[Ludi]

Civilization was a strategy attempted by the minimum of human cultures (most cultures have been hunter-gatherers), and all civilizations have collapsed. Thus it is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. As swell as all this nice stuff is, it isn't evolutionarily stable, thus doomed.

Art and music arose in hunter-gatherer cultures, they are not limited to civilization.

(I'm not answering for MQ, I'm just horning in here...)

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'C')ivilization was a strategy attempted by the minimum of human cultures (most cultures have been hunter-gatherers), and all civilizations have collapsed. Thus it is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. As swell as all this nice stuff is, it isn't evolutionarily stable, thus doomed.

[Ludi]

I'm a hypocrite.

I'm a hypocrite because I'm not willing to die really soon, so I'm gradually transitioning away from civilization while encouraging other people to do so as well. I know that, as people who have grown up in civilization, we don't have the knowledge and skills to suddenly jump into an evolutionarily stable way of life, though I believe such a life beyond civilization, taking much of the knowledge we have gained from civilization about the biosphere and ecosystems, so we can avoid some of the behaviors that the hunter-gatherers engaged in which damaged their ecosystems, and build a sustainable culture using the best of the tribal strategy and civilization strategy. But it won't be civilization, nor will it be "living in a cave."

So yes, today I'm a hypocrite and may be a hypocrite my entire life, seeing as I'm getting older, but I may be able to give those who come after me a viable way of life, and a future.

[Wildwell]

Well good luck Ludi, I hope you don't get cold, hungry or ill or anyone near to you.

I do of course believe we should be using renewable energy, sustainable methods of transport, agriculture and industry with a more advanced money system. But going back to live in wood fuelled tribal villages, no.

[Ludi]

I think you probably don't even know what I'm talking about Wildwell. Maybe I'll start a thread about living beyond civilization sometime.

I think a life could be built using the best of civilization and tribalism, and so do a lot of other people. But some people are just so in love with civilization, they want to save it at all costs, even though that's not possible in the long run. (see many MonteQuest threads about why it isn't possible)

[Wildwell]

Well maybe, but you're going to need transport, therefore machines. Not all your resources will be local, in fact very few. You will need transport and communications to support a time, money, education, policing and medical system. You'll also need a certain amount of industry, unless everyone is trained to do everything. It will have to be a dictatorship or feudal system as well, to make sure no one has any bright ideas and carries them out. Therefore you'll need heavy control of the media, crime and may have to resort to unpleasant methods.

I think some people have romantic notions and see nothing wrong with liking the form of paintings or the sound of music, but see it quite wrong to ease human workload or misery or the liking of the form of machines or interest in the things they do – all things humans create.

I also think MQ has his own agenda.

[vegasmade]

[Well therefore there is no safe strategy. Many tribes died out because they burnt up local supplies, hunted animals to extinction or the crops failed. So you're anti civilisation? What right have you using piped water, flushing the toilet, having a job, using the internet or money, or are you a hypocrite? If it’s so bad why do you take part?

May I suggest that the hunter gatherer civilisations that remain (and that's questionable) lack resources and education and many live in a constant state of war or starvation. Some art and music is pre-civilisation, but is very, very limited. Certainly not to anything other than blowing throw bamboo or finger painting from local resources.[/quote]

History might differ with your opinion. Native Americans were in no threat of starving from resource depletion. Some tribes, maybe. But this is hardly a reasonable generalization. Most tribes excercised an ideal form of civilization. They had a hiearchy which maintained control, allotted appropriate functions to appropriate members, and exercised interdependency. Cultures were able to form and survive in some of the most inhospitable places in this country. The anasazi of the SW are a great example. They even practiced engineering in the building of their pueblos. They excercised a balance between nature and man that has been ignored and forgotten. The Hawaiin culture, due to favorable conditions, invented recreation as we think of it. They had lived in harmony on an island of finite space and weren't starving to death when whitey showed up. As far as current tribal societies, any trouble they have is directly related to our 'advanced' societies' encroachment. Our so called education wouldn't keep us alive in the amazon two weeks. Yet there still are tribes surviving in that rainforest, despite our desecration of their natural enviorment. The tribal future (which I personally subscribe to) is distorted by preconcieved images of loin cloths and war chants. In actuallity, it's the harmony with nature that is most significant. They lived renewable lives, free of greed and waste. Their semi-nomadic lifestyle prevented rapid population expansion much like animals in the wild today.
Sorry to chime in again, you two are heading in a great direction with this.
And I'm sorry for not staying completely on topic. Though the ego idea seems right on.

[Wildwell]

Well for those that quite fancy the idea, you may now depart and find your new life, no one is stopping you. No time like the present, get your things together. The rest of us will carry on in our chosen way of life, I don't expect to see any more posts from you people unless you mean to expand your ego. Good luck! Nice knowing you.

[vegasmade]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'W')ell maybe, but you're going to need transport, therefore machines. Not all your resources will be local, in fact very few. You will need transport and communications to support a time, money, education, policing and medical system. You'll also need a certain amount of industry, unless everyone is trained to do everything. It will have to be a dictatorship or feudal system as well, to make sure no one has any bright ideas and carries them out. Therefore you'll need heavy control of the media, crime and may have to resort to unpleasant methods.

I think some people have romantic notions and see nothing wrong with liking the form of paintings or the sound of music, but see it quite wrong to ease human workload or misery or the liking of the form of machines or interest in the things they do – all things humans create.

I also think MQ has his own agenda.

[Wildwell]

Again, have you any idea how much energy there is in the oceans, streams, wind or waste? Egotistical need of comfort? What the hell are you an about? Why is the want to be safe, warm and fed egotistical? I want to see my loved ones safe and well, have food on the table and not worry about me and my nearest. That is about as natural as it gets. As I said, if you really don't like it, you are free to go to your new life. Don't sit here using electricity and modern machines and tell everyone they are evil for creating things like medicine and water supply which saved many people from early or horrible deaths. One thing I cannot stand more than anything is people that take all the comforts themselves and preach to other people how bad others are. Machines are no more unnatural than anything else humans create or achieve - no less valid than art or music whatever the pompous idiots might like to think.

[jato]

I would like to see a “Star Trek” future. Is that optimism?

It is plain to see that we are using up (wasting) all of our stored energy (fossil fuels).

Our system is not about living more comfortable, happy lives. Our system is about influence, power and making money (greed). Comfort does sell really well. It is a big money maker.

Peak Oil, peak energy and the subsequent decline will mean less money & comfort per capita. It will be the destruction of the middle class. Will the wealthy spread their money and resources for the good of the masses post-peak? Or will they hold onto it and let the middle & lower classes suffer?

My most optimistic yet realistic post-Peak Oil scenario is for the middle class to disappear into poverty. Hoping for the wealthy elite to patch the failing systems (water, food, transportation, sewage, medical, etc.) enough to prevent a die-off. My family will wind up living in current 3rd world conditions.

That was my optimistic scenario and I don’t like it one bit.

[vegasmade]

I have no contempt for technology, it's uses, and all it's given us. As an american i'm conditioned to embrace it and frown on those who don't. You and I didn't create this world and I, as you, am happy to have been born into it. I'll miss it all as much as anybody when it's gone. This thread was about post peak oil psycological realities. Obviously, those are going to differ in different places. The fact that we can have this conversation is something i will greatly miss, if my ability is taken away. Unfortunately, our realities of any future energy crisis, have created a misunderstanding. Those technologies you speak of are great possible solutions. My reality, however, can't justify any faith in those solutions affecting me, my family, and my neighbors. I live inland, so ocean energy is nil. The river closest to me, the Colorado, is dammed. It provides electricity to the LA coasties who won't give up two feet of beach to harvest energy. A huge wind farm was proposed 100 miles north of where i'm sitting. The problem there is that everything 50-500 miles north is government land. And for no good reason they pulled the plug on it. Solar energy would be ideal in my area, but present technologies haven't yet made it a cost effective alternative. Even at the personal use level, the equipment is costly, and the life span on current generation solar cells wouldn't last more than 10-15 years, last i checked.
I make no dispute that places like Iceland with their abundant geothermal and Venezuela with large heavy oil and tar sands deposits may fair much better, in the long run. I will not hope for the best for the USA. Even now today we snub our noses at any possibility of drastic change, yet the reality is quite different. I am in no way criticising tech, it's obvious benefits, and few shortfalls. I am however forced to think in terms of plan B because our facist leaders hold us citizens with thinnly veiled contempt.
I will continue to hope it's not as bad as I think, but i'll be planning for worse. I apologize if i've offended you and wish you only the best in any postPO scenario.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'M')Q: So what you are saying (and correct me if I’m wrong) is we shouldn’t have bothered with any machine, water supply, modern medicine, education, policing, retirement, money, electric light, only used dung and wood for heating – anything we see around us today. For the moments early humans started creating language and scribing on walls, writing books, making wheels and later house drawn railways and canals – that was all wrong and we should have just been hunters and gatherers and put up with the crap life threw at us, the starvation, cold, misery, the loss of loved ones and early death. We should have lived near resources and remained there and lived in peace, never going into neighbouring areas and stealing because we’d run out?

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I') also think MQ has his own agenda.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', 'I') also think MQ has his own agenda.

[Ludi]

Wildwell, I'm wondering, do you think a person has a right to criticise something even if they don't have all the solutions to fixing it? Or do they have a right to observe failings in something while at the same time benefiting from it? This seems like it would be a very difficult way to live, because, for instance, if I wasn't happy with a law in my country, I couldn't point out the failing of the law or try to change it, I would have to leave the country, it seems to me, if I followed your line of thought.

[Doly]

My personal opinion is that criticising is far easier than actually fixing things. Most people that point out failings don't even make the slightest effort to make a change. I don't think this helps anybody.

I believe discussing things is great, but if it won't lead to any practical action, it's wasting our time, isn't it?

[heyhoser]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'I') get so frustrated by seeing the same arguments over and over - "People are resourceful, they'll think of something" "Scientists are clever, they'll think of something" "We can transition to alternative technology" etc etc, you know all that, you've heard it all a million times.

I get sooo frustrated and angry with these same lame arguments, but I'm asking myself, what's so wrong with groundless optismism that things will work out for the best?

What do you think?

[Wildwell]

It’s all about personal decisions and responsibility. I think many people on these boards are scared they might have to get off their fat backsides and walk or live in a less energy intensive way – we’ve heard all the excuses why they don’t do this, is if somehow that makes it alright. If that’s how you want to justify things to yourself feel free, that’s your decision. Who am I to say you shouldn’t do it. But don’t expect me to support wars that support your lifestyle, don’t expect me to shed a tear when you find fuel expensive to drive your SUV and don’t come on here preaching to other people that ‘oil was wasted’ when you run a sports car or SUV and so on, because it doesn’t wash.

If you don't like your country or what it's doing leave or get involved in lobbying or politics.

[Ludi]

I agree Doly. And as an example, here is what Monte posted above as a basic outline of the kind of culture he thinks we should be moving toward (if I understand him correctly):

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')e need to reestablish a sense of relationship and participation with the planet. We need to design tools and technologies that favor long-term sustainability and durability over short-term hyper-efficiency and expediency. Labor-saving and time-saving devices would become antiques of a by-gone age. We would recognize that all economic activity is merely an extension of the environment, thus economic production and social consumption would never be allowed to outpace the ecosytem's ability to recycle and renew the stock of available energy and resources. Society's energy flow must be reduced to as low a point as possible in order to sustain the unfolding of all of life as far into the future as possible. Our sustainable future is one of necessities, not luxuries.