by Sixstrings » Mon 15 Aug 2011, 12:17:12
Watched the first 8 minutes. Good interview.. she makes a very good point about "waiting two years" *after* learning about peak oil before you make drastic changes like a big move. The way I've always expressed that idea is that one should *consider* the cornies may be right, be sure the lifestyle changes you make fit in with all scenarios, doom or BAU or doom 30 years from now. In other words, don't rack up all the credit card because you think the world is ending, don't buy a farm unless you enjoy that even without peak oil concerns etc.
She also has an interesting point about how most people react when you try to tell them about peak oil, she says they are "pathologically positive" about the future -- people always think "things will work out."
This psychologist is really thought provoking, I've read her site before. My only concern is I that mental illness still exists peak oil or not. There have always been people obsessively worried about "the world ending." I think the definition of whether something is psychologically unhealthy is whether it impinges on "everyday activities" and prevents a person from leading a "normal life."
I think a psychologist like this should be a bit more objective, consider the relativity of risk for one thing. Think about it.. some doomers are smokers. The health effects of that are more certain and serious than whether or not we'll have food shortages in 5, 10, 20 years from now. I'm not a psychologist, but I just think perspective is important -- you have to balance everything out and it doesn't make sense if you're obsessively worrying about an existential risk to the exclusion of the every day risks that are just part of being human.
There's nothing about being a first worlder guarantees there won't be war, or calamity, or economic depression or any number of bad big events. The risk has always been there -- in the 1960 it looked like thermonuclear war was likely. If someone had worried about nuke doom from 1960 - 1990 wouldn't that have been a waste of time? Things actually did work out, despite several close calls.
Does it really make sense to pull forward future problems and worry about them? Example, a LOT of people will eventually get cancer. It's smart to make lifestyle changes to lower your risk, but it wouldn't be healthy to obsess over it. Bad sh*t happens, and it's gonna happen no matter what, whether you worry about it 20 years in advance or not.
I kind of like the Buddhist perspective on this, try to come at everything from a perspective of acceptance.
I don't mean to sound cornie in this post, I'm just playing out devil's advocate. Sometimes I wonder who really has it right, the doomers or sheeple. The sheeple are just out there enjoying their lives / paying attention to direct concerns to them in their immediate circle. Isn't that more rational, one can't change peak oil no matter how much food you store the risk of collapse can never be avoided. You can have a doomstead and 5 years of food and a bunker and for all you know a darn flash mob might just over-run it just before cell service winks out. Or you may have a medical emergency but there aren't working hospitals anymore so poof you're gone and won't get to enjoy your preps.
My point is just that risk can never be totally avoided. If the purpose of life is to enjoy your time on this planet, maybe worrying about doom too much gets in the way of that.
