[snowhope]

Reasons to be optimistic? You have got to be bloody joking?!!!

I have held off from responding, yet since I saw this thread first posted, I couldn't believe it! I agree with previous comments from Airline Pilot, Montequest, Aaron, Neopo, etc.

I have been an optomist all my life. I see the positive side of things not the negative. Yet Peak Oil, which I became aware of only 2 years ago, changed me from optomism to pessimism within half an hour of discovering the subject. Everything I have read and researched on the subject has reinforced that pessimism. The only thing that has negated it slightly is the thought that it might not happen quite as quickly as I first thought it would, yet I could be wrong on even that aspect.

My friends, there is no doubt we are in for hard times. For anybody to say we should be optomistic, really does show their mis-understanding of the situation our civilisation will face over the coming decades. You only have to understand exponential population growth, the concept of economic growth and the way we humans are so inclined to take the easy path, to realise that we are approaching the next depression and that it will be worse than the last one 75 years ago.

And if you are looking for justification of that statement, I really couldn't be bothered, because if you don't see it by now, then you won't see it until you are hungry.

[cultural_sublimation]

This discussion on the climate is slightly off-topic, but I do have one important observation to make, which others in this thread seem to have forgotten. It's silly to point out a number of geographically disparate points in either continent. From an energy perspective, it makes much more sense to look at where the population lives! Sure, Finland is a frozen hell in winter, but why do you think only 5 million people live there?

For a clearer picture, try superimposing a map of the European population on top of another one showing mean January lows. What do you find? The overwhelming majority of the people live in areas with very mild climates! Look at the most populous countries in western Europe: Germany, UK, France, Italy, Spain, and even the Netherlands. Not exactly known as frozen wastelands, now are they? Yes, I know that parts of these countries can be cold in winter, but guess what? These colder parts are also the most sparsely populated areas! In fact, it's interesting to observe that a significant percentage of Europeans lives in a fairly contiguous area that extends from southeast England, to the Low Countries, the Paris area, and the northwest of Germany. People here are so "spoiled" by the gentle climate, that any day with a below freezing maximum temperature is considered very cold (and there's not many of those per year).

Anyway, I am not gonna embark on the whole my-climate-is-nicer-than-yours debate. I'll just reiterate the point I made two posts ago: from a climate perspective, and for the bulk of its population, you can say that Europe is a very gentle place to live. Period.

[Gazzatrone]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('snowhope', '
')
I have been an optomist all my life. I see the positive side of things not the negative. Yet Peak Oil, which I became aware of only 2 years ago, changed me from optomism to pessimism within half an hour of discovering the subject. Everything I have read and researched on the subject has reinforced that pessimism. The only thing that has negated it slightly is the thought that it might not happen quite as quickly as I first thought it would, yet I could be wrong on even that aspect.

[Newsseeker]

I think a very good question to ask now with the release of the GAO report is, "What are governments doing to address PO?" If the answer is nothing then there is very little reason to be optimistic.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newsseeker', 'I') think a very good question to ask now with the release of the GAO report is, "What are governments doing to address PO?" If the answer is nothing then there is very little reason to be optimistic.

[retiredguy]

If one subscribes to the Peak Oil Theory, then one has to believe that life as we know it today is not sustainable? Correct?

Given that, what does an optimist do that is different from a pessimist? Does an optimist do nothing, expecting that technology or "yankee ingenuity" or government action will ameliorate the transition to a new sustainable paradigm with a minimum of disruption? Or is an optimist pro-active? In the latter case, what is the course of action?

Would those of you who are pro-active optimists please provide your plans of action?

Don't just provide a laundry list of general solutions; be specific as to how your particular plan will see you safely to the land of sustainability.

[Ibon]

My most optimistic scenario is transformation through a series of brutal consequences that force their way into the collective conscious breaking down step by step this consumption paradigm and imposing change toward sustainability. Change by force and default through natural consequences eventually molds culture to further transformation by design.

How soon we make real changes depend on how soon we get wacked by the consequences of doing nothing.

The catalyst of disruptive events is what is needed to jump start our governments and culture toward real changes toward sustainability.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', '
')
Would those of you who are pro-active optimists please provide your plans of action?

[retiredguy]

Ibon,

I like the way you think. I'm doing the passive-aggressive thing myself.

The point I was trying to make is that if one truly believes Peak Oil is imminent, whether one is a pessimist or an optimist, one needs a plan of action. Most of the pessimists, aka doomers, have posted their particular plans. The optismists seem reticent to supply details of theirs.

I consider myself a realist. I'm preparing, the best I can, for the worst. I like my lifestyle, so if things turn out better than expected, that's a bonus.

I have a rather dim view of human nature. My credo has always been to have low expectations of my fellow man. I have seldom been disappointed, but then, neither have I been surprised. Erring on the self-reliance side has served me well.

[Iaato]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', 'Y')ou have to simulaneously embrace two seemingly contradictory approaches:

1) Live you life as an example to others minimizing your energy footprint and chip away at the denial by discussing this with people whenever you have a receptive audience.

2) Acceptance and patience waiting for external events that act as catalysts and use these events to open the eyes of those that remain in denial.

[rdberg1957]

Optimism, pessimism. To be or not to be, that is the question.

At some point we will cease to be. All of us, our kin and our descendants. The earth is a time-limited incubator of life. Our sun will heat up and swallow the earth within a billion years or so. The existence of life-bearing planets is limited to a portion of their existence as bodies, contingent upon the life of the stars upon which they depend.

The question is whether or not we will cut that existence short ourselves, destroying not all, but much of life with us or whether we will find a way to live within that which our planet will support. We US citizens are more legitimately worried than our European neighbors because we are out on a limb, more likely to collapse sooner than others because of our huge dependence on the increasing flow of oil.

Currently, the factors which tip the scales toward pessism far outweigh those which push toward optimism. We are all finite; things can change either for the better or worse. But given what we know now, I have little reason for optimism about the world around me.

Technology advancies are incredible. Research into aging is awesome. I recently saw an episode of Charlie Rose show in which a panel of scientists discussing aging were unlocking the mechanisms of aging and disease. All this discovery is dependent on oil and coal. The technological advances have been energy dependent: computers, jet engines, medical equipment, agriculture.

Peak oil is one of many environmental mega-problems which face not only the oil-dependent, but Europe and the Third World as well. We are at or close to the nexus of multiple severe problems where one may compound the other. Global climate heating will make agriculture much more difficult at the same time we are attempting maintain food production and use crops for fuel. Fresh water shortages are imminent or present in parts of the world now and may be exacerbated by drought. The oceans are losing many of their creatures due to overfishing and temperature changes.
Six billion of us humans are taxing all the earth's resources, depleting soil, oil, water, air, wildlife.

Depending on the rapidity of depletions of resources and climate change, our ability to adapt is likely to be overtaxed. Many of us are likely to die premature deaths unless: our population is decreased by half without war (war uses incredible amounts of energy); and we find some technological breakthrough (s) which allows us to continue using energy at current rates or better or we decide to adapt to living while using 1/10 or 1/20 of our current energy consumptions; and we conserve ocean resources, allowing them to replenish; and we eliminate 90% of greenhouse gas emissions very soon. The list goes on.

The not so long-term tasks ahead for survival of humanity are great, our current efforts are weak and only by a few. Hence, the reasons for pessism over optimism. No technological fix is currently known which will provide prodigious amounts of energy without exacerbating global warming. Is it possible? Maybe. Likely. I think not. Will we reduce our population voluntarily? No evidence for that as a species. We need to do all these things and more and currently most of the planet is going in the wrong direction with one or all of the above mentioned problems, not just the US. Growing sugarcane, worse yet corn, for fuel while many starve is no answer.

The evidence is growing that we are fast moving in the direction toward our own extinction. How or when that will happen I don't know. Our species will be extinguished; at some point our flame will flicker and die. I would prefer it to be later rather than sooner. I would like to see us develop into something better than we currently are. We humans are wonderful and awful, intelligent and crazy, lovable and detestable. We are all these things. Let us work to become the best we can be before our flame is extinguished. May we still be here a million years from now!

What then is my hope? That the few who understand the problems will become many; that more will join in to invest their energies into making important changes which may delay our demise. That we will strive to love the planet and all its creatures with all our might, that we will love ourselves enough to stop our mad drives for world dominance, exploitation at any cost. If our species should end 20 years from now or 20,000, I will be satisfied if we have changed for the better, become better human beings. Obviously many others will not be satisfied with this, but so far I can find no other satisfaction than to be the best human being I can be today.

[threadbear]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I') have been in the sustainable design for most of my adult life. I have been involved in the organic food industry for 20 years and co-developed a Cohousing Community of 13 homes with shared land and property, including a 7,000 sq. ft. Common Building replete with a wood and metal shop, recreations and guest rooms, shared kitchen and dining, offices and rental spaces, etc. I have solar electric and hot-water heating panels on my roof. I telecommute and walk to town to shop.

I have personally walked the walk and professionally talked the talked anticipating influence and consequent impact on the society.

I have failed but I am optimistic.

[Iaato]

I just found the website below by Folke Gunther

http://www.holon.se/folke/kurs/logexp/logexp_en.shtml

I really like his simple definition of sustainability: To be sustainable, a society cannot be dependent on storages (of either materials or energy). That says it all. Given that definition, our reliance on technology, and the size of our population, I can only be pessimistic.

check out his worm farms, too.

[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', 'T')he peak oil problem is clearly not as problematic as all that, if we lived differently.

[Twilight]

Reading this, I think optimism and pessimism are relative anyway.

What's an optimist in the mainstream? Someone who believes the only way we're going is up, up, forever, towards fusion, flying cars and off-world colonies.

What's a pessimist in the mainstream? Someone who thinks this is as good as it gets. The 9-5 grind, generation after generation, forever.

What's the difference between an optimist and a pessimist here? That after observing the collapse of Western Civilisation within our lifetimes, humanity may or may not recover? The extent to which our descendants will attain sustainability, social complexity and specialisation of labour?

It's like two worlds of debate which don't register on each other's scales.

Everyone who understands constraints to exponential growth is a doomer.

[NEOPO]

you mean realist?

Dont ya hate the word doomer? I know I sure do and I find that true doomers are few and far between.
Jack is special

[Cyrus]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('NEOPO', 'y')ou mean realist?
Dont ya hate the word doomer? I know I sure do and I find that true doomers are few and far between.
Jack is special

[jbeckton]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('retiredguy', ' ')The optismists seem reticent to supply details of theirs.