort toward a real solution, but it is hardly ever a part of the conversation. That in itself speaks volumes.
Well - if you want to argue that the US (and other countries) have been heading towards fascism for some time, I would agree with you.
But they haven't gotten to the closed borders / eject the immigrants stage yet (or most of the "eco" part) - and I'd argue that peak oil wasn't a primary cause of it (oil was still cheap and plentiful when the trend began) and that this path isn't a good response as a way to deal with peak oil.
Jay is all hat and no cattle. There is no way that he is going to effect behavioral change or institute a fascist rule involving Chindia, the Middle East, Europe and South America etc. - to say nothing of his own Hawaii. I did note in the radio address that he admitted "I don't know how we can fix it".
Actually there was a rebuttal to: The Tragedy of the Commons written recently titled: The Myth of the Tragedy of the Commons which can be found at this link.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/angus250808.html
Basically the original essay ignored the long history of cooperation that existed in Europe and other places.
Yes, I remember reading that essay.
Good reminder that all theories are myths and in a world as complex as ours, a counter-example can be found for almost everything.
He has just written a follow-up to the original article discussing some of the feedback he received:
http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=576
Big Gav,
As I have studied Jay more, I realize that these are not HIS proscriptions, but his beliefs based on historical evidence of what societies TEND to do given the circumstances.
He is "in your face" a bit more than he needs to be and should probably be better at distinguishing between what he wants to happen vs. what he believes will happen.
He appears to be advocating more of a "technocracy" though in a speculative way. See:
http://www.warsocialism.com/unnecessary.htm
You might think that, but I expect that you'll be wrong.
In any case thanks to Nate for relieving my growing boredom.
Let the incorrectness begin!
(You should see the editors inbox....)
I assume you are familiar with Jay's work. Now, imagine one of your friends or co-workers who has never been exposed to these ideas and happens to visit theoildrum on this balmy Sunday afternoon - a bit of a shock, eh? But it does highlight a central issue to these debates/discussions - are they/can they be for everyone? Almost by definition, I think not. The academy too, has always been, and remains, elitist. I don't know the answer. I sometimes wish people could absorb the wide boundary knowledge of our situation by taking a blue pill like in The Matrix. But then what....?
Our main hope is to change the metric away from conspicuous consumption and use our remaining high quality resources towards creating renewable infrastructure. But, we obviously have to do the former first, as we have quickly reverted to business as usual behaviour with gas approachin $2.00/gallon....Party on.
Watched the videos but kept waiting for the voice that says "...and now for something completely different!" (Not just a crack:),
I feel Jay's thinking, at least in those videos, is incomplete. War is happening and plain extinction may happen but those may not be the only outcomes. I think that cultural evolution is innate in our genetic make-up. Maybe one could say there exists the genetic ability to engineer one's culture.
We are even now a multicultural species with many cultures of varying attributes, some more viable than others. A tiger is stuck with living a tiger's culture, that is the limit of it's genetic ability.
BTW I am a doomer in good standing (95% plus dieoff) but think the doom is not so much one of a genetic inability to change as by our momentum - the result of being late learners.
I think it was cool that he got Cary Grant to do the voice over.
Cheers!
Yah Souperman, I liked that too, but too bad he cut the part where the cowboys get headed off at the pass and the Indians ROTFL.
:)
No they didn't it's Ringo Starr. In cyborg form.
I am a bit nervous having on the show too, but what the hell, is there anything to lose anymore?
One thing that has really changed in me since all this stuff has "sunk in" is that most of what passes for conversation, or "issues," is such fluff. I therefore, ironically, have apparently fewer fears than most other people, which they sometimes interpret as bravery, but in reality I only have a few very massive, horrific fears and find the petty stuff ridiculous distractions.
Now the trouble becomes, how to relate to people who think I should care about the small stuff in order to get their attention and trust in order to do something about the big stuff?
Jason,
I have the exact same problem. I have been trying to talk to my environmental science teacher about peak oil, but it seems that she will only listen when I show interest in her area, which is field studies, pollution, and ocean issues. While I believe those things are extremely important and fascinating, I don't think they are as pressing as peak oil. I mean, they are really really important and will effect us a lot in the future, but peak oil is happening right now and will have severe and immediate consequences.
I suspect that this is the same problem faced by activists and politicians all the time. You pay attention to my issue and I'll pay attention to yours.
-Ashton
One way to get through this is to place her issues into a larger frame that includes your own "pet."
For example, "overshoot" has symptoms/results that include pollution and oceanic death. Overshoot is made possible by cheap energy permitting exponential growth of human population and the human economy.
You are at least dealing with somebody who wants to talk about environmental problems. That's better than most!
Maybe suggest watching some movies together to discuss, e.g., "11th Hour" and "Blind Spot"
Thanks. I gave her my copy of Powerdown and my copy of A Crude Awakening, and she still hasn't watched them. Maybe I should just sign up for one of her field studies competitions she keeps hankering me to try, and then she will watch my movie. But I seriously don't have time to race other highschoolers to do soil and water quality testing.
I think I will bring up the fact, like you said, that our oil addiction is really the root cause of all of her favorite issues, and that will make her more sympathetic to my vids. BTW I have been posting and reposting links to Chris Martenson's Crash Course on my schools class conference. Nobody cares. They will hopefully care, however, when I do a long presentation on peak oil to the entire school in the spring. Hopefully the world hasn't burned down by then.
-Ashton
Jason - From what I understand Jay attempted to become one of "TPTB".
I would like to know if he believes that if "they" were taken out (yes revolution) that it would be possible to organize in any sort of intelligent, cohesive, movement in the right direction (intenseive power down).
I specifically do not mean some one individual stepping up but those who are on the forefront of understanding the constraints being brought together kind of a thing.
(just tell him to say yes so I can relax)
The world believes, or wants to believe in AMERICA the concept. They could give a $hiet about the President. America the concept is broad in definition from my experience abroad. For most it simply means fair and equal not just flat screens and beemers.
I suspect that people were being polite on your trips abroad.
The American experiment seems to have failed, despite the hard work put in by the framers of the US constitution, we have just more of the elite rule and empire building that the founding fathers tried so hard to escape.
Tree of liberty - blood of martyrs, don't forget your roots.
What the hell? is exactly right. There is no difference between the small stuff and the big stuff. It's all just stuff. What the hell? Yeah, stuff it is. Hellish stuff. Big stuff, small stuff. Tooo much stufff. Tooo much CO2? Tooo much wine. Tooo many houses? Tooo many coffee cups. Tooo many people? Tooo many pets. Tooo may ooos? Tooo many comments. Doesn't it matter? Tooo me? Noooo.
I only have a few very massive, horrific fears
Everyones endpoint is death.
I think I have less fear of my own death than the death of a future that includes my own descendants (inclusive fitness) and other forms of life that I care about.
The only way I see to address your concerns:
1) Understand human development cycle from birth to 'age of majority'
2) Understand the development cycle from before conception to birth (epigenetics)
3) be able to machine assemble DNA at the atomic level (as long as I'm shooting past the moon)
Why?
So that man might build intergalactic space ships to send out man and the other forms of life to other places as earth, long term, has not been good to most life forms.
Nate -- thanks for this key post -- timely and well spoken!
I've followed the Die Off site and related sites, books, and themes for at least a decade. I participate in a couple of the warsocialism discussion lists now.
The key seems to me has been best expressed by E. O. Wilson -- you know, his assertion that we must unite religion and science. Religion and science are the two most powerful forces in human culture, and right now we have them in an obscene, destructive war one with the other.
Oddly, our godlike technical prowess -- delivered largely as a result of scientific advances -- is used violently and irrationally by those who "Believe" in their religions: fundamentalist perversions of ancient tribal wargod religions like Judaism morphed into Christianity and Islam, or especially the ideological economic idolatries of variously expressed in essentially secular terms but no less religious than any primitive superstition.
Our various religious narratives -- secular or sacred -- all, ***all*** allow us to treat our planet as an infinite source of free energy and materials and also as a free, infinite waste sink. So we believe absurdities and commit atrocities even when we are not fighting wars.
Our various religious narratives -- secular and sacred alike -- also all, ***all*** justify the terrible, direct, intentional, mass murder, rape, torture, terrorism and theft that is popularly called war.
Our brains are not designed to be rationalistic or purely intuitive or mystic. We cannot understand God, Gods, Theism, Atheism, or any of that ultimate ground of being in which we live, move, and breathe. We experience this, but we cannot understand it at all. We make stories and art that help us to share and expand our awareness, as well as have fun.
We need to make stories and art about this experience which are not science, but which need to integrate all the rich information and analysis that science provides along with the rest of human experience.
If I could ask Jay Hanson to do one thing it would be to accept that we do not process information as scientists only. We must do science, but we must also find a way to do religion along with that science. Both elements are essential to our humanity and our species survival.
The two must be wed together, but how? The ancient tribal wargods and the secular economic idols are alike very destructive to us precisely because they do not integrate science at all.
One way E. O. Wilson is approaching this is to avoid the mistake of telling everyone to dump all of their own beliefs, but rather to dig in and see where these traditions do have positive connections to science and to care for "The Creation" and other people as "Children of God."
Any thoughts about this? Do we need to dump religion entirely? Is religion irrelevant? Are we essentially religious beings as well as scientific beings? Do these two aspects of our brains necessarily conflict? If so, should they conflict?
Ultimately, even Peak Oil and Die Off are religious topics as well as scientific topics. That is what makes it so difficult for those who try to look at the topics in an interdisciplinary way.
People go nuts because the conversation swerves out of the comfortable parameters of technical discussions and vague generalities about forming positive public policy and private initiatives.
Once we admit that we must speak of values and purposes and cherished dreams and unspeakable fears and prejudices in relation to Peak Oil and Die Off, we enter into a whole new dimension of human relationship.
It is difficult to be that vulnerable, even to ourselves.
(Edited for typos and brevity.)
Hello Beggar,
Well said. Your Quote:
-----------------
"We must do science, but we must also find a way to do religion along with that science. Both elements are essential to our humanity and our species survival.
The two must be wed together, but how?"
----------------------
Repost below for your consideration:
-----------------
Hello TODers,
The future I push for is O-NPK recycling + SpiderWebRiding as I believe it will be the civilizational remnant of our 'Web of Life'. IMO, it best expresses our societal connectedness to Nature. Sure, we might die by the billions, but those after us can use and even improve upon whatever Spiderwebs we leave behind.
Sure beats head-balancing a heavy load as you try to traverse non-existent roads. Think of a Spiderweb as something very light, but very strong, that barely impacts upon its environment, but is very efficient at harvesting and recycling what is available in a optimal and focused method.
As long as they understand the productive advantages of ball-bearings, gears & chains, steel wheels on steel rails/pipelines, wheelbarrows & bicycles, to move the bare essentials, then fully recycle the residue-->there is much to make us look forward. My hope is that this understanding creates such a yearning for more Spiderwebs that most will not be interested in extended machete' moshpit dancing.
This can biosolar harness and extend our instinctive territoriality to the watershed boundaries [and possibly much beyond postPeak], much like a wolf pack or a lion pride cruises its boundaries [defecating and urinating] to mark by efficient O-NPK recycling. Just as a wild animal's territory is endurance limited, the limits of our Spiderwebs will be constrained by our clever application of both muscles and brains.
Ideally, it may be possible to refine the Spiderwebs to the point that we can then just admire horses for their sheer beauty and for pure joy-riding; not to seek to just make them beasts for heavy burdens.
"I know we're needing something worth believing in.."--Harry Chapin: Remember When the Music
...came from silver wire that would set our minds afire."
http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photos/patterns-na...
Free horses in a big pasture in the Big Sky of Montana--enjoy the sights and music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCdbf6Oxi2w&feature=related
----------------------
As posted before: I hope that a desire for 'Optimal Overshoot Decline' can be wedged between Jay's fast-crash scenario of the Thermo/Gene Collision prediction timeline and the ArchDruid's long and grinding Catabolic Collapse. My feeble two cents.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Bob your ideas are one example of thinking wholistically about living into the future we want to see.
I do not know if many people can be persuaded to try to make radical changes in the direction that you suggest.
Perhaps as need arises, people will shake off the lethargy and try to relate to planet and people rather than continue in the soma-coma of drugs and Tee-Vee and the Mall and such.
It would not surprise me at all to see some SpiderWebRiding emerge over the next couple of decades.
Where that and O-NPK recycling can take some people, no one can yet say. But some folks will pick up on these changes, that's my guess.
I am sorry what is spider web riding? I sometimes follow your posts but this one got me.
The idea of creating a network of metal rails so that wheelbarrows can be pushed about to move stuff.
I have owned three wheelbarrows all of which functioned very well in the nonimaginary universe sin spiderwebs. Bob is this satire? On a site dedicated to conservation and responsible use of resources you are suggesting we create a network of steel (a valuable resource that degrades in the elements) to push around wheelbarows? Is there an impending evaporation of roads and sidewalks? I don't see any advantages and only disadvantages.
matt
There is an impending degradation of roads and sidewalks. They're made from asphalt or concrete blocks, which nature reclaims when not sprayed with herbicides or protected by a continually laid film of CO and other combustion byproducts. Importantly, there will be an evaporation of synthetics used for tyres and cart bodies, reducing you to the C19 all-wood barrow, which will be far less forgiving of an uneven surface.
Bob is referring to something similar to the first uses of narrowgauge rail that you see in mines and quarries; a way of using a standard platform with a choice of geared human or draught animal labour with the reduction of drag and opportunities for partial braking that a rail provides.
Given the timescales that we are going to have to work to, the installation of small Very Light Rail networks will give a community a competitive advantage, and will probably come to be seen as a far better investment than road maintenance; whatever road traffic remains will be increasingly ruggedised, as the efficiency of road transport leads to larger and more surface damaging forms of the road train.. Those would shake apart cobblestones in a couple of passes.
"Religion and science are the two most powerful forces in human culture"
I am inclined to think business trumps them both, by a fantastic margin. I really wish some knowledgeable people would engage in discussion about the potentially useful role of business and entrepreneurship in these matters. Economists have gotten human nature wrong, but economic systems functioning so closely parallels ecological systems functioning that this seems to me like the shortest path from here to adaptation.
Various economic theories are more like ideological idolatry than like science, it seems to me.
Economics as we know tends to be a religious discipline employed mostly for political purposes.
Our economic systems do not so much parallel ecological systems as diametrically contradict the existence of ecological systems.
So far our contemporary dominant economic systems -- capitalism, communism, socialism -- have all seen the earth as a magical, infinite source of free materials and energy, and also as a magical and infinite waste dump.
I don't really see that "business" will solve anything.
More likely that we will continue "business as usual" and consume more and pollute more each day until we bring our ecosystem crashing down around us.
Money mimics energy which producers turn into materials that consumers consume and concentrates in denser quantities as you go upthe food chain. Innovation mimics gene mutations which evolve and give rise to new industries, which mimic new species evolution so closely that it displays features of punctuated equilibrium. Our drive to accumulate money is ultimately the same drive that propels salmon upriver or that bends a plant in the direction of sunlight. The "invisible hand" of the marketplace bears a far greater resemblance to indigenous and tribal peoples' conception of an animating spirit-force than to the avenging judge in the sky to which critics liken it. Environmentalists wish to leave ecosystems undisturbed for the exact and precise same reason free-market capitalists wish to see economies unregulated: both are dynamic, self-organizing systems that will achieve homeostasis on their own, if only they are allowed to do so.
The parallels between economic systems structure and ecosystems structure are positively uncanny. It is as if humans have tried to recreate the exact environmental systems from which we evolved. Given that business is the arena in which these parallels manifest, it seems rather obvious to me that business deserves some very serious consideration from a systems perspective, with regard to humans' environmental adaptation. It would appear that we are already very close to functioning collectively and organically in a manner compatible with environmental homeostasis. It could be that one or two critical nodes to be adjusted or taken out in order for economies to merge properly into their ecosystems. Rejecting business on principle rather than even trying to look at it may sacrifice the very thing we need to avoid Hanson's Hobbsian apocalypse.
I am inclined to think business trumps them both,
Business, the consumptive lifestyle or the addictive nature of the autocar?
I am inclined to say that the human brain is too hardwired for conspicuous consumption to just say that we will change the metric. People will give things up when the economics changes uch that these things are no longer possible. Some will give them up sooner, others will stubbornly cling to the old ways and suffer for it..
I admire Jay's diligence in compiling dieoff.org, and I read many of the articles there when coming up to speed on peak oil and sustainability.
I have not been very enthusiastic about Jay's writings I've seen in the last few years.
The main problem for me is that he shares the assumptions and blindnesses of many technically oriented Americans, which is why I think his work resonates with some TODers and doomers.
Strong on engineering and the physical sciences, this approach runs into problems when it tries to deal with social issues. Sadly, the result is often reactionary ("not politically correct" as Nate puts it).
Culturally, I think Jay is akin to Robert Heinlein and his descendants in the science fiction realm.
As a technical guy who wasn't socially adept, I loved stories like this.
The classical science fiction hero was a tough-minded technical guy, slide rule in one hand and laser gun in the other. Stung by an uncomprehending world, he retreats into solitude to craft his brilliant analysis or invention. Then, when the threat is about to strike (BEMs, outerspace bacteria, the Russians, overshoot), the hero returns to solve problem, winning the girl and putting to shame the flabby-minded authorities.
As smart loners grow up, they often become enamored of big abstract systems that seem to predict the future and confer power on its adepts. It's not a big step from Isaac Asimov's "pychohistory" to Marxism or Ayn Rand-objectivism. It's my impression that Jay's idea are of this type.
On the plus side - many worthwhile insights that are ignored by the mainstream.
On the minus side - a tendency to become true believers, intellectual arrogance, a lack of awareness of shortcomings (e.g., Greenspan Concedes Error on Regulation).
Bart
Alan Greenspan was an outstanding bullshitter/grifter/networker-the guy was the exact opposite of a "smart loner".
Dr.Venture, maybe?
http://www.adultswim.com/shows/venturebros/index.html
"As smart loners grow up, they often become enamored of big abstract systems that seem to predict the future and confer power on its adepts."
Isn't this the attitude of every media pundit out there?
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O'Reilly
Tom Friedman
Bill Kristol
etc, ad nauseum
Only thing is, you probably have to change the "smart loners" to "intellectual midgets" :)
Hi WHT, I was thinking of systems that actually have some merit such as Libertarianism, Marxism, Catholicism, and maybe Technocracy. Whether one is an adherent or not, one can learn something from these systems. They are part of our cultural heritage.
The only one of the media pundits you mention that I can bear to listen to is Tom Friedman, and him only when he talks about energy.
One of the problems with intellectual life today is that for the most part, we've lost touch with the big, traditional systems.
Instead, we have people going off into their garage and inventing their own. Scientology for example. The new jerry-rigged systems are intellectually thin compared to the traditional ones.
I haven't read enough of Jay's work to be sure, but having encountered sections like those quoted by JD, it sure sounds to me like old-fashioned fascism. Nowadays "fascism" is used to mean "something I disagree with," but in the 20s and 30s it had some intellectual substance and a lot of appeal. I wouldn't be surprised to see fascism making a comeback.
Bart
Bart,
Jay appears to "test" various ideas about what sorts of political arrangements maintain social control during resource contraction. He is less an "advocate" than an "explorer." He is willing to explore fascism because it is an historic response. The challenge then becomes, "If you don't like fascism what other options are you willing to consider?" I think he would prefer a Technocracy of sorts, but believes that fascism is more likely for reasons related to the "Biological Evolution Laws" given above.
Hi Jason, From what I've seen of his recent work, Jay is moving further into advocacy.
This is really bad news, since he did good work earlier on, and even in this "Dark" phase, many of his points are insightful.
But the turn towards fascism is bad ... it's playing with fire.
If you look at the 20s and 30s, this is nothing new. There were strong strains of biological determinism then too. Many scientists and intellectuals were caught up in the fascist mood. It's a mistake to characterize fascists as fools and buffoons - and to imagine that WE could never be like them.
A high IQ and scientific training does not protect one from bad political judgment. In fact it may make one more vulnerable - one gets trapped by one's own thought system and is unable to see how one's judgment has been warped.
There's one thing I agree on with Jay. Fascism is a definite possibility. Already the far-right British National Party (BNP) has developed plans for a post-peak society. And there are always parts of society eager for Strong Men, scapegoating and military adventures.
We need to be very careful when people like Jay move into danger territory. This means: being critical, putting his remarks into perspective and learning more about the dangers of fascism.
Best, Bart
If it is a fact that the environment can not support the population at present (or future) levels, then the population will fall to what ever level can be supported. That this is an often seen reality in ecology implies that it is likely to be mankind's future. It's clear to many of us that the present population is directly the result of the availability of fossil fuels, thus, as those fuels are depleted and become ever more difficult to acquire, it should be expected that our human population will decline.
The next question is, how will this decline occur? There is much to be feared, as it would seem likely that some segments of society would wish to chose just who would survive and who would not. These folks could also use the many available methods to bring about their own desired result, what ever that might be. One can call that fascism or whatever, human history indicates that there is a high probability that the more violent approaches will be taken for a quick "solution" to the situation. As in any disaster or war time situation, there will be a "triage" decision process, that is, a decision as to who to attempt to keep alive by providing treatment and who to let go (or worse, kill).
I'm afraid that there will be many otherwise healthy people who will go down with the ship, once TSHTF. The question then will be who goes down with the ship and who gets a seat on one of the lifeboats. Think of the scenes of the evacuation of the U.S. embassy as the U.S. withdrew from Vietnam, helicopters shuttling people away to safety. Maybe the modern version is Helicopter Ben's dropping money to selected banks or businesses, those which receive the cash survive and those without do not.
It's about time to go to the polls and add my small incremental decision (called a vote) to the grand total...
E. Swanson
If it is a fact that the environment can not support the population at present (or future) levels, then the population will fall to what ever level can be supported. That this is an often seen reality in ecology implies that it is likely to be mankind's future.
I think die-off is only an inevitable fact for un-natural experiments like bacteria in a Petri dish. In natural environments, species do all sorts of things under population pressures. Sometimes they migrate, sometimes they maintain a sustainable level, sometimes they die-off.
Human beings have an even greater set of responses:
What will we do under resource constraints? Probably all of the above and more.
I don't think it's helpful to fixate on one possible outcome, and elaborate it with all our fears. It's not historically or biologically accurate, and it doesn't help us deal with the situation.
Bart
...about psychohistorians and their work.....
Asimov's "Foundation" novels — the most famous science-fiction trilogy between "Lord of the Rings" and "Star Wars" — described a new science of social behavior called psychohistory. Mixing psychology with math, psychohistory hijacked the methods of physics to precisely predict the future course of human events.
Today, Asimov's vision is no longer wholly fiction. His psychohistory exists in a loose confederation of research enterprises seeking equations that capture patterns in human behavior. These enterprises go by different names and treat different aspects of the issue. But they all share a goal of better understanding the present in order to foresee the future, and possibly help shape it.
jewish world review Asimov's ‘Foundation’ theories on society move from fiction to academia
well, 9/11 sure "shaped the future", didn’t it?
doc aumann got a nobel prize for his game theory. bererzovsky is a mathematician, as is chalabi… ive got an uneasy feeling that we might be experiencing the first world war run by computers.
i have no trouble imagining doc aumann’s crays burning the midnight oil, trying to figure out what bombing, what assassination, what manipulation of what market, etc, etc, etc.... will work...
...not to mention RAND, and all the bright boys and girls in the other think tanks.
EDIT:...and now my world jewish review article has disappeared itself, which only adds to my paranoia.
ANOTHER EDIT: whew! nope, it's still there, they just changed the url.
the two most important theories of governing by psychohistory, according to a strange book by donald kingsley "psychohistorical crisis": first, if you monitor masses of people in sufficient detail, if your math is refined enough, you can spot unwanted trends and head them off hundreds of years in advance by miniscule application of force, or other manipulation.
secondly, you have to keep your plans and your manipulation secret ---and hopefully even the guild of psychohistorians secret--- lest your plans be counterpredicted and nullified by people who are not so infatuated with your project.
why on earth PNAC would admit they needed "a new pearl harbor" is beyond me... they must not have read kingsbury's book.
...but maybe the most important thing about kingsbury's novel was this: factions will develop within the guild of psychohistorians itself, and they will start counterpredicting and nullifying each other.
which, i spose, leads us to junking the computers, and resorting back to "might makes right".
wonderful.
The "factions in the guild" thing is probably a reality (a microcosm of the wider culture war, or what Gibson calls America's "cold civil war").
that would be william gibson, i spose...
from pattern recognition...
Yes - from "Spook Country".
http://peakenergy.blogspot.com/2008/08/money-shot-william-gibsons-spook....
rats. now i'm trying to decide whether or not to read your spoiler links.
the book hasnt showed up yet in our second hand bookstores... which are mainly oceans of romance novels... which leaves no doubt why america's in such bad shape.
the idea of a "cold civil war" is growing on me.
.
i just noticed i called kingsbury "kingsley", but it is kingsbury for sure.
I've watched the first video and the last video (but will watch the others later).
I think Jay can get more fundamental than he has so far.
In my view, it all starts with a fundamental distinction that I haven't yet heard him mention.
The distinction is between the universe and our interpretation of the universe.
The universe is, right now, doing its universe thing, including the group of atoms that are typing these words.
Then, for humans, every occurrence is assigned an interpretation by our brains. So there is reality, then there is our interpretation of reality. The fundamental mistake we make is that we think our interpretation of reality is reality. It's not. It's always and only will ever be just an interpretation. But we go to war over our interpretations.
From the michel-foucault.com website:
How many interpretations are possible? An infinite variety because words can be organized in an infinite way. Which interpretation is "correct?" None of them and all of them.
This fundamental disconnect between reality and how humans interpret reality is what I would say it at the source of much mischievousness.
Until humans understand that there is no truth but only an infinite number of interpretations, we probably won't alter the long-lived conversations that are currently running the human species. One of those long-lived conversations is "we have to grow." Some other common ones are "this is right" and "that is wrong." All are useful concepts but they are just concepts and should be used more judiciously than they are now.
Of course, the above is just another interpretation and should not be taken as true ;-).
aangel -- good comments!
In my comment above I tried to address this from a slightly different angle, as have others posting about Burning Man and the split between technician and other ways of thinking in highly specialized cultures.
I do think that we have a huge, hostile split between science and religion -- it is so glaring and obvious, and it is such a core issue that I believe it to be the pivotal issue of our time.
If we look at politics we can see that religion is often used -- not just now in the USA with the POTUS pseudo-election drawing near -- but around the world and through out time -- to manipulate people.
But religion also supplies the Meta-Narrative that people need to find meaning and a ground for making decisions about what to do between now and whenever they die.
Whoever controls the stories that give us meaning and a frame within which to live essentially controls the culture.
Note that science is often mined for technology which in turn is mined for better weapons of war, and better forms of control over masses of people.
Our religious narratives -- the absolutely needed stories we tell ourselves -- are not yet formed or shaped by science. Science formally despises religion as ignorant superstition, while religion hates science as a strange kind of wizardry: sometimes useful, but always a snare of Satan.
Most of our religion is rooted in ancient fear, antagonisms, and prejudices that have to do with survival of various groups as we have perpetrated various wars and oppressions upon each other and stolen resources from one another.
If we are to survive, it seems that we must develop a way to integrate science and religion -- perhaps not wholly, but to allow a significant area of overlap so that science can help to shape the story of who we are, and the mystical side of our brains can exclude use of science and precious resources for war and plunder, and instead direct technology and culture toward peace and sustainability.
Like it or not, we are talking about repentance, renewal, resurrection. We are talking about seeing the world in a new way, and turning from our old ways of seeing and living to a new way. This is essentially a religious, spiritual, or mystical process.
Well, in the model I outline religion is not "true" but neither is science.
They are both made up because both are simply sets of interpretations. One set is called science, the other is called religion.
What they share is that both are completely made up...they exist only in language. Take away language and the machinery of the universe continues to operate completely oblivious to what these 6.7 billions sets of atoms think of it.
I too think a new way of seeing is required, but I would not call it religious, spiritual or mystical since that is just another set of interpretations that is equally invented by man. The new way of seeing is without meaning.
What then is there to fight over?
Well said, aangel. Worth thinking over.
Yes, the reality we face is not religious, spiritual, mystical, or scientific.
It is what it is.
We are what we are.
This brings me to the need to create ways of seeing. I will venture out on the ice of dialogue to suggest that our ways of seeing result in more pain for ourselves and others if we are not simultaneously scientifically curious and open to mystery.
Even though reality is what it is, the 6.7 billion (plus) people on the planet can only relate to the reality through the dynamic of language and stories.
So the stories we tell are important. If they are the lies by which we know the truth, then perhaps it is best to try to construct those lies with a purpose of avoiding as much suffering as possible and providing as much opportunity for joy as we can.
I'm just trying to feel my way along this phenomenological cliff's edge, not trying to assert a complete comprehension and a wonderful plan for everyone's life.
Maybe there will not ever be a common narrative which allows peaceful coexistence of various sustainable cultures over many generations. Maybe there need not be. But that is the direction I am heading.
I am convinced -- as are others -- that we are on a suicidal path as a species, and we are taking plenty of other species down with us. Maybe that is fine, and it is what it is. I have this hankering to try to nurture another story into being -- one that emphasizes a kind of New Jerusalem or Eden Redux or Paradise 2.0 rather than embracing the End just yet. Or maybe just an Eternal Bunny Ranch kinda deal, you know? Free food and frolic for all!
In one sense this is all folly -- our species may very well die off sooner or later, so what's the big deal?
Maybe we all need to take our own mortality -- and that of our species -- less seriously?
My sense of "God" or "The Divine" or "What Is" sure is my own interpretation, though -- and I take full responsibility. (Sarconal alert, here!) Except that my genetic code does things I am not aware of, and then there was that cute girl I had a crush on in 5th grade but things did not work out, and I was raised in the religious right, and my life experiences did this and that to me -- real drama queen stuff. (End sarconal.)
Perhaps we have simply reached the point where we can no longer understand ourselves or each other. We have built Babylon again, and now we grow confused and unable to communicate....?
It sure looks like our species is heading for an ending from where I sit. I'm not sure how to embrace that.
I too believe that we're heading off the cliff. And I think you've answered yourself earlier in your comment:
If we start with the world has no inherent meaning, we see the absurdity of the human condition. We love and fight and cry as we live in a world with no inherent meaning except the meaning we created. But just because we created the meanings doesn't mean we chose them. We are like a leaf in an ocean of meanings — mostly helpless as the meanings move us to and fro.
That the human race is coming up to a rough patch doesn't mean what you may think it means.
It doesn't mean anything at all. That's where the freedom lies.
The very existence of the universe, or the illusion that it exists, tells us that something, rather than nothing, is going on. This is all we really know.
"Science" can be said to represent that tiny little beachhead where people are beginning to catch on, or think that they are, to how some of it works. "Religion" could then represent how people respond to the remainder: All the stuff we think we know is there but can't begin to explain, and all the other stuff we don't even yet know is there (not to mention the "meaning", if any, to any of it).
I don't see a necessary conflict between the two. But historically Science has, or seemed to have, rendered some aspects of Religion unlikely or untenable, which leads some inflexible adherents to those aspects to distrust or revile Science. They both can be part of a coherent perspective if we keep clearly and tenaciously in mind that neither is The Truth or The Final Answer.
For my part, I'm most pessimistic about the human prospect because we are language-users. Any system of symbols, language included, is by definition an abstraction, which, in turn, means that it is only at best a partial representation of reality - and that only with the utmost care and precision in use, and a constant and painstaking return to the concrete, preverbal, reality. Our root predicament right now is that we live and think in a layer-upon-layer world of interconnected and derived abstractions, each "higher" layer increasingly divorced from reality, built up without much care or attention to the process. As long as we continue in this enterprise - which, as humans, we must, willy-nilly - we're going to sink deeper and deeper into psychosis.
But it ain't no thing. Evolution has gone down billions of blind alleys before. No particular reason to think Homo sapiens isn't just another one.
Have a nice day ...
In a minute from now, I will most probably still be at my computer keyboard, typing. In five minutes, I will probably still be at the computer, reading my entry from the screen in front of me. In two hours, I will probably be getting ready to call it the end of the day. Tomorrow morning, I will probably get up at my usual 6am to begin the day. A week from now, I will probably live in the same house, and in a year, I will probably be a year older, still kicking, and will still live in the USA and probably where I do now. The future five years from now is much less certain, although there still remain high probabilities for some things such as where I will live, the auto I'll be driving, what I'll be eating, who my friends are etc,. The point is, the future, as it recedes to the horizon out front becomes less and less certain. What will be the condition of humans in 10,000 years? How can we have even an inkling of an idea? Will we have become a technological utopia, or will we be thinly distributed over the earth's surface as small groups of hunter gatherers. Maybe we won't be here at all.
What are the events now that will define our future? What of the Black Swans, and isn't it true that accidents are accidental as in completely unexpected, or they wouldn't happen? Accidentally going off of the bridge in one's vehicle is just that, accidental, although there certainly are, usually, preceding clues as to what may be in store (driving too fast on a slick road for instance). Do we in fact have control, and if so, can we change outcomes, or do very complex systems take on a life and a direction of their own? Chaos emerges from complexity. Can we do anything about it? Without language, is complexity possible? My dog's life is simple. He wakes up, he eats, and he seems to enjoy my company. He sleeps. My life is relatively complex, I think it is so because of language that allows me to grid my experience, interrelate, recall, project, identify, and communicate. The mystics believe that to experience reality, one must dispense with language. Reality head on is nothing, literally, nothing, without language as the intermediary for interpretation.
Aangel, you are correct. There is nothing to fight over. Our future will be what it will be. Our path is quite determined; we know we're heading off of the bridge because we're heading off of the bridge.
While a particular science's conclusions may eventually be proven untrue, all science is based on the scientific method. So far that is the best tool that humanity has developed to allow it to distinguish reality from the fantasy and mythology that is the foundation on which religion is built. At least for what it is worth, science does indeed seek truth. Religion just tells you to believe and never offers any proof.
Yes, but everything you point out exists "above" the universe that has no inherent meaning. From that view, there is no truth because it's all constructed in language.
I do agree that one set of interpretations does a better job of reflecting what you and I would call reality (science).
It's so easy to be rebuked for being mushbrained, or worse, for sophistry, any time the realm of spirit is introduced. But isn't that what we're talking about here, when we have to take a leap into a new formulation of civilization that is immiscible with the old? Or as Scott Adams' koan goes, "What is the sound of a paradigm shifting without a clutch?"
The true meaning of apocalypse is "unveiling." It's only the end of the world for those who are too heavily invested to countenance the change willingly.
Until humans understand that there is no truth but only an infinite number of interpretations,
It's interesting that you don't apply your relativism to your own views on growth. The idea that we can eventually tap energy from off-world sources is pretty straightforward (space mirrors, solar power satellites etc.), and in fact, we already are using extraterrestrial power to drive part of our critical infrastructure (satellites). You certainly haven't proved that we can't expand our intake of solar power from extraterrestrial sources to massive volumes in the future. So your statements about having to live within terrestrial energy limits are just dogmatic beliefs. Why don't you question them?
".. using extraterrestrial power to drive part of our critical infrastructure (satellites)"
You are kidding us, right? Some of these sources are low-power photovoltaics that basically drive electronic circuitry. I think the Voyager used some radioactive sources that enabled it to keep transmitting information back to earth from much farther away than any of our near-orbit satellites.
My dog drinks from the muddy ravine and the toilet, therefore we as human can probably start doing this too! Do you understand how stupid some of this sounds?
You are kidding us, right?
No, I'm not kidding. Our entire satellite communications apparatus is driven by extraterrestrial power, so the claim that we are limited to terrestrial sources of energy is false, even today. Granted, off-earth solar power is today where oil was with Colonel Drake back in 1859. And there are more straightforward sources of power to tide us through in the near term, like terrestrial solar, natural gas, coal, nuclear and conservation. But the idea that the earth is a petri dish, and won't be able to continue to grow by tapping highly expandable energy from extraterrestrial sources is nothing more than religious dogma, supported by no solid evidence whatsoever.
Vast flows of solar power can be directed to a desired point near or on earth using a technology as simple and primitive as mirrors. And numerous large mirrors have already been launched into orbit, such as the Soviet Zanmya mirrors (1990s), and the early satellites of project Echo. The basic technology was feasible even in 1950s.
There are unbelievable flows of power in space, which can be relatively simply channeled with mirrors. I don't see any good reason why we should rule out continued growth, in the long run, based on tapping such energy. In fact, I would argue that we should aim to tap this power as the best way to continue the growth based paradigm. Hopefully I'll get a chance to argue my case to the TPTB against stick-in-the-mud defeatists like you and Angel etc. I think I can make the sale.
I actually agree with you. I think you or someone like you will make such a sale, and piss away more of our concentrated energy before first addressing our 'ends'.
(And for the record, I for one am anything but defeatist. I am a realist about the pain we will likely face in next 5-10 years but if I wasn't hopeful for an all around better situation for the planet and its denizens in the future I wouldn't take the time here to educate and facilitate. If I was a defeatist, I'd just go out and party in style. You on the other hand, are doing a serious disservice to meaningful societal change on energy policy decisions, because the default belief is the status quo - it takes one site like yours (and you are a good writer) to undo the efforts of 5 sites like this one, (given equal traffic which is not the case).
Are you THAT confident that peak oil isn't here and that we will just shrug off its impacts and therefore can deride those calling for change in how we view energy?
Oyasuminasai
I remember that Prof. Rick Smalley thought remote solar sources of energy were "the best" of the hare-brained schemes out there. He didn't say that it would work only that it was better than anything else. The problem with Juris Doctor's marketing approach is that he has no sense of scale or proportion, and is unable to engage in rhetorical arguments. Using a wimpy satellite power-pack to prove feasibility? Come on.
But you are right, Nate, in that the people that get convinced this easily do undo the efforts of sensible thinkers.
It's happening already. I know of at least one multimillionaire who was dissuaded from donating to environmental-damage amelioration and instead put all her money into space power satellites. She thinks she'll get rich and save the world. Nothing of the kind will happen.
I'm no Luddite; I've worked for decades with astronauts, promoted space exploration and love it in principle. Yet the smooth delusionality of those who think we can seamlessly transition from "where we are now" to "industrial quantities of power from space" just represents another flavor of cult. (A bit reminiscent of the "underpants gnomes" business plan, for those who watch South Park).
Yet like most such cults, they actually have a "feel good" meme to sell, which will dependably trump rationality in most cases. I'm watching it happen, and it's a tragedy. It's the energy-investing equivalent of the dubious financial products that are bringing down the world economy.
I rather think of this as one of a class of "reductionist ad absurdum" worldviews; as though the use of solar cells at huge expense to provide tiny amounts of power on geosynchronous satellites is somehow relevant.
These cults are going to eat our lunch, I'm afraid. One face of the tragedy of the energy-investing commons.
Yet the smooth delusionality of those who think we can seamlessly transition from "where we are now" to "industrial quantities of power from space" just represents another flavor of cult.
I am very much *not* making the claim that "we can seamlessly transition from where we are now to industrial quantities of power from space". The transition is not going to be seamless; in fact, it will be quite wrenching. And it's going to be quite a while before space energy can truly scale. In the meantime, we will be addressing energy issues with more practical near-term approaches like conservation, NG, coal, nuclear, terrestrial solar etc.
My point is that the "we are limited to the earth" contingent hasn't presented any strong case why we can't/shouldn't tap space energy and continue to grow in the mid to long term. You object to it based on moral/emotional grounds -- not because you have definitively analyzed it and shown it to be impossible. Therefore your objection owes more to religion than science. You object to space energy because it poses an unacceptable threat to the fundamental dogma of your cult, i.e. that we must face limits and halt growth.
Dude, you sound pretty smooth to me. You post that tapping the huge energies of space is the best way to continue the growth paradigm, despite the fact that our current civilization has a hard time deploying a single solar array on a showpiece international space station in near-earth orbit using boosters that were pre-built and paid for during an era of cheap energy, and that we're nearing large-scale systems collapse.
I have definitively analyzed the prospects, and no, I won't waste the time or bandwidth here, your reputation precedes you. Suffice it to say that I'm deeply sorry mankind missed out on reasonable chances to use space in a creative way. What was arguably thermodynamically possible is certainly no longer evolutionarily or (subset) financially possible.
Near I can tell, all I owe to religion is the useful lesson that people will believe what they want to hear. I figured out that scam at age 6, and pretty much any thoughtful 6-year-old could now shoot holes in the practicality of plans for plugging into space energy.
And that will be it for my posts to JD. cheers.
With all due respect, your notion that space power is a reasonable alternative misses several rather obvious engineering problems. that's not unusual, as few people have a good grasp on the problems of operating in space. For starters, putting anything in orbit requires rather a lot of energy. What's been done so far is very expensive, especially if it involves hauling up something to keep people alive in the cold near vacuum of space. Worse, going from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to synchronous requires a further major expenditure of energy, as in fuel which must be lifted from the surface and accelerated to orbital speed. Don't count on the "space elevator", as a single lightening strike could destroy such a beast, even if it were possible to build.
If that weren't enough, a solar power satellite must be quite large in area. In the process of intercepting sunlight at some 1400 watts per sq meter, there is also a force on the large area, which would act like the wind on a sail. This force would constantly push on the satellite, which would move out of orbit unless there were regular blasts of rocket power to offset the solar pressure. The larger the satellite, the more fuel (or energy) must be expended to counter this effect.
And, how would the satellite(s) be repaired? Today, the space shuttles can not reach synchronous orbit and they are about to be retired. Where's the new launch and recovery system to come from or is the repair work to be done with robots? What happens as the parts of the satellite eventually wear out? Are these large satellites to be dismantled to be replaced with new ones every 30 or 50 years?
I think we will never see such large systems built, especially as the fossil fuels which powered our economy and created the illusion of wealth begin to decline. There simply won't be enough excess productive effort available to build and launch these, let alone maintain them. Of course, the politicians and Disney Land dreamers will tell us such is possible, in spite of the physical realities. Unless, of course, there is some major revision in the laws of physics.
Beam me up, Scotty! There's no intelligent life down here!
E. Swanson
It takes a rather modest amount of energy if you actually calculate it. Its enormously expensive today, and no one is claiming any different. Given we use less than 1/1000th the solar energy budget today we have a ways to go before we actually have to start putting industry in space, as in several centuries.
My point is that the "we are limited to the earth" contingent hasn't presented any strong case why we can't/shouldn't tap space energy and continue to grow in the mid to long term.
1 - Human tap space energy every day. Solar PV, solar thermal, wind, hydro, seasonal crops are all short term spaced based power expressions. Wood, oil, natural gas, coal are all longer term.
2) A link was provided to the last person pitching space mirrors. You were pointed to it JD. You have not offered a rebuttal. So "your point" looks like posture without substance.
"it takes one site like yours (and you are a good writer) to undo the efforts of 5 sites like this one"
All due respect Nate but I think (this particular spat aside) you're giving JD a lot less credit than he deserves.
For the record: it is my position that though this is the #1 peak oil site on the internet for scientific analysis, there is NO PLAN outlined here.
Go to JD's site, ignore the half baked stuff like space mirrors etc and you will see that not only is there is plan, but it's REASONABLE and WORKABLE.
Not only that but it's likely to be the one we are going to get.
What is it?
ELECTRIFICATION + CONSERVATION.
Nothing whatsoever half baked about that.
You do the oil drum a disservice by getting engaged in bickering whether or not JD is trolling you for laughs or not.
Electification and conservation have been large themes on this website. The reason we don't have a 'plan' as you suggest is based on 2 reasons:
1)there are 25 of us (I guess 24 now) on TOD staff. The editors kind of choreograph the content but other than that we are all equal. And we agree on some things and disagree on many others. Through discussion here we help find the truth. Actually that is a misstatement as I doubt we can ever know the 'truth', so what we are doing is trying to find out what is NOT the truth - eliminate the dead ends. I have been talking about changing our 'ends' - having different social goals than conspicuous consumption. While some others on staff probably agree with me, I have been the only one writing about this. Each post/topic is standalone - a piece of a puzzle.
2)there is no one 'plan' that we can globally follow. At least not one I am aware of. On local and regional levels, electrification and conservation will be part of a portfolio of successful solutions.
May I be heretical and suggest that you have achieved your task: get the news out and that now you ought to use your talents to find a solution?
The reason I say that is I get kind of frustrated when coming to the oil drum.
The analysis is excellent but from the perspective of someone who is in a position to "make the sale" as JD calls it, I see nothing coherent here other than a lot of bad news and reasons why various ideas WON'T work. Sorry to call it for what it is but that's what it seems like.
I WANT a coherent plan other than hunker down and prepare for population crash.
So do the people I work with and the people I advise.
If you are simply a news analysis site so be it but I think you could be much more than that and I think you collectively are shirking your responsibility to the world by not stepping up to the plate.
My 2c.
For what it's worth.
I don't think anyone has ever written a comprehensive "how to solve it post" though I try to do regular mini-solution posts (and one day I'll get around to producing my personal vision of what we need to do).
There a lots of good options out there for dealing with peak oil - and we do discuss them from time to time - admittedly these sorts of posts seem to be much less popular than the "bad news" type posts.
and won't be able to continue to grow by tapping highly expandable energy from extraterrestrial sources is nothing more than religious dogma, supported by no solid evidence whatsoever.
98 tons of ancient plant matter to make a gallon of gas. And the economy is built on cheap gas. A growth model based on expanding the volume of gas (liquid Hydrocarbons) - a model where the photon processing costs and photon processing volume is discounted to $0.
But go ahead. Show how capturing photons in the NOW, with the costs of that new infrastructure will fit the growth model 'we' are used to, so growth will continue.
I think I can make the sale.
Last guy trying to make such a sale failed.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4336
But go ahead - pick a day so we can all show up and discuss the matter.
Food? Oh, we can genetically engineer humans to become photosynthetic, no worries!
The idea that we can eventually tap energy from off-world sources is pretty straightforward
And yet when pitched here:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4336
once they guy pitching your position had it pointed out that the power density on land 'bout the same as solar panels that exist already.
Why don't you question them?
Gosh, given the lack-luster power density - why bother?
(Now want to pitch robots in space converting asteroids into refined metals and dropped to earth - fine - go nutz.)
I do question them because I know that they are just interpretations of reality. If they aren't the truth but instead merely another view to add to the mix, there is no reason to be dogmatic about things. I'm fairly sure that in my interactions with you I've merely let you have your point of view rather than argued or debated you. Argument is useful (if it's done in the spirit of collaborative exploration, not because both parties are being positional) but it is also the first sign of dogmatism.
Once I've got all my views lined up ready to choose from, I'm still left with picking one or several points of view that get me where I want to go. They won't be the "only true and correct" views and I reserve the right to jettison them at any time.
After looking at all the points of view (interpretations) that I had access to, I judged that space-based power as advocated by you was not going to get me and the world where I wanted to go. I think it is a distraction, much like hydrogen was (is?) until recently.
In this model, your view is not "wrong" to me, it's just got a very, very low probability of succeeding and thus I choose to advocate and propagate a different point of view.
Many an entrepreneur has had to stand for some possibility that others did not think was viable until somehow they irrefutably demonstrated it. Thus the possibility of space-based power still exists because possibility can never be destroyed.
But I'm not interested in going through the work of "disproving" it; like for everyone else who is trying to introduce a new idea the burden generally lies with the idea holder to make the case. And I don't think that's been done yet.
spot on aangel. Thank you.
War is horrible - maybe we will get lucky and starve to death.
Every farmer knows there are absolute limits to stocking rates and smart graziers understock - that way they survive drought without having to buy in feed.
At the moment we are buying in feed big time from the future.
If you don't think the earth can support 28 quadrazillion people then at some stage you have to put a stop to population growth.
It means you understand the world is not a magic pudding that grows back resources..
But then again it does - if our wants are so low that they can be satisfied with vegetables, grain, earth and wood - if we all lived like an Indian peasant there would be no problem.....yet!!!!
Jay was active on the USENET during the 90's Here are some posts obtained by searching the sci.energy group for jay hanson and mclynch. I occasionally posted as entropy
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/search?hl=en&group=sci.energy&...
Jay also had some remarkable exchanges with John McCarthy
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/index.html
Everyone had exchanges with McCarthy back then. For being such a renowned computer science, he was quite the reactionary as I recall.
dieoff.org should be required reading in all public schools at all ages.
Richard (az)
Jay Hanson is a militant fascist who argues that we should flush "rights" down the toilet, run the country with a military junta, and invade another nations for their resources.
Source
Source: warsocialism.com
Peak oil is a hall of mirrors, isn't it? On the one hand, you can join up with Dick Cheney and the cynical status quo crowd who want to run the country as a military dictatorship. Or you can join up with the hip, green, counterculture peak oil people like Hanson, who want to run the country as a military dictatorship.
What solution do you propose, JD?
It's a rarity to find myself in agreement with JD, but Hanson's words here are damning. I've not read too much of his stuff, but some of it I found very interesting - until I got to this twisted neocon wet dream. I fully expect that the times to come will change everyone's focus, and I'm not sure how to rank dictatorship relative to disaster capitalism on the desirability scale.
I note that his first two steps are exactly what is happening now. I don't think either are working out too well, nor would I have expected them to, and the stresses they cause will make war far more likely.
Overall, these steps:
strike me as some of the same immature, adolescent fantasies peddled by our present neocon friends. I'm amazed that anyone could consider this worthy of serious discussion, let alone waste any more time listening to him - Is this as far as this "great thinker" has come? None of it will happen, and what of it is tried will fail. That's because life is not a comic book, and this stuff is too simplistic.
The kicker is that this is the kind of stuff they publish to sucker in the ideologs and other shallow fools while the real money and power is busy taking it all for themselves, and the rest of us can go to hell. An agenda like Hanson's is just perfect for an aspiring, ambitious sociopath to take and use to advance their own position. For this is the story of human history - thousands of years of fighting and killing and dieing for some noble cause or another, following the lead of someone on a mission. Read about Napoleon - he's a good example.
The collapse of the western industrial empire will send us through many, many years of chaos. Changes in form of government, including lack of any, are likely eventually. But how long this will take is unknowable at this point - the question of rate is the key to everything. Hanson sounds at once naive and juvenile in thinking that his "plan" would work, and pathetic and bitter in suggesting we should preempt a coming dictatorship by starting one first.
Hanson's words here are damning.
Hanson is guessing how things WILL go down.
And at present the rhetoric of the leadership VS the actions of leadership falls under the 'damning' category worldwide.
None of it will happen
None?
Plant “Victory Gardens” throughout the country.
Looks like its starting as food costs rise. So much for 'none'.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=auqam0SXjfvQ
The collapse of the western industrial empire will send us through many, many years of chaos.
Hence the dieoff.org moniker
Changes in form of government, including lack of any, are likely eventually. But how long this will take is unknowable at this point - the question of rate is the key to everything. Hanson sounds at once naive and juvenile in thinking that his "plan" would work, and pathetic and bitter in suggesting we should preempt a coming dictatorship by starting one first.
He's pitching it as the alternative to the collapse/dieoff endpoint. Really, how is what he's suggesting much differnet in practice than the chains of bondage people sell themselves into every day, be it credit cards, mortgages, 9-5 jobs, insurance and the most extreme example - signing up to the 'all volunteer armed services'?
Handwaving, bay-bee handwaving.
As I said up thread, I have not read much of Jay Hanson's work. It is not that hard to ignore a lot of the discussions out there, much like it is easy to dismiss the other side of the claptrap, such as the peak oil debunking sites.
Sort of reminds me of a book I scanned recently written in the 1970s called "Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity."
Nasty stuff. Libertarian fantasies go out the window when allocation issues become primary and everybody is stuck shoulder to shoulder.
I recently re-read "Ecology and the Politics of Scacity" and it's still very enlightening and most of the predictions were pretty spot on.
Now, if you want to get real depressed read his (William J. Ophuls) newer work "Requiem for Modern Politics: The Tradegy of the Enlightenment and the Challenge of the New Millenium". Very interesting but very scary because it implies that the seeds of our current situation were sown a looong time ago. How fast can we scrap The Enlightenment and come up with something else? How much time do we have?
How fast can we scrap The Enlightenment
How fast can you get divine creation and the earth is only 6000 years old as the 'accepted POV'?
Rather than increased centralization of society at the national level, I think the future will be more at the community scale. When the Roman Empire fell, it resulted in a thousand years of feudal society. It wasn't pretty, but ultimately it was sustainable and allowed Europe to eventually transition eventually to higher technology society.
Rather than a highly centralized (and very inefficient) national government, I see society moving toward more decentralized centers in every viable community (many currently settled areas are not viable).
The bigger they are, the harder they will fall. The sooner we let some of the big non-viable corporations (dinosaurs) fail, the sooner we can get back to an economy/society at a more human & local level.
Technology is not a ladder to heaven; it is a lever that enables us to exhaust resources faster. The cell phone is a good example of this.
When I was a kid, each family had one simple plastic phone receiver that worked for decades and ran without any AC power.
Today, almost every human has a cell phone that is land-filled every year or two. They are made of exotic materials. They need AC recharging every few days. Most chargers are plugged in 24/7 and suck AC power, even when the phone is not charging. Hundreds of millions of cell phones are land-filled yearly. This waste is increasing exponentially.
Cell phones did not even replace landlines. Every family now has a half-dozen wireless landline phone receivers, all of which suck AC power 24/7. These things are not built to last more than a few years, either.
Waste is not incidental to high technology - it isn't a problem that can be solved by higher technology. Almost all "high technology" means higher energy mining of increasingly exotic materials and higher overall energy consumption.
You're assuming a high energy society - in a high energy society, new technology allows the efficiency gains to make us over consume.
In a low energy world of the future, it can help cushion the fall that is coming (but certainly not replace the world as it is).
Also, technology is driven by need. Your analogy of the cell phone is an example of a society going from ordinary consumption to hyper consumption for little return in actual productivity. This is convenience technology, not a necessary one.
As we go down the energy ladder, technology will go in the opposite way and much of it may look like rediscovering old technology. I wonder if a 21st century clothes pin will somehow improve over the 20th century version. Maybe it will just be made of recycled plastic bottles?
Technology is not just a ladder up, it can also help on the way down, or at least a bridge to a totally new way of life.
Far as I can tell, almost every technology development is what you call "convenience technology." I agree that we will be forced to do things more simply on the way down.
I am comfortable using "technology" in the descriptive sense (e.g. "horse-related technology will become more important") but I can not assume this continuum of development you refer to as a "ladder" or "bridge."
History does not provide examples of this continuum. When Rome fell, technologies such as concrete were simply lost, because the worldview which they developed from had collapsed. I expect us to face the same problem.
This notion of technology as a benevolent force - that helps us up the ladder in boom times and down the ladder again in bust times - strikes me as similar in spirit to the notion of the free market as a benevolent force.
We will certainly shed technologies on the way down, but this will not proceed in the spirit of technology development as we know it today. Medieval people did not, armed with full knowledge of Roman concrete, consciously develop lower-energy construction technology.
The difference is the availability of energy. In an environment where energy is cheap and plentiful, technologies that are energy hogs but provide a minor incremental convenience advantage can proliferate. In an environment where energy is scarce or extremely expensive, other technologies proliferate.
Just the difference in how Americans vs Europeans vs Asians vs other developing world use the same available technology is amazing. There are whole areas that are completely different - think of how Africa's use of cell phones has saved them laying millions of miles of wire to connect land lines to every town and village.
Some technology will be lost forever and might never be understood by our ancestors because it will never be economical, like the Hummer as a personal vehicle.
My main point in the original post was that our society will not be centralized to the same degree it is now at the national level. Local counties, towns, villages, cities will become more important. This devolution will allow each local area to develop the best use of the available technologies, resources and labor to meet their needs.
well said.
If that was your point, we surely agree. My point in this conversation is: the word "technology" is descriptive only - I can say that we have "car technology" and that a hypothetical future society has "horse technology," but this says nothing to me about technology as a force in society.
For me, to say "technology helps us down from cars to horses" is like saying "shoes help us down from sneakers to boots." I do not perceive a force in society called "technology" any more than I perceive a force in society called "fruit" which provides us with "apples."
What we call "high technology" generally causes growth in resource exhaustion, though it is widely perceived to conserve resources. I wager that if you asked people on the street whether phones are more energy-efficient today or in 1950, most people would say today and be wrong.
There is a widespread belief in a "technology god" which I will not assume you subscribe to. Those who believe in the technology god, generally believe that "technology" is guaranteed to make up for any shortage in energy or resources, for those who invest in it. Like many gods, technology is infallible; those who invest and receive no benefit must be doing it wrong.
Technology worshippers certainly see technology as a force in society. I think they are mistaken, and feel that this belief is an impediment to understanding of overshoot and dieoff.
When I was a kid, each family had one simple plastic phone receiver that worked for decades and ran without any AC power.
Gee, you make it sound magical. No Alternating Current to make the phone system to work. -48vDC tip to ring - so power was used.
Other than the ringing was achieved by sending a 90-volt, AC wave at 20Hz.
Ultimately, our species is ungovernable. Furthermore, our world and universe are not at all in our control. We each live and die and our species is very likely mortal as well.
We develop some systems that work pretty well for some people for a while in certain circumstances. Frequently we destroy these systems because they depend on some people doing badly relative to those who benefit from the systems we make.
We sure do not run the planet. We may destroy it as a habitat for ourselves and for many other species, but we do not manage the planet at all.
The planet does not belong to us, we belong to the planet. But many of us -- myself included -- do try to make some kind of story or stories that give us some form of meaning or significance, which is maybe another way of saying "eternal life."
Even the instinct to nurture another generation along is an effort at a kind of immortality. It is a mighty strong urge.
Peak Oil matters in that it is part of the matrix within which we live, and the relatively sudden, drastic change in availability of petroleum has forced us to decide who we are, and to tell ourselves stories that will justify our behaviour.
For most people, the stories we will tell now are ways to justify resource war.
Whether one listens to Bush-Cheney, McCain-Palin, or Obama-Biden in the USA, they all will try to tell stories that make us feel better about killing other people and taking the resources they would have had that we want.
I keep thinking that another narrative exists that will have no place in the apparent halls of power, but which will survive and carry life along.
The small overturn the great, the weak overturn the strong, the scorned elements defeat the elements that are glorified. This is an old theme. Maybe the microscopic stuff will become the dominant life form, only to be displaced by something else ...
Peak Oil is indeed a discussion about who we are and the stories we tell ourselves about why we do what we do.
How much killing do we justify to get resources?
Can we propose and follow through on a peaceful powerdown protocol?
This depends upon the stories we tell ourselves about who we are, and about who "They" are.
Sorry to interrupt the crowd of preeners of Hanson's feathers, but I think he talks mostly nonsense.
Whenever you look at an issue, you get a whole bunch of facts and see a lot of different trends. You can choose to emphasise one or the other to make some point. You can also entirely ignore half the stuff you see and focus on just the other half. Thus "doomers" and "cornucopians"; if you focus only on resources and human greed, you become a doomer, if you focus only on technology and human ingenuity you become a cornucopian.
A more balanced and sane way to do things is to look at all the trends together.
His basic idea is that endless growth in energy consumption is needed for social stability, and that since endless growth is impossible, societies everywhere will collapse violently.
The problem with this idea is that it's utter bollocks. Many societies throughout history have trundled along quite happily for generations without increasing their per capita energy use. Others have increased their energy use and been quite unstable. Others have kept their energy use the same but been unstable societies. And so on.
Another basic idea of his is that the entire democratic political process is hopelessly corrupted by money and corporations. In this, he's extrapolating from the worst of US politics to all of US politics, and from there to the world. Which again is complete bollocks.
It goes on like that. It's a bit like the Social Darwinists (aka economic rationalists) and the Communists talking about nature and evolution. Nature has both competition and co-operation; the Social Darwinists emphasise the competition, the Communists emphasise the co-operation. Both are wrong.
We need more balanced views of things, we need people who can take the different opposing trends and see how they balance out.
Societies may have been successful with less energy in the past, but they were less complex and less habituated to high energy gadgetry and the related neural feedback mechanisms. I have gone from Jay's view to your view and back about 6 times since 2002. Real events, real observations have lead me to lean towards the cooperative side of things locally and the competitive side of things regionally and internationally. Dealing with billionaires for 12 years and seeing what motivates them (and seeing real time examples of Aubrey McClendon, Bob Simpson, Boone Pickens, etc.), made Jay's ideas on dopamine and competition instantly ring true with me. I suspect others who have different life experiences might side with the cooperative viewpoint of the future. We are all biased, including Jay, you and myself. Discussion by an engaged community eventually brings out the truth (or fights...;-)
For me personally, I view the future as a distribution of numerous possible outcomes, and I change the weights of their timing and likelihood based on new information. Recent events have increased the 'height' and 'timing' of the segment labeled 'war'. But like you I remain hopeful. On my internal distribution, the WORST case scenario is business as usual conspicuous consumption for another decade or two, using lower and lower grade fossil fuels and taking the environment down with us.
"We are all biased, including Jay, you and myself. Discussion by an engaged community eventually brings out the truth (or fights...;-)"
Yes, that is exactly right. Or wrong. We are all right. And we are all wrong. We don't bring out the truth. We are the truth. There is the truth and we are it. Jay is it. You are it. I am it. It is it. The truth. Is it. And it can be wrong. Well, not wrong, because it is the truth. But maybe the truth on one level is not the truth on another level. And maybe we, theoildrum, are looking at the truth from one level but another level already exists. And maybe it always existed but now more people know that it exists. And what would be the implication of this? What if a "new truth" all of a sudden arose? No, that sounds too much like Christ. What if we as a people all of a sudden became this new truth? Operated from a new level of existence? What if we as a whole, and maybe we don't even need that many, not even a majority, just a simple minority, began living and experiencing this new truth? What would happen? Would we even know? Can we even transcend ourselves, our bodies, our minds, to even experience such an experience? I don't know. I hope so. I know I do. Sometimes. Some times. Some minutes. Of each day. I try to every day experience things that I couldn't even imagine yesterday. Today my son played Bach's Minuet 3 on his violin. Perfectly. Flawlessly. It brought tears to my eyes. The depth of his playing is profound. Isn't that enough? Isn't that what this is all about? Isn't that why we are here? Well, that's why I am here. To hear him. To hear you all. To hear it all. Because, well, it's so goddamn fun!
And really this sort of approach is just what makes the market so unstable - changing your mind based on what you heard yesterday, today or tomorrow. You know, "oil is $150, oh no THE PEAK IS HERE WE'RE ALL DOOMED!" then a month later, "oil is $70 OBVIOUSLY IT WILL LAST FOREVER NO WORRIES!" We have to work hard to be more mature than that and have some perspective.
Overall, I am neither hopeful nor despairing. What happens to us is determined by our choices. This is at once uplifting and terrifying.
All this "neuroscience" stuff - the inverted commas are for Hanson's version, not for the real thing - is just nonsense, plain old behaviourism. It's saying that certain things are inevitable because of humanity's brain wiring. And this is obviously not true. We have other instincts, and we have free will.
It's as I said about evolution and Nature, you can emphasise the co-operation and ignore the competition, or vice versa, and get completely different ideologies as a result of that. Hanson's done the same with his "neuroscience", emphasising the "alpha male" sort of stuff to show that endless growth leading to the destruction of the world is inevitable.
His ideology of "war socialism" is essentially xenophobic fascism, though mixed in with socialist stuff like free mass transit - but then, fascists always are a bit muddled. His proposals include,
"Increase our fraction of global net energy (divert energy from competitors) directly by military action."
"Reduce energy demand by reducing human population levels (e.g., closing our borders, deporting as many as possible and discouraging births)."
"Reduce energy demand by eliminating unnecessary [13] economic activity."
[13] refers to,
"Global government would determine the “needs” of the public, set industrial production accordingly, and calculate the amount of eMergy used to meet these needs. Government would then distribute purchasing power in the form of eMergy certificates, the amount issued to each person being equivalent to his pro rata share of the eMergy cost of the consumer goods and services."
I cannot subscribe to any fascist ideology, however muddled.
"We have other instincts, and we have free will."
You believe you have free will because you are conscious of your actions. Your actions result from a series of causes that are out of your control.
One could say I made a conscious choice to reply to this post. I would say that is not true. I was driven as an effect to reply to this post out of an unconscious cause. Maybe I need to bolster my self esteem by attempting to show I posses more accurate knowledge than you? Maybe I am attempting to impress others and maintain my status in a virtual community? It would be difficult to pin down the cause of ones own actions but it is obvious something drove me to post this besides the questionable fact I have “free will”.
==AC
"However, unless such persons had proved by experience that we do many things which we afterwards repent of, and again that we often, when assailed by contrary emotions, see the better and follow the worse, there would be nothing to prevent their believing that we are free in all things. Thus an infant believes that of its own free will it desires milk, an angry child believes that it freely desires vengeance, a timid child believes that it freely desires to run away; further, a drunken man believes that he utters from the free decision of his mind words which, when he is sober, he would willingly have withheld: thus, too, a delirious man, a garrulous woman, a child, and others of like complexion, believe that they speak from the free decision of their mind, when they are in reality unable to restrain their impulse to talk. Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined; and, further, it is plain that the dictates of the mind are but another name for the appetites, and therefore vary according to the varying state of the body. Everyone shapes his actions according to his emotion, those who are assailed by conflicting emotions know not what they wish; those who are not attacked by any emotion are readily swayed this way or that. All these considerations clearly show that a mental decision and a bodily appetite, or determined state, are simultaneous, or rather are one and the same thing, which we call decision, when it is regarded under and explained through the attribute of thought, and a conditioned state, when it is regarded under the attribute of extension, and deduced from the laws of motion and rest. This will appear yet more plainly in the sequel. For the present I wish to call attention to another point, namely, that we cannot act by the decision of the mind, unless we have a remembrance of having done so. For instance, we cannot say a word without remembering that we have done so. Again, it is not within the free power of the mind to remember or forget a thing at will. Therefore the freedom of the mind must in any case be limited to the power of uttering or not uttering something which it remembers. But when we dream that we speak, we believe that we speak from a free decision of the mind, yet we do not speak, or, if we do, it is by a spontaneous motion of the body. Again, we dream that we are concealing something, and we seem to act from the same decision of the mind as that, whereby we keep silence when awake concerning something we know. Lastly, we dream that from the free decision of our mind we do something, which we should not dare to do when awake.
Now I should like to know whether there be in the mind two sorts of decisions, one sort illusive, and the other sort free? If our folly does not carry us so far as this, we must necessarily admit, that the decision of the mind, which is believed to be free, is not distinguishable from the imagination or memory, and is nothing more than the affirmation, which an idea, by virtue of being an idea, necessarily involves (II. xlix.). Wherefore these decisions of the mind arise in the mind by the same necessity, as the ideas of things actually existing. Therefore those who believe, that they speak or keep silence or act in any way from the free decision of their mind, do but dream with their eyes open."
~Benedict de Spinoza, Ethics
So if I punch you in the nose, you won't complain to the police, since after all it was due to a series of causes out of my control?
Really, nobody outside closeted academia swallows this determinist nonsense.
Actually, the problem is more like trying to predict where a Snooker ball will end up on the table if hit sufficiently hard. Technically a deterministic problem with a defintive answer.. but since a speck of dust in the wrong place before the ball hits the first cushion could ultimately put the resting place of the ball in the opposite half of the table, any notion of deterministic behaviour is highly misleading.
Even your average PC is now too complex to be described as fully deterministic nowadays..
"Si, abbiamo un anima. Ma e fatta di tanti piccoli robot." [Yes, we have a soul, but it's made of lots of tiny robots.]
--Italian philosopher Giulio Giorello
Belief in "free will" is an inherent part of why some of the problems we rally against cannot be solved.
It's fortunate that what humans actually have, the ability to self-organize and self-direct as integrated parts of a system, is much more powerful than this fairy-tale of "free will".
It's unfortunate that we have not yet learned how to take advantage of this fact. This is because our current social structure of mores, beliefs, understandings, and relationships is wholly dysfunctional and is now being held together by the illusionary abstraction of money and the prevalence of cheap energy.
Yes, fascism engenders suffering. Yet Plato was already aware of democracy's fundamental flaws thousands of years ago. It turns out that each one of our ideas of "government", whether Marxist, communist, capitalist, socialist, democratic, even anarchist, they all have fundamental flaws. The very structure of our idea of "government", and why we think it's necessary, is flawed.
So what happens if he punches you in the nose, and there are no police to call? What happens then?
And why did he punch you in the nose in the first place? And why is this necessarily "wrong"? There are no members of other species on the planet that have the "right" to not be argued with, fought with, or eaten by members of their own species or of other species. Why are humans special in this regard? What about his "right" to punch you in the nose because you killed his dog?
The idea that he shouldn't be allowed to punch you in the nose is a utopian idea. This mindset has failed for thousands of years as we pay more attention to how we want things to be and ignore how things really are.
Jay thinks that this is a result of genetics, that we are inherently wired against introspection and uncovering our true motives, that we are in reality prolific liars to everyone including ourselves. Jay ignores the effects of tribal vs. civilized environments on this one.
The only way it could even be possible to create a utopian world is to start with the way the current world really is. Step one would be understanding that the drivers of individual human behavior are not independent of the system in which those behaviors are performed.
If there is rampant misbehavior, or "crime", then there is something wrong with the system as a whole, not only certain individuals within. Notice how criminals have been dealt with in various ways for over 4,000 years of written law, yet new criminals are continually created.
Our civilized system behaves like a cancer in many respects. After it has killed its societal host, it's then possible for survivors to self-organize into sustainable societies.
well said 710. (FYI - your email address listed in your profile doesn't work)
Thanks, Nate. My email address has been fixed.
Excellent 710!(as always)
When I post Hanson's thoughts about why most people cannot come to terms with Peak Oil or decline, this always draws the same response. Of course, he contibutes this to gentics, and I think, he may be on to something. His arguemnet is that for thousands of years humanity has been conditioned to think "progressively" in a reasonable expectation of something better to come... There seems to be always the same agruement that, "How can this be? Like you, we can see this decline, so how can this be so?" In as much the same breath they proclaim, "but, it won't happen to us!" This just reinforces Hanson's point.. Certainly, most of these people cannot envison a future of decline while proclaiming that they can as well, survive it, make them liars....
I'm very interested in what your thoughts might be about tribal vs. civilized environments... Is this the cyclical vs. linear?
Again, I can't agree more with your assessment here, especially your thoughts about utopian. I once had a class called "Utopian". The instructor was one of the greastest shipwreck divers in the Great Lakes, credited with way more than his fair share of finds...He was also one of the darkest men I've ever met in my life.. He started the class out by looking up the term "utopian" which states, ideal, visionary, impossible of realization. He boldly began by, "IF utopia is an impossibility of realization, the we shall begin looking for it through dystopia...." Indeed......
Thanks, The Raven, aka yooper
'[Yes, we have a soul, but it's made of lots of tiny robots.]'
--Italian philosopher Giulio Giorello
best LOL i've had recently! a lot of truth 710.
Nate & Jason
thanks for posting/hosting this. the comments themselves are worthy of study, & jay's work is fundamental in learning about peak oil & gets to the point- as a person i gave a basic info sheet to said; 'dieoff.org????' [it was one of the references]. it said a lot for me.
major thanks to both of u!
I remember being told once that everything we do is motivated by self interest, and being disturbed by the concept. Eventually I realized that the statement was oversimplified to the point of being meaningless - and worse, was Milton Friedman-esq propaganda justifying a culture of naked greed.
Your definition of the lack of free will is of the same stripe - meaningless oversimplifications and semantic games. I had an egg over easy this morning. I suppose that was pre-determined. So what.
No we don't have free will, we have hyperbolic discounting of our interests.
This explain so called "irrational behavior", dragging our feet in face on impending (but distant in future) problems of any kind.
Furthermore I fear that this is a necessary systemic feature which allows for renewal of evolving systems thru emergence of new "modes of operations" and obsolescence ("death"!) of older structures.
A fully "rational" policy would probably bring "thermodynamic death" much sooner.
If we don't have free will, then nothing we say or do can possibly change anything. So there's no need for you to post. Bye-bye.
A very confused "logic" sir.
Anything we say or do changes things there is no need for any "will", even the slightest move from the tiniest gadfly changes things (butterfly effect).
LOL, why do you deem it to be your "business" to ponder whether I shall post or not?
I can't "deem" anything, according to you, since deeming is an act of free will. Therefore, if I tell you to shut up, you cannot complain of my rudeness. I can't help it, after all.
May be it's beyond your reach but I can "deem" without free will.
You are totally confused, making up your own meanings for common words, may I suggest perusing a dictionary?
Or would it be too much for your intellect to spell out your definition of free will if it's doesn't match accepted word sense?
Which dictionary would you like?
Googling "define: deem" gives us,
# keep in mind or convey as a conviction or view; "take for granted"; "view as important"; "hold these truths to be self-evident"; "I hold him ...
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
# To evaluate according to one's beliefs; To hold as a personal opinion
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/deem
# To consider as true without need of further proof. ---- ---- by entering (competitors) are deemed to accept (the rules) without reservation. GS 3.11.1
www.fai.org/ballooning/documents/obs-glos.htm
# To hold, consider, or treat as if.
www.greenlegacies.ca/resourcesGlossary.asp
Most of those - evaluate, consider, convey - require a decision. Decisions cannot be made by will-less automata. A machine does not evaluate, consider or convey, nor does it hold a conviction or point of view.
I don't make up my own definitions for commonly-used words, I leave that to philosophers. Of course, making up my own definition for words must - according to you - be impossible, since without free will one must simply accept whatever definitions are given. So if you accuse me of making up my own definitions, you must accept the existence of free will. :)
If this is frustrating you, please bear in mind that in your deterministic philosophy neither of us can help it.
You are truly hopeless, "you talk to yourself" within your own philosophic system without even noticing that it does not account for the very discourse that comes from the other you are (supposedly) talking to.
The whole meaning of what I say escapes you because you try to cast it in some "rigid ontology" of yours.
For an illustration, I don't deny free will because of determinism but on the contrary because of the very indeterminacy of one's own decisions.
The illusion of free will comes from the fact that you cannot realiably predict in advance your own decisions and therefore, whenever you are surprised by one of you own actions which goes against your "planned expectations" you assign this to some quirk of the "free" will.
This is all explained in Ainslie's work which I previously linked already but I suppose you didn't bother to look.
You forgot the part about how we're currently trundling along with over 6 billion people, happily procreating at a rate of 70,000 per day.
Also, as you already know, our energy base is eroding beneath our feet. Exports are going to decrease in a frighteningly short amount of time.
Thus, I'm afraid your example (evidence?) is utter bullocks.
I agree.
6.7 billion, in fact. Expected to top out around 9.5 billion around 2050.
I don't see how it's relevant. Consider:-
- the IPCC reviewed studies told us that to avoid catastrophic climate change we need to reach 15% of 1990 emissions levels by 2050.
- the US and Australia together have 5% of the world population and cause 25% of emissions
- India has 17% of the world's population and causes 4.9% of its emissions.
Naturally we in the US and Australia claim that population is the problem. But the US and Australia alone as they are today could cause catastrophic climate change, while we could have three Indias as they are today and things would work out.
Any average Westerner can halve their energy and resource consumption in a single day, by a few simple measures without significant effort and zero expense, in fact saving money; further reductions take some effort. Halving population overnight would require genocide. While to the average American or Australia genocide (at least if it's not of us) may seem more at first look more attractive than reducing consumption, I think that given time to consider the issue, most would agree we can manage without our burgers and SUVs.
Population matters, but consumption and waste are far more important, and much easier to change quickly and humanely.
I await the predicted impending doom without a sense of great terror. I feel sure that the doom will be as horrific and sudden as those predicted earlier by doomers.
Doomers and cornucopians are both wrong. We're going to have neither Mad Max, nor a hydrogen-powered jetpack-wearing utopia.
6.734 billion in fact. And expected by SOME to top out at 9.5 billion in 2050. I expect there is a wide band of uncertainty on this, and if not there should be.
This might be factually true but extremely misleading. The median is much more relevant than the mean, as social democracies won't function if the generally upward mobile opportunity is not available to 30%+ of people (one could argue 15%+). Also, you are neglecting habituation, which I believe is a critical element in how OECD populations, particularly the US (I don't know much about your country), use and expect to use energy. Our expectations and daily routines are not as unmalleable as those of a few generations before. Take away the stimulation (internet, television, freedom of driving, flying to visit friends on a whim, Starbucks, etc.) and people will not just 'volunteer' to reduce consumption - there will be very real physical withdrawal symptoms, that even inspiring hopeful talk by a new president will not be able to overcome (in the short run).
Totally agree. But changing population MAY be easier to change than consumption drivers. At least it seems that way. I see more examples of downsizing everyday - (I have downsized immensely, but I had an immense base), but the change will be slow with same leaders at top.
This is probably correct. Other than I would add doomers COULD be right and cornucopians COULD be right, the latter is just more unlikely. If roughly 99% of what we consume is gone within 6 months, on a finite planet, how COULD the cornucopians be right? They could only be 'not wrong' for a certain period of time. And in response to your earlier statement about adjusting ones expectations after new information, you had it backwards, at least in my case. Now that oil is $70, I am MORE concerned than I was when oil was $140. (And my concerns about this precise scenario of oil spiking first half of this year and then plummeting due to credit crisis creating larger supply concerns in next 5 year window are well documented on 2007 writings and interviews on internet.)
Hmmmm...
What about genocide of the most demanding consumers?
That would certainly ease the matters quite a lot!
Actually this idea (a strikingly bad one) was once floated by a really great writer who I've come to think of as the patron saint of the doomers.
However his best work suggested a much better course of action.
who was that???
You're not the only one..
I remember questioning some of his stuff on a forum and the fact was that he just wouldn't engage with anyone who doubted anything he said.
I have always felt in these discussions that we are putting the cart before the horse. The radical cultural transformation we all recognize as required that seems so unatainable at the moment does not happen through the enlightened few who understand early on what is going on. This is where as speakers and advocates and early pioneers we are somewhat biased. We are hoping that our efforts will get more and more of society to "get it" and through this understanding of "getting it" our cultual values and government will change priorities. I don't think it will happen this way.
What will be culturally transformative is the society at large experiencing far greater pain and hardships than a mere inconvnenient increase in fuel prices or having to give up our SUV's. That is as far as the pain has taken us to date. And so why are we so surprised that our culture at large is clueless to the precarious relationship our global population has with our finite energy resources when after several generations we have never really experienced limits?
Cultural transformation that reaches the depths that it can reinvent our values and spirituality and even our religious beliefs require events that are biblical in proportion; famine, floods, wars, disease, etc. etc. Real die hard die off in your face consequences of biblical proportions. I think this is becoming increasingly obvious. And yes it is still believed that at 1 minute to midnight we will still be wise enough to rally together and transform. Wishful thinking at best I am sorry to say.
Jay Hanson is the man that started all of this for me, although I don't agree with him on everything, after reading dieoff.org my life changed radically. In fact, in my own family circles, we use the term "die off" as a colloquial way of refering to peak oil, ecologic degradation, limits to growth problem, etc.
He was one of the reasons, if not THE reason, we started our own Spanish speaking peak oil website, and now it is other people who tell me that I have changed their worldwiews... I just tell them to not stop here, hopefully they can keep changing in the light of new ideas and facts.
edit: one thing is Jay Hanson's website and another thing his ideas, he laid very well the problem for me, but his "solutions"... but I found this also a sign of how difficult is the process of understanding the world and then thinking about changing it, for this you probably need more than one person, and a bunch of years. Problem is we don't have much time left.
Jay was the first to publish the Hubbert Center Newsletter on the internet. The late L. F. Buz Ivanhoe did not own a computer. He planned to mail the newsletter to selected indiviuals including friends and government officials. I added Boone Pickens and others to the list . There were no plans to put the newsletter on the internet due to possible copyright and to other issues. I mailed a copy of the first issue to Jay with a covering letter. He had it and subsequent issues scanned and they were soon all over the internet. Copyright issues became moot. Much later the Colorado School of Mines established a web site. It was improved over the years following critical feedback.
http://hubbert.mines.edu
I did not know that.
Robert - what years were those?
I am unable find exact dates. I probably met Buz in person around 1995. Had read a couple of his articles earlier The first issue of the HCN was mailed late 1996. I suspect that the Jay became involved early 1997. As I recall another reason that the official web site was delayed was that Prof. Van Kirk was on sabbatical. The first print newsletter was dated Oct 8, 1996.
Here was one of Jay's posting on usenet referring to the HCN:
Here's an early list of his "dieoff" posts dated 1997/05/23.
E. Swanson
jeezus!
he had all those resources and links in 1996 and 1997..
you don't want to know what I was doing in 1996/7. Suffice it to say I had never heard of limits to growth, peak oil, overshoot, or rational actors...
The Interview....
First of all, thanks Jason for getting Jay on the air. Second, I'm tempering some of my remarks based upon Nate's comment that Jay isn't well.
I have to say that I was unimpressed. My expectation was that Jay would comment decisively since he's had years of practice. He wasn't IMO. Yes, he said all the stuff but it sort of rambled. And, at times, he sounded very indecisive.
I'm glad I had a chance to hear him but I doubt that few people would see him as the balls to the wall person of his internet presence.
Todd
I was struck by how different he came off in conversation than on the internet too. But I saw this as a plus. On the internet he seem TOO decisive to me. I don't think anyone can know the outcome. He did well I thought.
It's online now:
http://globalpublicmedia.com/reality_report_jay_hanson
Todd - He's had years of practice writing online -this was his first ever radio interview. He's in his mid 60s, lives with his wife and has little contact with others, let alone a live telephone interview. I think some here thought he was some sort of monster and that was (clearly?) dispelled in the interview. But a polished interviewer? No.
thanks for listening in. I thought his example of Liebigs Law particularly relevant - he mentioned that the PV for his house requires 110 solar panels and 4,500 pounds of lead in the batteries, which need to be replaced at some point, among other inputs. It highlighted to me how rarely we look at the limits of ALL inputs to scaling of alternative energy and other basic resources. EROI just measures energy but ignores water, land, chemicals, etc. How people think we can scale to 9 billion at current levels of consumption in all things is beyond me. And if we get ultra-efficient, the global models (LTG, GUMBO, etc.) just show a steeper collapse in the future as we eliminate any buffer for resilience in return for efficiency. You have the advantage of viewing/thinking about all this from a sustainable (from your perspective) vantage point. Can everyone do what you do? If not, who can, and cannot? Any communities that can get ahead of the curve before it's too late? Or do we have a responsibility to be inclusive, and attempt a global solution.
Hearing Jay's voice stirred up these big picture questions for me again. This is both a highly anxious time, and an exciting one. I have a feeling that in a year or two I might crave boredom...
Nate,
Here was my answer over a year ago. http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2598#comment-198259
I've snipped it a bit and did correct a few of the many spelling errors but not all of them.
I think this still offers a more realistic response to how the future could play out. And, while 9 billion could not live this way, a large number of people could.
(snip)
Almost a month ago (maybe more), I mentioned that I believed that more money should be spent on education than light rail. My underlying reason for saying this was that it (light rail) presumes that society continues pretty much as it is and that people have a reason to need transport to another location. Aniya asked specifically what I meant regarding education. It was harder than I thought.
One of the things I have found lacking on many TOD postings dealing with the future of society is a lack of defined parameters. We demand error bars on things that address quantifiable issues yet ignore them on societal issues. I believe definitions/parameters are necessary, even qualitative, on posts that address societal issues. Do not demand links or other support since what follows is my opinion. I would suggest that those who disagree with my parameters copy and paste mine, inserting their own rather than wasting time bitching about mine.
Clearly, everything depends upon how one sees the future. I finally settled on two possible US-centric scenarios.
Status Quo Lite (Chaotic Collapse)
Societal post-peak lifespan - <10 years to collapse
Energy availability - decreasing 4% per year
Sustainability - not sustainable
Division of labor - high degree of specialization
Population density - high to very high (50-200+/acre, except agricultural area)
Population and Pop. Growth - 300M and slowly increasing
Governance - elected representatives/bureaucracy
Economy - consumer/service, >60%
Economic Paradigm - capitalist/market
Money - fiat currency
Energy production - centralized municipal/corporate
Living Arrangements - single family, either stand-alone or apartments
Energy Quality Required - high
Food - purchased
Technology/science - Big science still supported
Law Enforcement/Military - alive and well and consuming resources
Key Meme - the market and capitalism will provide for my needs
In this scenario, consumption and energy use are downsized, there is some relocalization and re-urbanization but it is, essentially, business as usual.
My personal belief is that the society in this scenario hasn't a chance of surviving in the medium term, that is, ten years after the all liquids peak and that it will be chaotic, anarchic and unfocused when it does collapse. This is based to a large extent on the "service" nature of the economy, a fiat monetary system, resources depeletion, lack of "useful" skills, a necessary highly complex infrastructure, continued population growth and consumption beyond basic needs.
The slow descent will also allow various interest blocks (including regional, state and the Federal government) time to attempt to maintain their power and/or influence decisions. This will exacerbate the collapse since it is not in their interest to adopt new paradigms or give up power. I believe this is of crucial importance.
I see two possible educations courses of action under this scenario and in either case society collapses:
Possibility A - There is no recognition by the public that the old paradigm is being crushed by over population and resource depeletion. Education continues to mirror that of today although some professional paths such as alternative energy and agriculture gain more students. The had of the market will decide.
Possibility B - Society gets it but there is a debate as to how soon something should be done, whatever that "something" is. In true bureaucratic fashion, they decide to try to have it both ways by adding onto the existing curriculum. This certainly does not solve the issues facing society but it is a step in the right direction and could reduce the severity of the coming societal collapse.
School year: Extended from 9 to 10 1/2 months in grades 9-12.
Added curriculua: The added 1 1/2 months (mid-Jun through July) is devoted to areas that, it is believed, could be of practical use to the students after they graduate. The subjects include nutrition/healthful living, home gardening and food preservation, basic construction skills, energy efficiency (housing and transportation) and alternative energy systems. Boys and girls take the same calsses together. The last month of a student's senior year is used for community service and outreach.
In a way what I am suggesting here is "Back to the Future" on an expanded scale. I graduated from high school in 1956. The area where I lived was upper middle class and a high percentage of students went to college. Yet, there were 13 shop teachers, 3 home economics teachers and 9 business teachers for a student population of 2,500 (the school only had grades 10-12). Further, shop or home economics classes were required in 7th, 8th and 9th grade. I took shop through 10th grade - applied electricty (house wiring). I would have taken more but I was college bound and didn't have any free periods.
Dieoff (and Rebirth)
Societal Post-Peak Lifespan - multiple generations
Energy Availability - currently stable (it was decreasing 10+% a year post-peak prior to the biological war of 2015)
Sustainability - moderate to high
Division of Labor - low, generalist
Population Density - low (<0.2/acre), except manufacturing zones
Population and Pop. Growth - 60M (after a 240 dieoff), stable to slowly decreasing
Governance - regional consensus via the Robust Internet (There are no regional, state or federal governments.)
Economy - mostly home production of goods and foods, <2% outside the home
Economic Paradigm - societal for durable goods and communications
Money - there is no "money" nor is there any need for money
Energy Production - individual but societal in regional manufacturing zones
Living Arrangements - extended family/affinity group (1015 adults) in one dwelling on sufficient land to provide food and energy
Energy Quality required - low individual, moderate to high manufacturing
Food - home produced with a few minor exceptions
Technology/Science - very slow, incremental improvements in existing technology
Law Enforcement/Military - local residents/militias
Key Meme - personal responsibility in all things
For simplicity I used a high energy depletion rate to precipitate biological warfare and subsequent dieoff since the infrastructure would be largely intact and the dieoff would occur over a fairly short period.
Ok, the likelyhood of rebirth occurring after a dieoff is nil. However, a biological war isn't. The remaining people have regrouped (don't ask me how) to form a new kind of society that is almost stable-state. In fact, it is almost static. There are no consumer products in today's sense.
I include this scenario because this is how I would like to see society evolve and it gives me a framework in which to present ideas. Many of the ideas could be incorporated now were today's educational system overthrown along with most current economic paradigm.
The advantage of a dieoff under these circumstances is that there was generations-worth of useful materials from lumber to clothing to equipment. It allowed the surviving people time to regroup over a 20 year period once anarchy and power blocks were dealt with.
There is no economy in the usual sense with the exception of some manufactured goods such as cloth and shoes, canning jar lids, lamp mantles, certain equipment, sugar, detergents, a few food products, etc. that cannot be produced at home. As noted below, these are not purchased but rather an entitlement. There is some barter between regions and individuals.
I am making the following assumptions in approaching education: First, that there is a more robust Internet (called, naturally, the Robust Internet) to take the place of all retail business (which is a non sequitur since there is none), educational activities, communication, governance and entertainment.
Second, that various lubrications oils/diesel/gasoline are available but they are highly allocated (2 gallons of petroleum products per person per year - mostly used for chain saws or oil changes. The petroleum allotment was arrived at by consensus. Most families/groups use wood gas/biogas for their few ICE's. It made no energetic sense to replace useful vehicles with PEVs. Plus, battery production for PEVs was too energy intensive...there is no place to "go" in any case. Wood gas/biogas is used for appliance fuel (stoves, refrigerators, clothes drying closets and to supplement solar water heaters).
They use PV, wind or microhydro for DC power. There are no storage batteries or inverters. Those without wind or microhydro rely upon small 500W DC, low rpm diesel generators (think miniture Lister generators) run on wood gas/biogas for power after dark to run their computers for learning or entertainment. Gaslights (wood gas/biogas) are typically used for nighttime lighting. Third, that all farm work is done using animals. Fourth, that these groups really do provide for most of their needs.
Finally, the society is especially proud of what it calls the Civilization in a Closet. Actually, it is a very oversized metal storage cabinet that contains 20,000 books scanned onto microfiche (that can be read using sunlight), 2,000 View Master-type discs for picture including a viewer and 500 6" records (playable on a wind-up turntable) that include not only various musical styles but also recordings of important historical speeches. Every "family" has one. After the transition, it was felt that it was especially important to assure that information was not lost or unavailable because of technology.
Pre-K to "10th grade" - Home schooling
The cirriculum is structured so that someone completing "10th" grade will have received the educational equivalent of someone completing their freshman year in college. This is possible because home schooling doesn't waste time on ancillary stuff. The emphasis is upon classical literature, history and philosophy because they are the glue that hold socity together, science (chemistry, biology, physics, botany/entomolgy) and math (every kid has a basic understanding of statistics and calculus).
It is assumed that the child is introduced to practical living skills at home but these are vastly expanded upon in Adult Education.
All kids have an Internet tutor/mentor and perr/support groups available at any time.
Adult Education (2 years) - Boarding School
I started college when I was 17 and did OK so that's what happens with these kids..they leave for Adult School after the fall harvest when they are 17. Note that this isn't "college." There aren't any colleges. There aren't any degrees. There aren't any graduate schools or professions and this is a key point; the purpose of education is to achieve a personally fulfilling, stable-state life.
Classes run 8 hours a day, 5 1/2 days a week. Kids get four weeks off a year, two at planting and two at harvest. Besides skills, this period offers an opportunity to have significant contact with the other sex (or same sex or whatever).
The cirriculum is weighted toward life and vocational skills: personal relationships(It also includes serious sec education demonstrating that sexual satisfaction does not have to include procreating), group dynamics, societal dynamics, salvage operations, carpentry, forestry, soil science/plant nutrition/terra preta, irrigation/drainage, plmbing, electrical, engine repair/maintenance, physical education (Tai Chi, yoga, martial arts), roofing/shingle making, making homemade protective finishes, homemade lubricating oils/greases, furniture making. timber sawing/timber framing, advanced EMT/nurse practitioner, nutrition, sewing (hand and treadle), tanning/leather working/harness making, greenhouse management, apiary management, fruit science/viticulture, plant breeding, animal husbandry, spinning weaving, aquaculture/pond maintenance, pest control, pottery/cramics, food preservation, paper making, welding/blacksmithing, hunting and gathering, dentistry, weapons and tactics.
Both sexes take the same classes. There are no grades either - remember personal responsibility in the meme. But, there are tests so no one can claim they "didn't know." However, perfomance matters when it comes to mate selection. No woman or man would consider pairing with someone who is a screw-off or comes from a dysfuntional group/family. There are no class clowns.
Apprenticeship (1-2 years) + Work Period (to age 30)
Yes, people in this society retire at age 30 and go back to their group. The age for retirement was chosen because the older members will have begun to have difficulty carrying the workload and a couples' child will be a few years old. I should add that all workers live at their work site so there is no commuting. Room and board are free but there is no pay either.
A few final words about this society: The few goods produced are all standardized, of absolutely the highest quality to extend their useful life and all durable goods are repairable by the owner (all products that may need rebuilding come with one or more rebuild kits). The minimum acctepable life of durables is two generations. Nothing is produced that can be made at home. People who do not are disenfranchised and thrown out. There is no right to the work of others because a person simply exists.
Everyone who has fulfilled their work periods gets a basic yearly allotment of "stuff" as noted above. It is all containerized and comes by truck-train once a year. One year was chosen since it was believed this would promote furgality.
So, to avoid a novella, that's it. Now, lest someone think I haven't gone farther in my mind, I have. I just don't want to write Todd's version of Ecotopia. Is it realist? No! Are there inconsistencies? Of course!
(snip)
You have outlined a reasonable scenario here, but I think it is important to take on board the effects of all the landfills, toxic dumps and abandoned stockpiles of chemicals and cars and other industrial society products rusting and leaching their harmful chemicals into the environment. I am thinking of heavy metals, pesticides, PCBs, Dioxins, industrial oils, solvents, and the whole host of 1000s others. And what of all the nuclear waste too?
If these are all left largely unattended for a number of years, surely they will eventually cause major pollution problems that will be very difficult to solve, possibly even detect? You could have a situation where communities spring up and are drawing water from some source or another, but it is badly polluted but unseen. Without the access to chemical analysis, it could seriously affect the health of people and thereby add further burdens on these populations already struggling to cope. The same applies to contaminated soil. A further problem tend is that if you do realize an area is contaminated and you decide to move, how do you know that area isn't polluted too? Perhaps people will relocate upstream, but these would become limited and usually tend to be less fertile and thinner soils than downstream.
In all of the scenarios that I have ever seen, these issues are never taken into account, although it is obviously very difficult to even begin to quantity them.
I just finished listening to Jason's interview with Jay Hansen, and I highly recommend it to anyone curious about Jay. As Jason notes in his debriefing after the interview, hearing Jay's voice is very important, since in his writing he can seem harsh.
I think it's helpful to divide Jay's writings into two parts.
First are the concerns with energy and resources. I agree with everything he said on this subject. His thinking is part of the "Limits to Growth" school represented by Richard Heinberg, Ted Trainer, Howard Odum, Hubbert and many others.
Second are his theories about social behavior and his political suggestions. In the interview he was much milder than in his writings. For example didn't mention his suggestion to
The main problem here is that he is theorizing in fields in which he doesn't have a background. The result is a disappointing mish-mash of pop-biology and pop-sociology.
If one wants to write about social behavior one should really do some reading in anthropology, sociology, political science. Other people have passed this way before.
For example, Jay's discovery that people often act from unconscious motives might be news in 1908, but is familiar ground now. For me, the most convincing explanations come from psychologists like Freud and sociologists like Marx (the idea of "ideology"). For more on this, see Beyond the Chains of Illusion by Erich Fromm.
Sadly, Jay turns to biological determinism to explain social behavior. Previous examples of biological determinism do not inspire confidence: Social Darwinism, theories of racial superiority, and William Shockley's ideas. Inevitably biological determinism leads to reactionary politics and Jay had been sticking his toes into some pretty nasty stuff in his writings. The name of one of his sites - WarSocialism - gives you an idea of what he was toying with.
The most refreshing part of the interview was when Jay admitted that he didn't know the answers to our problems, and invited other people to pitch in.
Here's hoping that Jay returns from the Dark Side and instead engages with the movements that he has helped to shape.
Bart
From your link (emphasis mine):
bart,
Did you really listen to the interview?
The reason I ask is because Jason and Jay repeatedly and explicitly discussed social and environmental influences on behavior. For example, see their discussion of SOCIAL NORMS beginning at 36:30.
Either you didn't listen to the interview, or you lack even a basic understanding about what is and what isn't biological determinism.
I'm very disappointed because your blatantly false accusations amount to slander. To be honest, it is a little embarrassing. I mean for God's sake bart, all people have to do is listen to the interview to see that you are spreading falsehoods about the man. What were you thinking?
Matthew, I did listen to the interview, and especially to his thoughts on social behavior.
Yes, Jay does use terms like "social norms," but his essential point is that behaviors are fixed.
This is really part of the nature-nurture controversy that has been ongoing for the last century or so. Usually what happens is that someone from biology or the physical sciences ventures into the social sciences and tries to apply biological models inappropriately.
The process often goes like this:
This little drama has been repeated time and again.
The excerpt you quote from Wikipedia ("[there is] virtually no support among geneticists for the strong thesis of biological determinism") is actually my point. Biological determinism is rejected both by biologists and social scientists.
People who are trained in the sciences really should know better. You can't waltz into another field and start theorizing without understanding what has been done previously.
Bart
Following the thread here and being apart of his lists in the past, I'm not surprized that most people find Hanson's personality as abrasive. I should know, I'm just like him. My educational background is in psychology/socialology/biology, however I doubt my abrasive nature has stemmed from this alone. I think, my lost of respect for most people has developed over time, as I've emerged into a world of darkness...in fact, almost 40 years of it.
Furthermore, as I describe certain concepts and how they may pertain to us as humans, this is not only confusing but frustrating as people try to grasp ideas. Once they do and apply this knowledge in their lives, this can be a hurtful process.
Indeed it's a very thin line between sanity/insanity, reality/fanatasy. In the end, it's only our perception of reality, that molds our view..............
I don't find Hanson's personality abrasive. The interview showed him to be an interesting, sympathetic personality.
Personally, I like people with high IQs and an unconventional approach.
Two problems though.
1) American culture has not been a good place for people with high IQs. There is a tendency to feel isolated and to retreat.
2) When one is alone, it is easy to get lost and dispirited. Human beings need interaction with other people in order to stay grounded. If flesh-and-blood companions are lacking, then being part of an intellectual or cultural tradition can partly make up for it. But even so...
At one point, I went to the high school authorities to ask what my IQ results were. The administrator wouldn't tell me, but he did say that "People like you are often unhappy. They find it hard to fit in."
Actually, a wise thing to say. What he didn't mention was that when one DOES make connection, the outcome is happier and more intense than for those in the fat part of the Bell Curve.
Perhaps this is why many people are so loyal to TOD and other peak oil groups - it is okay to be smart here.
This is also why I'm glad that Jay consented to be interviewed. It could represent his coming in from the cold - he doesn't have to figure it all out himself.
Bart
I can't believe how wrong this assessment is. Talk about "sad."
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/determinism.html
I think Jay often overplays his hand and his rhetoric can sound "deterministic" as in we are programmed to overshoot and dieoff.
However, the discussion is much more nuanced and complex. We talk about the self-reinforcing social context in which decisions are made. These are SOCIAL/ENVIRONMENTAL factors that are perpetuated by self-deception, inclusive fitness and reciprocal altruism mechanisms that are evolved, domain specific and genetically inherited.
I would prefer that Jay be more probabilistic in his rhetoric. That's why the interview is good. He is obviously searching for answers to a conundrum that he fears will lead to the worst possible outcome. He believes there's a high probability that to "solve" the problem of resource scarcity societies will turn towards militarism in politics and violence in practice. When he asks "Is war the only answer" it is somewhat rhetorical...probably yes...but he sure hopes not. This is a slap in the face/wake up call methodology. It spurs dialogue. Something he desperately feels is needed. And I agree. I haven't hear boo from the mass media or the politicos that gives me any confidence that Jay isn't probably correct.
Bart,
I have followed your periodic postings here and appreciate the work you do at Energy Bulletin (you are that Bart right?)
You are clearly concerned about our energy future and seem to be someone who wants to learn. I don't know how to put this other than quickly/frankly, but regarding the 'nature/nurture' side of the issue you have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, from my exposure to the old dieoff.org site (where did it go?), Mr. Hanson HAS done reading in anthropology, political science, and many other areas. He must have for he has hundreds and hundreds of links to papers and books in those fields, and condenses them accurately in his essays (the old ones). Secondly, Freud was a charlatan compared to modern neuroscience and evolutionary anthropology. Economics and sociology and psychology are all social sciences - they are therefore not science - no social scientist has 'proven' anything because society and the phenomena they observe isn't fixed. Biology attempts to find the ultimate reasons for behavior. Freud and the other works you cite are just some mens theories and observations - unproven. If you are really interested in learning in this area - I recommend the following texts, in order. I promise you won't be disappointed or offended, for they are written in much milder language than Mr. Hanson's.
Evolution for Everyone - How Darwin's Theory Can Change the Way We Think About Our Lives - by David Sloan Wilson (He is a religious man and believes in evolution and in a 'god', for what thats worth - but it is an excellent introduction)
The Moral Animal -Why We Are the Way We Are- by Robert Wright (Uses Charles Darwins own life as an example of how natural and sexual selection operate)
The Tangled Wing - Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit - Melvin Konnor (quite a bit more advanced but fascinating)
The Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology by David Buss
All of these ideas are now in the mainstream of natural science, though social science still is fighting their acceptance. I suspect there will be (barring an energy dislocation) a unified theme of human behavior in the sciences within a decade. It will not look anything like Marx or Freud. (I studies psychology as an undergrad and it wasn't until 5 years later that I discovered how much of it (all) is subsumed by evolutionary biology)
Reading your post it struck me that this is the real problem we face. Mr. Hanson's writing on the human nature side, whether his conclusions are right or wrong, are so many steps beyond your own training and experience in biology, yet you are commenting on his background in them. You are obviously smart and well intentioned - I suspect there are many many people in America and the world like you - but these ideas are so difficult to understand, and as Mr. Hanson said on the radio, it is even harder to unlearn other ways of thinking.
In any case, I know your general sentiment about the interview was positive and I concur with that (though I took issue with his ENERGY conclusions!!). Jay Hanson is no Ted Kazinski - maybe some of us were expecting that to be the case and clearly it is not.
Good luck and keep up the good work
M
Thanks M for your courtesy and thoughtfulness. It's much more interesting to talk this way.
I've read Melvin Konner and in similar books - interesting but not earthshaking (to me anyway). I don't find them particularly difficult to understand. Can you point out a few insights that you think ARE earthshaking? You obviously are seeing something in Jay's writings that I am not.
People have been writing about the mind and behavior for maybe 3000 years. I find it difficult to believe that a new school of thought will subsume all previous efforts. When I was in college, B.F. Skinner promised that behaviorism and Skinner Boxes would put psychology on a scientific basis - this time for sure! Last I looked, though, B.F. was on the outs.
Freud had brilliant insights about repression, but many of his theories are best forgotten.
I liked Karen Horney on neurosis, the Gestalt therapists for their verve, and humanistic psychologists like Abraham Maslow for their optimism. The physiology of the brain is fascinating (neural networks!), but that doesn't explain it all either.
With the concept of "ideology," Marx and his followers have convincing arguments of how social ideas are formulated, and what their function is.
There are several psychiatrists in our family, so we talked about these things a lot. At the end of his life, I asked my father what school of psychology he belonged to. He said none - he was especially skeptical of any school that claimed to have all the answers. What he had come to admire was people who were sensitive to the problem at hand, without prejudgments, with a sense of their own limitations.
I've come to agree with him.
Bart
I reviewed some essays by Melvin Konner, and Wiki entries on evolutionary psychology, controversies, and sociobiology.
Interesting.
But in relationship to our energy situation, I don't see the relevance.
For example, a big part of our problem is consumerism, industrialism and capitalism -- all of which have dynamics of their own. I don't see that evolutionary psychology provides any magic solution. Some interesting insights here and there maybe.
In terms of organizing and persuasion, there is nothing here that is compelling. Again, some interesting insights, but the toolkit for political activists doesn't need it.
When Jay tries to apply subtle concepts from this academic field to real-world problems, they seem out-of-place and unhelpful. I think even Jay would admit that he is not satisfied with the plan of action that he develops from his theories.
I get the feeling this attachment to evolutionary psychology is a dead end - apart from whether it is true or scientific.
Maybe it's time to take another approach?
Thinking more about this (now that everyone has packed up and gone home....)
What seems most relevant to our situation is Applied Psychology and Applied Social Sciences.
Maybe one of the gurus on Evolutionary Psychology (EP) can correct me, but it looks as if the domain of EP is entirely different - more theoretical and academic.
For example, does EP have anything to say about:
1. Persuasion techniques. There is a tremendous body of knowledge on how to change attitudes, behavior, etc. What makes for effective propaganda and advertising?
2. Social change, all the way from revolution to encouraging people to recycle. This is going on right now, theory or no. Two exciting development are the growth of new models of cooperative movements via the Web, and grassroots groups like Transition Towns.
3. Sustainable societies. History and anthropology provide us with thousands of case studies, at all different scales. What works and what doesn't? The emerging field of "happiness studies" seems to tell us that material possessions reach a point of diminishing returns, and that what makes for true happiness are things like connection, security, family.
It seems to me that Evolutionary Psychology doesn't really deal with these subjects. However the field could probably offer some insights and some suggestions.
Anyone disagree?
Bart
If we are serious about social change, Kevembuangga, we will LEARN the techniques that Clotaire Rapaille uses.
You can use the techniques conscientiously or dishonestly, for good purposes or bad. At the very least, you can use the knowledge to dissect the opponent's advertising.
Actually Rapaille's techniques are not new - he just executes and markets them better than other people. Some of the best analysis was done during WW2 to counter fascist propaganda.
Bart
Adam Curtis has a documentary called "The Century Of The Self" (easy enough to find on YouTube) which credits Edward Bernays for inventing this line of thinking.
I guess in some ways it was ironic (in a very bleak way) that Goebbels took his ideas and used them so effectively on the Germans.
In the Brainsturbator link of Kevin's, Douglas Rushkoff makes an appeal to Rapaille that echoes my thoughts :
"... isn’t it our job, as aware people, to get the reptile to shut up and appeal to the cortex, to appeal to the mammal ?"
This is a rather different tack to just assuming that people will give in to the reptile within, which seems to be the basis of "warsocialism" theory...
Attempt at a brief summary of Hanson's view:
Hanson expects that the coming decades will see an up to 90% reduction in the number of humans on the planet due to declining world energy production and the war(s) that may be triggered by energy/resource scarcity.
He believes that the only way to avoid massive catastrophe would be large-scale investment in alternative (to hydrocarbon) sources of energy begun at least a decade or two before the peak. The build-out of such alternatives would consume a moderately significant percentage of world hydrocarbon production (used in mining, transporting, and processing the materials needed to build solar energy facilities, wind turbines, nuclear power plants, necessary infrastructure, etc.), and there would be a tough period during the transition.
However, he believes we are already at or very near the peak (at least in net energy terms *) of world hydrocarbon production, and in order to rapidly build out alternatives now that we have waited for the market to signal the problem via high hydrocarbon prices (instead of investing to solve the problem well ahead of time), up to 70% of the (soon to be rapidly declining) world hydrocarbon production will need to be spent in order to successfully implement the alternatives on a large enough scale. This would not leave much energy for the production of food, consumer goods, or personal transportation during the transition period:
http://www.dieoff.org/b.gif
http://www.dieoff.org/l2.html
He thinks the conflict over the remaining sources of hydrocarbons (vital to making this transition away from hydrocarbons) is likely to trigger a global nuclear war within around 10-15 years. He hopes he is wrong, but is afraid he is not. After all, we are animals, and might end up acting less in the spirit of co-operation, and more based on fear, aggression, and a desire to secure resources for ourselves rather than agreeing to mutually sacrifice for the benefit of the future of mankind.
One might see Hanson as a bit of a pessimist. It would certainly not be too pleasant if it turned out that he was a realist.
* Energy available for other work after subtracting the rapidly rising percentage of energy produced (well, mainly extracted) that is used (reinvested) in the energy production process itself. The rate of return on each unit of energy reinvested in future hydrocarbon production keeps declining as many small and hard to access deposits are needed to compensate for each large deposit that is depleted.