by Last_Historian » Thu 04 Feb 2010, 20:20:03
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jotapay', 'H')ow can the government solve a problem like societal collapse when they can't seem to do anything well that is even slightly complicated? Why should individuals trust any government when the government has shown that it is only concerned with its own survival?
That is good and valid questions. The thing is, I am
not very confident at all about the ability of any government - even one that really understands Limits to Growth - to solve the problem. However, I have
zero confidence in the ability of individuals or small communities to solve the problem at the global level - which is ultimately the level that matters most, because our overshoot crisis
is global.
(Oh granted, some can make a good shot at surviving or even prospering during a collapse by practicing permaculture, or sailing off on a boat, or becoming warlords, or whatever, but the fact remains that perhaps the majority of the global population not endowed with enough luck, resources, foresight, etc, will die off due to agricultural collapse and violence).
Or let's put it this way. Probability estimates are IMO.
Business as Usual - we retain the current system of global capitalism and don't do anything about sustainability until the endgame.
80% chance: In the last years before the collapse, things start to fall apart at an accelerating rate and countries turn into authoritarian dictatorship to hold themselves together; but in they end they won't be able to, and there'll be a huge collapse.
20% chance: Technological silver bullet that solves or further postpones these problems.
Limiting of State Power, or Anarchism, etc (which many posters here seem to support, including yourself).
100% chance: Global tragedy of the commons - since individuals or communities get big, short-term benefits from increasing their material throughput, whereas the long-term price will be paid by the whole world, there is absolutely no incentive to live sustainably. End result = collapse.
So I actually prefer BAU to this.
Ecotechnic Dictatorship - Something along the lines I've described; a political system that does not worship coercion or authoritarianism, but possesses a mandate to employ them when absolutely necessary in order to build a sustainable ecotechnological civilization.
75% chance (perhaps?): it is successful in its endeavours, collapse is prevented, and with time changes in social attitudes and new ecotechnic prosperity will enable a graduated relaxing of controls.
25% chance: it will fail anyway; but at the very least, its departure will have left a positive legacy behind to be rediscovered later (stockpiles of knowledge, degradation-proofed books, plant cultures, etc, in a series of hidden repositories around the world).
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'S')o it seems like (to me) theories about how people should live should have practical application to how people can live, or choose to live.
As I've stressed before, I am not forcing anything on anyone. You are free to take it or leave it.
In fact the paradox is that in this thread I've been attacked from two directly opposite directions. From one side, those who believe me to be an aspiring tyrant. From the other side, those who decry me for refraining from activism. It's rather confusing.
OK, truce.
To answer some questions about Orlov. When I (re)read his article on the "Collapse Party Platform", I misinterpreted it to mean that he would support a political party dedicated to mitigating the consequences of a collapse; on further contact, I discovered that his term "Collapse Party" was in fact an oxymoron referring to the impossibility of a collapse party, and that he is one of those who are utterly disillusioned with all large-scale political systems.
He might be correct in that, but I think the attitude is self-defeating for the reasons I explained above for disagreeing with the idea of Limiting of State Power or Anarchism. He is free to sail away in his boat and so are you, but those left behind still have to face the prospect of collapse (and so will he, eventually; piracy will proliferate on the high seas after collapse). And I happen to think that doing the utmost to try preventing collapse is preferably to resigning oneself to its inevitability.
That is my main point of contention with Orlov - he is 100% pessimistic on the ability of the state to solve problems, whereas I am closer to 50% pessimistic.
Finally, it is my opinion you give him an unjustified prominence in the extent to which Orlov's ideas have influenced me. Off the top of my head, people like: Tainter, Catton, the Club of Rome, the cliodynamicians, Deffeyes, Ayres, many of the people at the Old Drum, MJ Greer, the technological singularitarians - have had a bigger impact.