[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')A simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.

You're preaching to the choir here.

[creg]

Ibon wrote,"Ultimately human beings will live in a sustainable paradigm on this planet or they will go extinct".
Monte wrote,"To let the earth heal and continue to support this large a population would require austerity never before seen.

Third-world conditions or less. Basic food clothing and shelter."
Incredibly powerful ideas. While in awe of the implications of these, I find calm about living closer to nature, and a sense that nature will " take charge" . I believe that the upcoming collapse(s) will be a major " nature taking charge".
I like having a big picture/philosophy/worldview to help me know/figure out my beliefs and match my practices to my beliefs.These ideas fit, though hardly comfortably, and they will help drive difficult action.
An ecological paradigm is obviously local ,varies with place and time; and we will be local without oil.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('creg', ' ')I like having a big picture/philosophy/worldview to help me know/figure out my beliefs and match my practices to my beliefs.These ideas fit, though hardly comfortably, and they will help drive difficult action.
An ecological paradigm is obviously local ,varies with place and time; and we will be local without oil.

[Ludi]

An ecological paradigm needn't be strictly local, since all Earth's life systems interact on a worldwide scale.

[creg]

So you seem to sense I am too focused on "near" collapse. Perhaps. Yet feeling responsibility for a family of 5, thankfully adults now, and learning about peak oil only in May I feel I need to press forward as if tomorrow,
major collapse.
This "house of cards",particularly economically and politically, is indeed such as I study it. That plus our culture's inability to take care of those food, clothing, shelter needs portent a very bad collapse, especially here in the U. S So, knowing what to aim for, what is feasible, what new beliefs/worldviews ( tomorrow and 10,000 year views), ethics, these ideas you challenge us to consider are so needed to make decisions- take actions take we can now while we can readily do so. Especially that they are often difficult emotionally.
I keep having the feeling that URRs', fortunately I guess in the long run,will be mostly in the ground due to military actions. And since peak is rear view only( given our data) and ethically we should be living very close to nature i. e. 3rd world (uncomfortable idea, even without great turmoil) seems to me going ahead by choice to a 3rd world type life is needed. To choose a "simple life" now perhaps we can establish some of today's services, knowledge, etc. to continue. Like what we might decide today/tomorrow will be relevant 10,000 years from now.
Thanks for the underpinning/ bigger views, and challenging and feedback.

[Ludi]

I agree with a lot of what you're saying creg.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', ' ')A simple "yes" or "no" would have sufficed.

You're preaching to the choir here.

[Ludi]

Ok.

[creg]

Ludi wrote" An ecological paradigm needn't be strictly local, since all Earth's life systems interact on a worldwide scale."
Absolutely.Coal fired electricity is an example. I would guess in a 3rd world type exist local is naturally more likely the limit of ones footprint, hence more likely to be ecologically appropiate.

[jtmorgan61]

I couldn't quite bring myself to read all the pages of this thread, so forgive me if I'm basically repeating things that have been said before. I agree with the basic idea, but I think it needs to go even deeper.

What's behind incessant expansionism and debt-based capitalism? The idea, in fact it's beyond words, the sensation and feeling that man is separate from nature, in some ways from reality itself. This produces the approach that there is something to get and getting things means something or has somehow accomplished something against the background of the infinite void. That it is possible to gain traction by squeezing tighter, both internally and externally.

What I see as most important in determining our future as a species is the frustratingly squishy task of changing the way people think, indeed the way they emotionally experience reality. Recommended reading: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', ' ')Recommended reading: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jtmorgan61', ' ')Recommended reading: Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

[jtmorgan61]

To be honest, I've never read the book, just discussions of its general ideas. Perhaps the book itself is overly self-important and seems to claims it contains genuine insights rather than rephrasing and repackaging.

Still, why exactly do people hate it so much? Not enough change advocated? No clear, articulated idea of where to go? The belief that the culture at large can't change its basic core values, or that human nature is mostly fixed?

[Ludi]

For full discussion of it we should start another thread. People seem to hate it for the ideas, which conflict with their worldview, and hate it because they feel the arguments are poorly made. Usually people who hate it really don't understand it and think DQ is saying things he actually isn't saying and even explicitly says he isn't saying (such as we should all go live as hunter-gatherers, an idea he calls "absurd"). I've brought up some of the ideas here and been throughly crapped on, so I pretty much gave up.

[Gary]

The need for "macro" solutions and "micro" solutions, for global resource sharing and for careful local planning to live ecologically within various bioregions, is crucial.

I agree that we need to change our paradigm, our way of thinking, our worldview. We need to move from the "infinite growth paradigm" to a "sustainable" paradigm.

I've scanned over the more recent posts on this topic lately, and do think that many people are beginning to see the significance of understanding peak oil as a subset or example of the bigger problem. Many efforts at education and personal change and cultural, political changes are needed.

some examples of "micro" action:
My family and I live in Minneapolis, MN, USA. I ride pedicabs and cargo trikes as my primary mode of transportation. I've sold a couple of used pedicabs just to get more of them into use, and plan to sell two more this winter.

I am involved in an "urban farming/ urban permaculture" group working a community garden and working to bring about an edible and beautiful landscape.

My family and I consume less than many of the families of the peers of my children. Conservation is vital.

We are working on our next housing plan. We hope to rehab an old house to be as "green" as possible or to buy a lot and build a sustainable dwelling....money is a bit short, so what's new? We'll figure something out.

Another important aspect of taking action is building a community of local folks who already "get it" in terms of understanding and living the new paradigm into being. What a process of fits and starts and contradictions this! It feels strange to be living out the new paradigm bit by bit in the heart of the old crumbling paradigm.

This is humbling too because there are no guarantees that trying this in my time and place will work out, or that enough people world over will get it and be willing to change. There is no guarantee that those "in power" will allow enough "macro" or "micro" changes to take place.

I do think that this larger understanding of peak oil as a manifestation or symptom of a larger problem is crucial. If we do not understand this then we will just try to replace oil with some other nonrenewable, polluting energy sources and learn nothing. Wonder if we'd make it to "peak water" if we blow "peak oil"?

I hope we don't blow it in this "bottleneck" time. I can't rationally defend it, I just think it would be so cool to see the next generation survive and gain great wisdom from this experience.

[MonteQuest]

The State of the World

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he board of directors of the Millennium Assessment said in a statement: "The overriding conclusion of this assessment is that it lies within the power of human societies to ease the strains we are putting on the nature services of the planet, while continuing to use them to bring better living standards to all.

"Achieving this, however, will require radical changes in the way nature is treated at every level of decision-making and new ways of co-operation between government, business and civil society. The warning signs are there for all of us to see. The future now lies in our hands," it said.

Asked what we should do now and what we should plan to do over the next 50 years, Dr Reid replied that there must be a fundamental reappraisal of how we view the world's natural resources. "The heart of the problem is this: protection of nature's services is unlikely to be a priority so long as they are perceived to be free and limitless by those using them," Dr Reid said.

"We simply must establish policies that require natural costs to be taken into account for all economic decisions," he added.

[lardlad]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ingenuity_Gap', 'W')e need a paradigm shift, and we don't know what it will look like.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lardlad', ' ')I'm tickled to see that you're tentatively volunteering to lead us out of this, Monte. Have you started a movement? Where do I sign up? Seriously.

[MonteQuest]

It would appear that Dale and I are largely on the same page.

The Collapse of Complex Systems

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e talk about energy depletion, global climate change, overpopulation and a host of other problems, but these are only symptoms of the true problems. In focusing upon these symptoms, we do not look at the larger problem and so are in no way prepared to begin seeking a solution. What is really happening is that a complex system is approaching a systemic breakdown due to flaws in fundamental conceptions. So long as we do not change our concepts of prosperity and economic growth, and so long as we do not take into account the true costs of environmental destruction and worker exploitation, the breakdown will proceed. In the meantime, we will simply be dealing with the symptoms instead of curing the disease.

When we talk about peak oil, then we must either hope for a technofix or head for the hills armed for survival. But when we realize that peak oil is only a symptom of the true problem, then we also realize that neither technofixes nor personal escape will really solve our problems. So let us state once and for all: the problem is not peak oil or energy depletion, nor global climate change, nor overpopulation. The problem is the collapse of a complex system due to fundamental conceptual flaws.

[Doly]

When this guy talks about complex systems, where does he get his ideas from? Certainly not from mathematical texts on chaos theory and complexity theory. What the hell does he have to back up his statements?

A basic introduction on complexity theory can be found here:

http://complexity.orcon.net.nz/intro.html

If you find something about complex systems necessarily collapsing, tell me.