[Ibon]

Is the individualism and social isolation we see in American culture today pointing to a trend that will increase in the future or is it more like a swing of a pendulum? Is the pendulum actually building up energy toward swinging back to a culture embracing more community? Americans seemingly stubborn cultural entrenchment toward individualism and consumption is perhaps only skin deep. In fact it may be more related to abundant energy that enabled individualism to flourish to the extremes that it has. Americans are 5% of the worlds population consuming 25% of the available fossil fuels and the most individualistic of any society. Is this correlation a coincidence or causative? Will it be abandoned far more easily than we assume once resource constraints start imposing limits and the pendulum swings back?

How an affluent society built up around an ethos of strong individualism (enabled by abundant energy sources) will adjust when resource constraints impose a cultural shift forcing a more communal, shared, cooperative and perhaps less democratic form of societal organization is a key question. In Jared Diamond’s book Collapse he explains how cultural entrenchment lead to the collapse and die-off of the Nordic Greenlanders and Easter Island cultures in spite of solutions and alternative food sources or lifestyles being available. Will Americans resist change until the consequences threaten a similar fate?

If we take the US as the most actualized form of individualistic culture we can ask ourselves; Is it our consumption habits or our individualism where we are the most culturally entrenched and where the greatest resistance toward cultural change lies? They are certainly to some degree intertwined. Much of the consumption Americans are famous for is fleeting. It is a fulfillment of ones “supposed” needs. Consumption is a byproduct therefore of individualism, excessive consumption is excessive individualism as practiced to the extreme in American culture. Individualism enabled by cheap abundant energy in America drove consumption habits to the extremes of vast suburbs and personal automobiles and mega shopping malls which then eroded away communities, stripped away much of our social capital and therefore further led to isolationism and consequently with a more empty form of individualism. This certainly is not the cowboy ethos of individualism we hold dearly to our hearts now is it?

So like the Nordic Greenlanders will we collapse as we stubbornly defend this ethos of individualism or will we adapt? Many of the most ardent doomers see no hope for American culture’s ability to enter into a transition toward more community because we envision socio-pathological raving lunatics, socially retarded individuals screaming in resistance to this lost individualism, ready to maim, kill and descend into a total social chaos if their cars and houses access to shopping malls are taken away from them. Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove accurately named as contemporaries of this paradigm of thought. Dick Cheney saying the American way of life is non-negotiable seems to come straight out of Jared Diamond’s thesis of cultural entrenchment. The cruel irony of our predicament is that the very social tools and communal infrastructure that will be needed when resource constraints force us to abandon individualism were sacrificed in the past decades as we built up the current infrastructure based on extreme individualism.

So what do you think? Will we defend to our death our unsustainable individualism or will we become more communal and cooperative as a country once resource depletion forces its hand?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', ' ') So what do you think? Will we defend to our death our unsustainable individualism or will we become more communal and cooperative as a country once resource depletion forces its hand?

[BastardSquad]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ibon', ' ') So what do you think? Will we defend to our death our unsustainable individualism or will we become more communal and cooperative as a country once resource depletion forces its hand?

[Ibon]

The imposing constraints of resources is in fact the crisis that we are now standing before. All of our opinions regarding our cultural entrenchment is based on looking backwards toward our behaviour during the past couple of generations. Conclusions going forward drawn from our observable past is really pretty easy to do. I am really more interested in the dynamics that will unfold culturally once the crisis is no longer able to be denied. What is hidden there that we cant see right now from just observing the past?

For example, extreme individualism for many individuals really means lonliness and isolation. Many aspects of our modern life do not have any organic real roots. I think that of all the cultural icons that make up American Identity none is so strong as this extreme individualism. Some aspects may be dropped with ease, other aspects we will hold on to tenaciously like a dog biting a rope that you can whip round and round and up off his feet and he just wont let go.

I think there will be surprising willingness in many areas for cultural transformation once the crisis hits.

[pup55]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f we take the US as the most actualized form of individualistic culture

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'A') lot of our consumption is driven by a need to be just like (or slightly better than) the neighbors. I am talking about i-pods, Nike, and restrictive subdivision covenants. All of this stuff is about conformity.

[gg3]

I think we should start by disentangling these variables and defining each one clearly.

First, individualism vs. collectivism:
Individualism holds that a person is an entity unto themselves. Collectivism holds that a person is part of, or a subset of, a larger entity (family, tribe, village, nation, etc.).
According to individualism, a person's free will is subject only to the minimal limitations of a system of law designed to maximize freedom. A person can be judged or subjected to sanctions only for those actions that they themselves take, not for actions that others with whom they are in some way associated take.

According to collectivism, a person's free will is subject to the will of his/her group. A person can be judged or subjected to sanctions for actions taken by other members of his/her group.
The problem with collectivism, as I pointed out elsewhere (with reference to neurophysics), is that free will is hardwired in the physical structure of the neurons that make up the brain. Thus an extremely collectivist society is faced with a paradox that by analogy is similar to the condition of person with a disability whereby his arms and legs move spontaneously (as if they "have a will of their own") even when s/he wishes them not to. (Or perhaps a closer similarity would be Tourette's Syndrome, characterised by spontaneous vocalizations, often of "forbidden" words such as swearwords, against the overt will of the person with the condition.)

The problem with individualism taken to extremes, is that it tends to ignore the fact that the brain is also hardwired for empathy. Thus the paradox of extremely individualistic societies is analogous to the condition of a person who is paralyzed: no amount of will is sufficient to force the immobile limbs to move, even when needed to save the life of the person.

Second, consumerism" Consumerism is an ideology in which primary satisfactions include the consumption of material goods and services as an end, rather than only as a means to other ends.

Third, conformity: The tendency of persons to uncritically behave in a similar manner as an expression of belonging to a group.

I get the impression that the primary dynamics here have evolved to a state of dynamic tension and fine balance, similar to that between pacifistic and warlike behaviors. Too far in either direction is "life out of balance," and becomes a risk of darwinization for the person and for the society.

Last but not least, here's an example that may illustrate a few points: For y'all toughguys out there who pride yourself on your free will and individualism: How many of you are willing to sit down to pee?

[katkinkate]

I do it every day.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'I')ronically, I think the consumption society we live in is the opposite of individualism....

[mark]

Yes!

"We" are about to become splintered. The future of america depends on who you are talking to. Some get it, most don't and will not.

Those who do must take action. The escape pods must be deployed. This is the difficult thing as we've been acculturated differently, not as individuals but as "consumers." GM or Toyota rings the bell and we hurry to slop up the latest offering. That's what is hard to do, withdraw from the "consumer tit." and strike out on our own. Individualism? Looks more like slavery.

Personally, I think this is the greatest time to be alive. The opportunities are endless -- for those with the courage and inventiveness to make for themselves a new life... one where human beings count for more than "consumers."

[bshirt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', '
')Ironically, I think the consumption society we live in is the opposite of individualism....

A lot of our consumption is driven by a need to be just like (or slightly better than) the neighbors. I am talking about i-pods, Nike, and restrictive subdivision covenants. All of this stuff is about conformity. The essence of Mickey D's, our favorite restaurant, is that we can get exactly the same meal, right down to the grease, as somebody the next town or clear across the country.

The real individualists are the small percentage who reject this advertising-driven herd mentality.

[undertaker]

I have often tried to get people living in proximity to start working with me to do mini-farming and carpooling. I have teh resources to get others involved, but the response was similar to that you might give a Jehovah's Witness.

I thought it would be a "no-brainer" to want to grow one's own food and do car pooling, especially with people who were clearly in a financial struggle and had 3 or 5 kids (the two families had this many kids). I said, "Hey, wouldn't it be great to cut your grocery bill with all these kids by cultivating your own plot of land right up the street from you? Also, (to the stay at home mom with a minivan) you can cut your vehicle expenses by driving us all to work. Your vehicles will be just about free!"

But they weren't quite that desperate. They had some mental conditioning that told them it would lower their status to participate in what I was offering.

However, as things get worse, this will change. I'm watching it, and when the people I know decide to start working collectively, I will post on this board about it.

[WildRose]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('undertaker', '
')I thought it would be a "no-brainer" to want to grow one's own food and do car pooling, especially with people who were clearly in a financial struggle and had 3 or 5 kids (the two families had this many kids). I said, "Hey, wouldn't it be great to cut your grocery bill with all these kids by cultivating your own plot of land right up the street from you? Also, (to the stay at home mom with a minivan) you can cut your vehicle expenses by driving us all to work. Your vehicles will be just about free!"

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', ' ') It could very well be that soon we will have to downsize and share our space, time, knowledge and experience with our neighbors in a collective effort to just get by.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pup55', 'I') am talking about i-pods.... All of this stuff is about conformity.

[keehah]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')ronically, I think the consumption society we live in is the opposite of individualism....

[Zardoz]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')es, we will have to learn to share.

[Ibon]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', ' ')I think as a people we in the western world are not as accustomed to sharing our time and space as many other cultures are. For example, families in poorer countries share a small home with many people and each person does not have a lot of privacy in their own home. In our more privileged culture, we have moved steadily away from more modest homes to much larger homes where each person has their own bedroom, sometimes their own bathroom, TV, computer, all of which has resulted in people who are not required to share as much with others.

[gg3]

How quickly people tend to embrace flinging the pendulum to the opposite pole!

Yes, six people to a bedroom, in bunks, and you can try to sleep through the thumping and moaning coming from the bunk over your head that's being temporarily occupied by more than one person. And let's not forget twelve to a toilet, so everyone becomes intimately familiar with each others' intestinal flora and the aromatic compounds produced thereby. That's the spirit! Nothing like a little togetherness at the most base level of biological functions!

In fact the sane solution is to simply downsize the square footage while maintaining basic privacy. This is not hard. Or rather, it will require bulldozing an awful lot of dreck architecture and rebuilding, and an awful lot of remodeling of what can't be bulldozed.

Think of this: Four families in four small houses of maybe 1,200 square feet each; or four families living communally in one bigger house of 5,000 square feet or more. Either way you have the same number of people and the same amount of enclosed space. With the smaller houses you have privacy and personal autonomy. With the larger houses you have to deal with the guy who got drunk last night and puked all over the hallway carpet as well as the bathroom floor.

But in fact the physical building is hardly as much of an issue as the energy used by its occupants. Once the building is built, it becomes part of the legacy infrastructure. What matters are things such as SUVs and plasma TVs and indoor temperatures and the design of appliances: the ongoing "cost of ownership" in terms of energy and materials.

Cutting back on the durable infrastructure (first cost) is the wrong move; cutting back on the operating consumption levels (running costs) is the smart move. As we say in the telephone systems biz, either you pay for it in installation or you pay for it in repairs. Or more simply put, we ain't rich enough to buy cheap goods.

[WildRose]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('gg3', '
')Think of this: Four families in four small houses of maybe 1,200 square feet each; or four families living communally in one bigger house of 5,000 square feet or more. Either way you have the same number of people and the same amount of enclosed space. With the smaller houses you have privacy and personal autonomy.