[Pops]

In Roymunds thread re: Rooting for PO, OilyMon posted an alternate Doomerosity scale using 3 axis to describe ones outlook. I decided to post my alternative to his alternative here:


The Cornucopian/Malthusian axis to describe ones estimate of the physical/technological situation vis a vie PO

The Optimist /Pessimist axis to describe ones outlook on the social and personal reaction/effect

And the Pro/Anti-peak axis to describe ones opinion on the desirability of PO in light of the above

-----

So a Pro Cornucopian Optimist (PCO) may be rooting for peak to encourage technological advancement and the betterment of society

Probably the Anti Cornucopian Optimist (ACO) group would be quite large and mostly drive SUVs many miles to work on a daily basis.

The Pro Cornucopian Pessimist (PCP) population might be somewhat small and looking to get it all over with.

The Anti Cornucopian Pessimist (ACP) group however, might be a large one since they might believe PO; combined with every bit of technology that might be thrown at it will be the ultimate disaster.

A Pro Malthusian Optimist (PMO) may be rooting for the lessening of population pressure on the environment, social reform, personal gain, or even just a chance to go on a spree, whereas the

Anti Malthusian Optimist (AMO) might believe society may eventually recover but isn’t looking forward to the trip over the cliff.

Then there is the PMP who may be rooting for the downfall of society (along with their own for whatever reason)

And of course the AMP who isn’t.

I guess that makes me an AMO with a dash of ACP thrown in on the Peak Oil Psycology Scale, or, POPS for short)



Suggestions, improvements, comments?

[sub]Disclaimer: I am not a professional nor an expert at psychology nor anything else for that matter, the results to this scale do not indicate (necessarily) any psychological deficits on the part of the respondent though possibly on the part of the designer [/sub]

[kmann]

You could add a series of questions to score yourself on the scales, ie.
I believe technology will:
a) solve all PO problems and bring abundant cheap energy
b) mitigate PO but not completely solve it
c) ultimatly cause more problems than it solves
d) wipe out mankind

[Ludi]

None of the above,maybe, I think, because I'm not yet convinced that population is absolutely the problem, but rather the way we live. It might be possible to live a different way supporting the current population without further degrading the Earth's life systems. We can't know because we've only tried living a couple of different ways so far.

Possibly the closest might be "anti-Malthusian Optimist" except I'm not sure of the meaning of "society" in this context. I don't see our current society (social organization/way of life) surviving a change of this kind. If we survive, we will have developed a new social organization/way of life.

[OilyMon]

I think I would fall under AMO as well Pops! I see an excellent combination of psychlogical and political profiling here. I agree with kmann as well. I took my inspiration from the political spectrum test that incorporates economic and social axis that one is measured against based on the answers to a series of questions. Perhaps a series of questions could be developed and scores attributed to them to place an average person somewhere on a similar peak oil psychology/political continum....

How about:

"Significant changes need to be made to society in order to preserve the future of the next generation."

but without all the ambiguities!

[Wednesday]

Ok ill bite, Pops!

Using your scale, I believe that I am an AMP, but on a good day I am an AMO. I also think on a personal level, I'm more optimistic than I am about society as a whole, but it's a but premature to make that judgement.

I'm voting AMP.

[IslandCrow]

I tended to be fairly neutral regarding the C-M line, because like Ludi I feel that the bigger issue is resource use, and while I would agree that population reduction would help I am not at all sure that a large reduction is needed (I find it a sad, but probably realistic, commentary on people's behaviour that many see a die-off as the only realistic solution because most people would not change their habits without being forced to).

I am also fairly neutral on O and P. Having lived in poorer countries I know we can survive on a lot less so that makes me more optimistic (also I don't have an SUV to loose - only a Lada), but then I know that people being forced to power down will be no fun.

However, I am strongly Anti- in the sense that you wrote about wanting PO to happen. I strongly believe that it will happen, and I am trying to face up to that but I do not want it to happen.

So I voted MPA

[PenultimateManStanding]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('IslandCrow', ' ')many see a die-off as the only realistic solution because most people would not change their habits without being forced to).

[thuja]

Man- I'm in a few camps here.

I'm malthusian all the way.

I'm anti-peak when I think of what will happen
I'm pro-peak when I think maybe this is the only way to stop run away global warming (provided we don't go hog wild with coal)

I'm mostly pessimistic about our chances at mitigating this impending disaster but...

I try to stay optimistic in my personal life and in my community- looking at ways to mitigate devestation in a healthy sane way (Look at Energy Descent Plan thread)


So I'd say I'm PMP, with a dash of PMO and AMO

[thuja]

I actually didn't read your definition for PMP before signing on to it and I'd like to add a better definition- or at least my definition.


I think people can be pro-peak not just because they want to bring on the destruction of mankind- but because it may be the only way to seriously make us curb fossil fuel consumption, thereby slowing the worst effects of global warming (with the caveat that if we go wholesale coal- we're doomed.)

Malthusians also believe in limits to growth, which is the only sane belief in my book.

Pessimists see how we have been doing things, how we are doing things and just extrapolate. How about we call ourselves realists.

So I could be called


An anti-global warming, realistic believer in limits to growth. Doesn't sound as bad as a

Pro Peak OIl, Malthusian pessimist.

Anyways...

[small_steps]

This is going to look a bit bipolar. When concentrating on my own work, AMO. But when working with large groups of others on this, as well as when exposed to the mass media, PCP.
Guess it would be a part of the high stress workplace in a low stress environment.

[Doly]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('small_steps', 'T')his is going to look a bit bipolar. When concentrating on my own work, AMO. But when working with large groups of others on this, as well as when exposed to the mass media, PCP.

[small_steps]

This isn't going to be short...
My take is that the people of the western world haven't been significantly challanged in recent memory. This is both good and bad in light of what we re progressing into. That people have potential inside them they they themselves do not realize they have, however, things are likely to get rather ugly in the meantime.

So I think that people's expectations of the future are generally far more optimistic than they should be (aside from some from this site), however, humans have continually adapted to change through time, and we weill again, it is a matter of personal priorities in my view. I also realize that the potential of technology to mitigate the effects of the peaking of these resources is great, and that as more people get motivated to actually figure out what needs to be done, the better off mankind will be. There is a tremendous amount of technology that is just starting to get tapped, and when the societal will to survive gets constructively focused, it will be a time that future genertions will look back at in awe. It will be a matter of keeping the focus constructive that will be most problematic (in my view) and that is where the soft skills in human nature and psychology will be most critical. To this end, the earlier we get focused, the better, let's see what we are really made of, how do we compare to those generations past?

Not brief, but that's what and how I see it.

[crapattack]

I responded AMO, mostly because I think of the race is going to survive at all it will have to find a new way to live. Our attitude toward our environment (world) is going to have to evolve. Currently we think of the "environment" as apart from us - out there, and a resource for our use. This disconnection with our our organic natures has, I believe, led us into this morass and if we do make it out, our race will face extinction again and again until we do embrace and learn to live within nature - not apart from it.