[Ibon]

The consumer culture that has been dominant globally has lead to personal pursuits of materialism and maximizing ones own comforts. This pursuit has been self focused at the expense of community and the environment and has been an orientation that has become institutionalized through advertisements. We have had a couple of generations now that has been shameless in the pursuit of self. As if doing so will lead one to happiness.

A deeper sense of contentment and joy comes from self sacrifice, from devotion to others, from service. These are values that modern consumption culture has severely eroded.

Like all movements the pendulum will swing back again. The pendulum is currently at the extreme of hedonism globally and the consequences are already visible and about to worsen. Obesity, depression, broken families, addiction, rage, a trashed environment, going in debt, isolation, these are all manifestations and consequences of a culture devoted to the self.

As many of you know I am a great believer that external consequences will be our greatest teacher and greatest force in molding culture going forward. I propose here that as consequences worsen the pendulum currently on the far side of hedonism will begin to swing and we will witness in the next couple of generations a return to many of the more noble values that have been severely eroded during the past couple of generations; we will see self sacrifice returning, devotion to serving others, care of the environment, and we will observe that those who excel at these attributes will gain status and that success may well be defined not by how much stuff you have but in how noble are your actions.

Your thoughts?

[vox_mundi]

A pendulum swings both ways, and not always in the opposite direction.

It could be argued that the Taliban and ISIS are a responses to perceived hedonism.

I agree that we're in for a new Dark Age, and the society that will come out of it will be different than now. If knowledge is lost during those times, then the "lessons learned" may also be lost. Whether it will be egalitarian and conservative or a bunch of jackals fighting over scraps is hard to say.

The ecosystem they will inherit will definitely be much shallower than it is now.

You may find this short study interesting and relevant to your thesis ...

Populations of early human settlers grew like an 'invasive species,' researchers find

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')the study, published by the journal Nature, finds that for much of human history on the South American continent, human populations grew like an invasive species, which are regulated by their environment as they spread into new places. Populations grew exponentially when people first colonized South America. But then they crashed, recovered slightly and plateaued for thousands of years after over-consuming local natural resources and reaching continental carrying capacity, according to the analysis.

[Newfie]

I do not find myself on either of the extremes you point to. In one way or another Ive spent my working career working in mass transit (after the USCG) doing what I thought was right and green. Despite and my shaky start it has paid well, so I am lucky. But I don't think I have improved the human lot of Earth, quite to the contrary, I may as well have seen working on bombs.

I also spent 14 years involved in managing a small religious community of very left wing liberal folks. 4 years as President. It was not a waste because of what it taught me but it did nothing for humanity or Earth.

So did I sacrifice myself while trying to good? I think not. Nor am I a hedonist. I do not think a person with any deep self knowledge can be a hedonist.

So what am I besides confused?

[Timo]

Very interesting question, and quite disturbing to think about, but i am disturbed, anyway, so i'll continue on.

Everything you said is impossible to argue against, and i, at least, accept your entire thesis as the defacto world we now live in. I remember back in college, back in the days of enjoying the company of Mary Jane, thinking about the contradictions, or indeed the similarities of hedonism and altruism. Here's a question for you that i had way back in the good old days: Is the Pope a hedonist, or an altruist? Are they mutually exclusive? Would the Pope be the Pope if it was not in his self interest to be an altruist?

I readily acknowledge that i've just driven off on some tangent that's not even remotely relevant to the topic of this thread. My apologies for that, but the question that started it all is what would i be willing to sacrifice (hedonism) to fulfill my devotion (altruism) for a sustainable planet? I'm not sure i have a clear-cut answer to that question. I can tell you that i have engaged in moderation of nearly everything i do. Even Mary Jane can testify to that fact. I drive less and bike and walk more. I don't have a TV any longer, but that form of entertainment has been replaced by this thing i'm looking at right now, so that sacrifice is probably a wash. Tit for tat. My wife wants a Model 3, but as i see it, that's hardly a noble sacrifice. The more i think about it, the harder it becomes to think of anything that #1, i haven't already given up, or #2, that i haven't already reduced in consumption, or #3, Hell no! I'm not giving that up! In fact,proceeding down this line of thought, the sacrifice necessary to fulfill complete devotion eventually becomes rather radical, in terms of a complete change in lifestyle. Ibon and his wife have a completely different lifestyle than anyone else here. Some of us live more similarly than others, but Ibon has chosen a way of life that truly demonstrates his own personal devotions, but has done so in a way that actually minimizes most sacrifice. I'm sure there are some sacrifices, obviously, but i'd venture to guess that most people reading this could and would live quite comfortably replicating his living arrangements for themselves. What prevents most of us from doing that is the risk of making such a radical change from our normal BAU lifestyles. The differences, at first glance, are rather extreme. I would if i could, but i can't, so i won't. Most of that is the simple fear factor in making any change, at all.

Could i? Sure. I reckon i could, but there are no guarantees, and the path i have mapped out for the rest of my life relies on some form of minimal guarantee of financial livelihood. That same situation probably applies to the vast majority of people in most 1st world countries. I have an aversion to gambling. The deck is always stacked against me. The odds are not in my favor. The risks are too great, and the consequences of failure are too severe. Those are all my own personal problems to deal with. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, and i don't gamble, so i won't win, and i also won't lose (as much as i could if i did gamble). Poor excuse, i acknowledge, but that's all i've got for the moment.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'T')he consumer culture that has been dominant globally has lead to personal pursuits of materialism and maximizing ones own comforts. This pursuit has been self focused at the expense of community and the environment and has been an orientation that has become institutionalized through advertisements. We have had a couple of generations now that has been shameless in the pursuit of self. As if doing so will lead one to happiness.

A deeper sense of contentment and joy comes from self sacrifice, from devotion to others, from service. These are values that modern consumption culture has severely eroded.

[Timo]

Warren Buffet lost his hero status with me. There are plenty of self-made billionaires out there who genuinely, or outwardly, want to become seen as heroes to the rest of the world. Bill Gates in one. Richard Dawkins is another. That Dyson guy who makes vacuum cleaners is another. And there are more, all wanting to use their wealth for the greater good. Well, good for them, and for us, too. Sadly, though, through my eyes, most of their actions are more self-serving to feed their own egos, and less to actually solve the problems they profess to be concerned about. I could be wrong about any one, or all of the people who fit into the category i just described. This is just my own perception. There is certainly nothing wrong with what they're doing. Bring it on!

One person who i do regard as being a modern day hero, though, and i know fully well i'll be ridiculed for even saying this, or even thinking this, is Elon Musk. People may attribute the opening 5 minutes of his Model 3 reveal about climate change as fluff, but i genuinely believe he believes what he says, and he's making good on his word to act on his word. I've seen enough of his speeches and presentations to be convinced that he honestly gets our current human predicament, and he's established his businesses to help solve several of our problems. He's moving in the right direction, and for the most part, he's forging his own path. That's the makings of a hero in my book.

Oh, i also have a whole lot of respect for Ibon, too, living and doing what he does on Mt. Totumas. When he completes the Jaguar Highway across all of Central America, then he'll be my hero. Until then, i'll just enjoy the ride he's providing for all of us. He's also moving on the right path, and doing things his own way. BRAVO!!!!

[ennui2]

Elon Musk isn't perfect, though. His personal life is a shambles and he's on the verge of divorce #2. That's par for the course with those who try to make a big impact on the world. You can't have it all.

I think if someone has a selfish hyper-individualistic outlook on life that it isn't suddenly going to change once that person's been reduced to living like a pauper. They're not likely to have this internal transformation into a paragon of humility, austerity, and communal spirit. They're just going to be poor and miserable and angry, which usually doesn't end well.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vox_mundi', '
')
Populations of early human settlers grew like an 'invasive species,' researchers find

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')the study, published by the journal Nature, finds that for much of human history on the South American continent, human populations grew like an invasive species, which are regulated by their environment as they spread into new places. Populations grew exponentially when people first colonized South America. But then they crashed, recovered slightly and plateaued for thousands of years after over-consuming local natural resources and reaching continental carrying capacity, according to the analysis.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'I')t raises a question though. Our exploitation of resources and population goes up and down influenced by technology. The population and consumption level is set by the available technology and the culture that supports it. I am guessing, I am no scholar on this topic, but I am assuming that population and consumption always maximizes with available technology and we have never seen any civilization to date, including our own, that has recognized this and attempts any form of self regulation to maintain a kind of stasis. Technology and the resource base set the stage and are the determining factor and human population and consumption rises and falls accordingly.

We invent technologies and we master the resource exploitation that this permits. But the affects of this technology on our consumption and population we do not master. In fact, as the article alludes to and as we see from current human overshoot, that is exactly where we are like yeast.

Can this pattern ever be broken?

[Timo]

Ibon, are you telling me that Logan's Run wasn't real? They achieved the perfect self-regulating society, and they lived in harmony, and even enjoyed watching the chosen being lofted up to the heavens, only to explode in mid air. That wasn't real? But i watched that last on National Geographic! I thought it was a documentary. No????

Sorry. Too much peyote. Time to eat an armadillo. Er, uh.... i mean chicken.

With all seriousness, though, we are most certainly heading for a new plateau, and possibly even a major decline. Everything we see on the news today are all symptoms of our societal disease. The underlying cause of our decline will be AGW, and that will happen sooner rather than later. It might even manifest in very recognizable and catastrophic ways in our lifetimes. On top of that, or perhaps because of that, humanity is turning against itself in no small ways. Humanity's self destruction will not contain itself to any level of society, or to any continent, or even to any country. Past civilizations ended on their own because they lacked the technologies we have at our disposal today. The Mayans died, but life in Central, North, and South America continued. In fact, their demise spawned the rebirth of the entire land around them. With AGW and humanity's planetary suicide,the end of civilization as we know it won't be so limited.

OK. Off topic question, but i want an answer, nonetheless. To what degree does this view of planetary suicide coincide with American presidential elections? Anyone care to examine the correlation of the consumption of SSRIs and Valium with US election cycles? My guess is that Big Pharma makes Big Money every four years. The topic of this thread is a big reason why. That's not meant as a criticism, but just an observation of very unfortunate circumstance.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'E')ngland in the late Middle Ages circa 1200 had a fairly stable population. This was a balance between the high infant mortality rate and delayed marriages from cultural factors reducing the fertile and reproductive period for women.

At the same time China had a higher but still sustainable population, but in their case infanticide was commonly practiced if their were too many babies being born. For cultural reasons the preferred gender to keep were the males, which has a greater impact on reducing future population levels than eliminating male babies.

IOW cultures in both places adapted to the carrying capacity of the civilization in question. This was not some grand plan from on high, it just sort of organically evolved when the circumstances called for it.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('GASMON', 'I') wonder what the <1% will do ?

Capitalise on the common man's benevolence probably.

Gas

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')'m just a contrarian I guess. Who doesn't sacrifice? Every day and minute to tow the line, stay the course, take care of the mortgage family lover. I don't believe we are really more hedonistic than ever. Most people go to work, get home, and look for a little release and comfort. The hedonism is probably in the media, advertisers and an shows that titillate. Even the news has become a titillation business.

I do see hopelessness. People are trapped for the most part and that is why they are willing to watch the trash. No fault of their own.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Timo', '
')With all seriousness, though, we are most certainly heading for a new plateau, and possibly even a major decline. Everything we see on the news today are all symptoms of our societal disease. The underlying cause of our decline will be AGW, and that will happen sooner rather than later. It might even manifest in very recognizable and catastrophic ways in our lifetimes.

OK. Off topic question, but i want an answer, nonetheless. To what degree does this view of planetary suicide coincide with American presidential elections? Anyone care to examine the correlation of the consumption of SSRIs and Valium with US election cycles? My guess is that Big Pharma makes Big Money every four years. The topic of this thread is a big reason why. That's not meant as a criticism, but just an observation of very unfortunate circumstance.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '
')In my mind, the broader focus is simply "Where did the heroes go?" For the most part, the people the public fawns over are sports stars, business icons, politicians, and entertainers. Not so much great artists, writers, spiritual icons, etc.

So given how much the"heroes" of today are into cheating (sports), stealing (business and politics), low moral values (entertainers), etc., what does it say about a humanity that worships these values? And let's not forget the general value of display of wealth, which nearly everyone engages in to the extent they're able -- it's not so much that the consumer culture allows us to have a rich set of choices -- it's that the goal becomes to have it ALL to the maximum extent money can be earned AND borrowed, and to hell with everybody else.

[Cog]

It is a matter of indifference to me what anyone does with their life. Want to live in a cardboard box, fine. Want to water-ski behind a fleet of yachts, knock yourself out.

Leave me be to run my life the way I see fit and I will extend you the same courtesy.

Too many busybodies in the world who ought to tend to their own affairs. Socialists and hippies mostly. What is virtuous in life ought to be left to the individual to decide, not some self-appointed, self abasing, redistributionist commie. The individual should reign supreme.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', 'I')t is a matter of indifference to me what anyone does with their life. Want to live in a cardboard box, fine. Want to water-ski behind a fleet of yachts, knock yourself out.

Leave me be to run my life the way I see fit and I will extend you the same courtesy.

Too many busybodies in the world who ought to tend to their own affairs. Socialists and hippies mostly. What is virtuous in life ought to be left to the individual to decide, not some self-appointed, self abasing, redistributionist commie. The individual should reign supreme.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'E')ngland in the late Middle Ages circa 1200 had a fairly stable population. This was a balance between the high infant mortality rate and delayed marriages from cultural factors reducing the fertile and reproductive period for women.

At the same time China had a higher but still sustainable population, but in their case infanticide was commonly practiced if their were too many babies being born. For cultural reasons the preferred gender to keep were the males, which has a greater impact on reducing future population levels than eliminating male babies.

IOW cultures in both places adapted to the carrying capacity of the civilization in question. This was not some grand plan from on high, it just sort of organically evolved when the circumstances called for it.