PeakOil is You
Question for the doomers
Re: Question for the doomers
by jupiters_release » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 14:03:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Doly', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jupiters_release', 'I') wish I had the rest of my natural life to study, research, and enjoy the great cultural wealth of the 20th century but alas as a real NYC doomer I will most likely be in the inital waves of die-off.
Beautifully fatalistic. Now, if you really think like that, why don't you get the hell out of NY before it's too late?
I've been entertaining the idea at times as my best friend is currently trying to build a sustainable farm in New Mexico with a published shaman. He spent most of his life learning autonomy while I've done the exact opposite specializing in post modern black american history. I remember distinctly as pre-teens in the early 90's my friend's father, a professor of world history, telling us over dinner one day how completely transient our midwestern suburban way of life was, I didn't believe him at the time but I can still see the look of resignation in his face.
Point being I've spent the past 7 years(all of my adulthood) in NYC, how selfish would it be to drop all of my friends, my family, and meaningful responsibilities by jumping ship now?
I've enjoyed some of the best of civilization, doubt I'll escape the worst assuming escape were possible. Metaphysical cornucopian wishing only detracts from the time we have left, at least doomers can appreciate both the moment and our fate.
- jupiters_release
- Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1301
- Joined: Mon 10 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Question for the doomers
by Heineken » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 14:13:34
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('FatherOfTwo', '
')So, Monte “unwavering eternal facts”. Such as?
That Peak Oil will generate significant economic impacts? I agree 100%
That the stresses of these economic impacts will exacerbate tensions in the world? I agree 100%
That our population will continue to increase even as total available energy is (at least for the short term) drastically dropping? I agree 100%
That we are seriously harming the very ecosystem that we depend on for our sustenance? I again agree 100%
That these factors, plus others, will constitute such an overwhelming force as to drown any chance of stabilizing somewhere at our current standard of living minus x%? What unwavering eternal fact guarantees this prediction? There isn’t one, so this is where I start to disagree strongly, and it is what gives me some hope.
I know I am able to keep an open mind and internalize the consequences of our collective actions. In 2 years I’ve gone from being blissfully ignorant to resigned enlightenment. So I certainly don’t see myself as being unable to “accept reality”. To me the key is that the further you extrapolate out, the farther in advance you try to predict the future, the higher the chances of being wrong. That goes for my predictions too.
IMO there are certain things we can count on, like the items I agreed 100% on. But there are other things too: such as our species desire to survive, our ingenuity, the immense scientific knowledge that we have gained, and paradoxically, the huge amount of fat that we (first world) can burn through before we start hitting muscle and bone. True, it is our ingenuity that has made us clever, but not wise, and gotten us into this pickle. But our ingenuity still is a tool that can be applied and it in conjunction with our scientific knowledge and will to survive, I guarantee that it will account for something. This is not pie in the sky optimism, but a solid grasp of the both the realities on the ground and understanding of our capabilities. Will this require a ton of work and some luck? You betcha.
As always, I’m willing to be shown wrong. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s lights out for us, then I’m all ears.
')So, Monte “unwavering eternal facts”. Such as?
That Peak Oil will generate significant economic impacts? I agree 100%
That the stresses of these economic impacts will exacerbate tensions in the world? I agree 100%
That our population will continue to increase even as total available energy is (at least for the short term) drastically dropping? I agree 100%
That we are seriously harming the very ecosystem that we depend on for our sustenance? I again agree 100%
That these factors, plus others, will constitute such an overwhelming force as to drown any chance of stabilizing somewhere at our current standard of living minus x%? What unwavering eternal fact guarantees this prediction? There isn’t one, so this is where I start to disagree strongly, and it is what gives me some hope.
I know I am able to keep an open mind and internalize the consequences of our collective actions. In 2 years I’ve gone from being blissfully ignorant to resigned enlightenment. So I certainly don’t see myself as being unable to “accept reality”. To me the key is that the further you extrapolate out, the farther in advance you try to predict the future, the higher the chances of being wrong. That goes for my predictions too.
IMO there are certain things we can count on, like the items I agreed 100% on. But there are other things too: such as our species desire to survive, our ingenuity, the immense scientific knowledge that we have gained, and paradoxically, the huge amount of fat that we (first world) can burn through before we start hitting muscle and bone. True, it is our ingenuity that has made us clever, but not wise, and gotten us into this pickle. But our ingenuity still is a tool that can be applied and it in conjunction with our scientific knowledge and will to survive, I guarantee that it will account for something. This is not pie in the sky optimism, but a solid grasp of the both the realities on the ground and understanding of our capabilities. Will this require a ton of work and some luck? You betcha.
As always, I’m willing to be shown wrong. If you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it’s lights out for us, then I’m all ears.
The basic problem with this stance is that is posits that humanity, in the final analysis, is always in control. It may have to be inconvenienced a bit or even suffer a shock or two, but it can never be seriously threatened because it's just too damned clever.
This is anthropocentrism at its best and hubris at its worst. Once you get beyond that perspective and see humanity's true dependence on nature, things don't look so bright.
Our faith in technology and human adaptability borders on a religion.
Another distortion the optimists suffer from is temporal. They fail to grasp the extraordinary rate at which the life-support mechanisms are deteriorating---much of it within a single human lifetime! That's because we tend to see everything in relation to our own, limited lives.
Things are moving incredibly quickly---far too fast for even humans to adapt.
An intriguing discussion, FO2---thanks for launching it.
"Actually, humans died out long ago."
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
---Abused, abandoned hunting dog
"Things have entered a stage where the only change that is possible is for things to get worse."
---I & my bro.
-
Heineken - Expert
- Posts: 7051
- Joined: Tue 14 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Rural Virginia
Re: Question for the doomers
by holmes » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 17:13:54
Well it all comes down too
Ive got nothing to say
Ive got nothing to do
All of my neurons are functioning smoothly
But still Im a CYBORG JUST LIKE YOU!
Hahahaha!
Entropy! Entropy! Entropy! Will CRUSH you.
Ive got nothing to say
Ive got nothing to do
All of my neurons are functioning smoothly
But still Im a CYBORG JUST LIKE YOU!
Hahahaha!
Entropy! Entropy! Entropy! Will CRUSH you.
"To crush the Cornucopians, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
- holmes
- Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2382
- Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Re: Question for the doomers
by FatherOfTwo » Fri 04 Aug 2006, 18:08:43
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '
')
The basic problem with this stance is that is posits that humanity, in the final analysis, is always in control. It may have to be inconvenienced a bit or even suffer a shock or two, but it can never be seriously threatened because it's just too damned clever.
This is anthropocentrism at its best and hubris at its worst. Once you get beyond that perspective and see humanity's true dependence on nature, things don't look so bright.
Our faith in technology and human adaptability borders on a religion.
')
The basic problem with this stance is that is posits that humanity, in the final analysis, is always in control. It may have to be inconvenienced a bit or even suffer a shock or two, but it can never be seriously threatened because it's just too damned clever.
This is anthropocentrism at its best and hubris at its worst. Once you get beyond that perspective and see humanity's true dependence on nature, things don't look so bright.
Our faith in technology and human adaptability borders on a religion.
I should have been more careful in the wording of my response because I don’t believe that humans have the ability to constantly abuse nature and get away with it. Like I said, we’ve been clever but not wise.
I do believe we have the ability to know exactly what we can and can’t sustainably do, and there is no question that with our brains and increases in knowledge that we can live much better lives than the hunters and gathers or earlier agrarian cultures did. The catch is we have to go from where we are to that point. It requires both overcoming the problem of our population overshoot PLUS a critical re-think of how we live. A powerdown right? Well ya, but this is where I think we have no choice but to go kicking and screaming on the way down. (ie. Rollout as much nuclear and renewable as we possibly can.) We’re going to be short on energy, and to make sure we behave as we slip down slope, it needs to be a measured drawdown. As energy gets scarcer, it will slowly deal with our current tendency to breed like rabbits. As we realize we’ve been like obese customers at the all-you-can-eat, I’m of the opinion that the re-think of how we live will occur.
The alternative is (what I like to call) the induced powerdown - it is just too drastic for us to handle. We’re at point A, we need to get to point Z. If we skip all the steps in between, it’ll be too much of a shock - we'll destroy each other. That scenario is enough to make me a hardcore doomer. However, if we proceed from A to B and so on, could the environment be worse off as a result? Quite likely. I just happen to think that it is the lesser of two evils because it has the best odds of success.
But the originator of this thread is complaining that I’m hijacking it,
so I’ll stop there.
The poll results thus far are interesting.
-
FatherOfTwo - Tar Sands
- Posts: 960
- Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
The average lifespan of hunter-gatherers is so low because of high infant mortality. Quite a lot managed to go beyond 60. There is no reason why not, the food was far healthier. Physical strain was also lower than in agricultural societies.
