Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Back to the Stone Age Thread (merged)

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

The only sustainable level of technology was the Stone Age.

Unread postby JoeW » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:10:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')oderator's Note:

This is another split thread from the Big Picture thread.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The only sustainable level of technology is the stone age."— George Draffan

The stone age often wasn't sustainable either.

Roger that, Nero. The stone age degenerated into our current situation.
User avatar
JoeW
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 647
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: The Pit of Despair

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:21:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he stone age degenerated into our current situation.


Not for the majority of cultures.

Can you name some unsustainable stone age technologies?
Ludi
 

Unread postby nero » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:37:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an you name some unsustainable stone age technologies?

farming


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', 'A')greeing that humanity isn't capable of change means, to me, that I'm agreeing that humanity is doomed, and I absolutely don't agree with that. It is not one of my assumptions. Based on evidence, we can see humans have adapted to many different circumstances. I think they still can. Maybe not all of them, but some.


Humans and our culture change all the time. A rat is an adaptable animals as well. (They're actually pretty conservative, but they can adapt to new food sources.) But my point was that thinking of humanity as a single organism it isn't very smart and does things that are not in its long term best interest. An individual human is smart enough to go on a diet because they find out they have high blood pressure. They can consciously decide to change their behaviour and even decide to change their thinking. I don't think humanity as a whole is that intelligent. Certainly we haven't seen much evidence of it in its behaviour.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:38:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an you name some unsustainable stone age technologies?


Fire. It takes wood, which, while renewable, is not infinite.

Examples: Easter Island. Mangareva, Pitcairn, and Henderson.

http://members.aol.com/leanan7/rapanui.htm

http://members.aol.com/leanan7/pitcairn.htm
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:40:46

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'f')arming


False. Many peoples invented agriculture, many versions of which never proved to be unsustainable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ire.


False. Many cultures use/d fire. Most did not end up like those islands.
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:44:55

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JoeW', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '"')The only sustainable level of technology is the stone age."— George Draffan

The stone age often wasn't sustainable either.

Roger that, Nero. The stone age degenerated into our current situation.


Read the quote, guys. Level of technology. And how does a unsupported one-liner add to the discussion? Think this through, it is the point of the original thread, by the way.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:58:10, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby FatherOfTwo » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:48:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '
')If this were true then the flexible and incredibly adaptive tribal cultures would not have succeeded for 100,000 years as they have done. It is not our species , it is our culture which is maladaptive.


Sorry, I don't agree. Maybe if we had another 1000 years of evolution and we were in the same situation, then I might agree with you. Nero hit the nail on the head – we have the collective intelligence of a rat.

Unless of course you think Darwin was wrong. But if you accept the underlying premise of survival of the fittest, how can you explain why these tribal cultures (which are after all, just a collection of a few members of our species) have not flourished and "wiped out" the cultures which have placed us in such peril? It's because our species currently doesn't have the ability to make the next leap – and that is not a factor of culture.
User avatar
FatherOfTwo
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 960
Joined: Thu 11 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Heart of Canada's Oil Country
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:48:31

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')alse. Many peoples invented agriculture, many versions of which never proved to be unsustainable.


Well, our way of life needn't be unsustainable, either. But it will be, because of the way we're going about it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')False. Many cultures use/d fire. Most did not end up like those islands.


Yeah, because they switched to coal or oil.

Stone Age societies suffer frequent dieoffs. That's not really my idea of "sustainable."
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:49:35

It seems to me, if we look at the many, many examples of cultures with a stone age level of technology, we will see many different uses of those technologies. For instance, farming. There are many different kinds of farming, not all like "our way." Diversity is a hallmark of a stone age level of technology.

Hope that wasn't too much of a tangent (sorry for the previous one).
Ludi
 

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:51:17

Leanan, you are arguing from a position so far embedded in our culture's assumptions, I'm unable to communicate with you. Sorry.
Ludi
 

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:56:21

Let me put it this way. Farming is not sustainable because it encourages and allows high population growth. Eventually, there will be a crash.

This is in fact the natural order of things, for all animals. They don't voluntarily decide to conserve, limit their numbers, etc. They reproduce until something stops them: lack of food, crowding which leads to disease, conflict over scarce resources, etc. A boom, followed by a crash. We aren't special, in that respect. We've just carried it to insane extremes. Oil has allowed us to increase our population to nosebleed highs, from which the crash will be nasty indeed.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:56:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')Unless of course you think Darwin was wrong. But if you accept the underlying premise of survival of the fittest, how can you explain why these tribal cultures (which are after all, just a collection of a few members of our species) have not flourished and "wiped out" the cultures which have placed us in such peril?


I'm only responding to this because you asked me a question. I don't expect you to agree with me, and I'm not interested in debating you.

Our culture is uniquely suited to destroying itself and all other cultures. The other cultures did not destroy ours and "flourish" as you call it (you call the situtation we find ourselves in "flourishing?" I don't) because they did not embody the traits which make our culture uniquely destructive, which are:

- "Totalitarian"-style agriculture, which destroys all competitors and even ecosystems in order to make way for itself, and which enables populations to outstrip their natural resources.

- The idea that there is one right way to live - ours.

You have an incorrect view of Darwinian evolution if you think that successful populations "wipe out" their competitors. They do not. The hyeana doesn't wipe out the lion and vice versa. They merely compete.
Ludi
 
Top

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 15:59:58

Not all farming methods produce a great surplus of foods which lead to an enormous population explosion and crash. That's simply not true.
Ludi
 

Unread postby OilyMon » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:01:33

Human kind is more than capable of changing it's direction but not with the population levels we are experiencing today. There is far too much diversity to effectively manage our culture and society There is a natural check in place however. There is a natural transistion that we are going through right now that is directly related to population growth, and resource depletion. The Easter Islanders experienced this as they went through the same transistion from free society with really strange values -values that we responsible for the exponential increase in the use of and eventual depletion of their primary resource - to one of violence and dictatorship, much like our modern view of what fascism becomes when it is separated from it's ideals. Take for example this list of characteristics of fascism:

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

I think this is merely how our "modern" society will respond to the limitations imposed by both resource and populace, and will signal the de-population of many of the densely populated regions of the globe.
Last edited by OilyMon on Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:04:29, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
OilyMon
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue 01 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Southern Ontario

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:02:20

Stepping out of this debate because I find it uninteresting.
Ludi
 

Unread postby Malthus » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:02:55

I think that to do with the evolutionary past of our specie. Just look at Hollywood's blockbuster the end of the world (asteroids, climate change,deadly virus, the coming of the devil) usually comes fast a matter of days weeks at best. The evolutionary benefit of reacting to imminent sudden threats "now" is much greater compared to rationally assessing the dangers for the next generation. We have evolved to deal with a leopard leaping on us and are completely helpless confroted with things like ressource depletion, overpopulation, climate cahnge. We cant act against longterm problems because we cant plan much further into the future. Lets take for instance global climate change 99% of serious scientists (not motoindustry pimps) contribute it to human activity and we know that the consequences will be dire however we dont react to it because we dont feel the consequences ( the kyoto protocol is a wildely insufficient joke and yet it hasnt been ratified by the US and AU) I guess that it happened the same way with easter island. People just cant project the consequences of their actions far into the future when you speak to someone about lets say 2044 most of the people (fed up with cheap TV science fiction) will have a sort of Star Trek picture of their lifes. When crisis comes they will try to patch things up without understanding that it is the system that they try to defend that kills them. Every technofix will only make things worse because it will permit us to further exceed our carrying capacity of Earth and reinforce the delusional camp of the cornucopians instead of helping ensure a soft landing. In fact I am quite conviced, based on my observations and using the scientific knoledge that we have, that if we happen to find a new source of cheap energy comparable to oil our specie and most of the other complex species can kiss them selves good bye. As Einstein once said intelectuals solve problems genuises prevent them.


The other part of the problem is also part of our evolutionary past it is the capability of self deception that we have developped. It is also known as positve illusion you can read more about it on the post that has been moved to the new toppic. If it is more psychologically rewarding to ignore those long term problems in the short term (peak energy) then people tend to do so. Ever wounder why religious people are hapier? Easy they have an absolute truth while we have to deal with uncertainty and provisional truths which is less rewarding from a biological point of view.
I am ready drop my pessimistic view of man/my/ future if tomorrow someone totally disproves Liebig's law as I m ready to embrece lets say evangelical christianism if tomorrow someone proves beyond doubt that earth and universe are 6000 years old. Thus the average Joe is subject to his wishful thinking that this mineralogical bonaza wont end and if some resources are depleated our ingenuity will replace them. Worring about distant or presumably distant problems on which one has little power isnt very comforting and requires atleast critical thinking which most people dont have. I bet that most of those who have tried to explain it to the public have been confronted with disbelief and mocking (some would consider you as blown away hippie or a wacko environementalist). Just look at the lottery players they know there going to lose their money however there is the external biochemical benefit : hope infact it is almost a certainty that they because they are particular and unique and the center of the unverse are going to win with odds of 1:10^7 and plan how to spend the money. That is a clear example of biochemical process of selfdeception that operates the same way with the rejection of any bad news (peak oil) that are potentioally going to destroy our psychological comfort and cause a biochemcal "pain" to our brain
User avatar
Malthus
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 107
Joined: Sat 15 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Location: varies

Unread postby nero » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:05:48

On this whole stone age thing: I didn't say that all stone age levels of technology were unsustainable only that some weren't. Stone age technolgy is a broad catagory. I agree some stone age cultures were very well adapted for their surroundings and had been tested for thousands of years. I grant some farming technology memplexes also had every evidence of being sustainable. Some weren't, let's leave it at that because it is splitting hairs.
User avatar
nero
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1433
Joined: Sat 22 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:09:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nero', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an you name some unsustainable stone age technologies?

farming


Although there is evidence that some early neolithic humans also actively managed the food resource as well as simply harvested it. Farming that approached unsustainability was a result of the Agrarian Era and the Bronze Age, not the Stone Age hunter/ gatherer epoch.

The quote was more of a hyperbole to demonstrate the prevasive nature of technology and it's impact on our environment, not a point for debate. 8)
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby Leanan » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:15:44

I'm not talking about a "great surplus" of foods.

Farming is hard work. No one who could support themselves by foraging would choose to farm instead. When a society chooses agriculture, it's because the population density is too high to continue as foragers.

This is why foraging cultures are now found in only the least hospitable areas. The Kalahari Desert, the Artic Circle, etc. Places where you can't farm. Because as population increases, conflict arises, and generally, those with the highest population density win. That's the farmers.

Farming may not produce the amount of food agribusiness does, but it still allows you to support a much higher population density than would be possible otherwise. Plus, you are no longer walking all day, so you can have your children closely spaced. Farming encourages it, because you need the labor, and you need the people to defend your land.

Warfare increases with farming, because it gives you more to fight about. If you're foragers, and run into another band, you can just go somewhere else and avoid them. You aren't going to do that if you just spent all spring and summer farming the land. Nope, you're going to fight to defend your property.

There are reasons why our culture is the way it is. It helped us solve problems and survive in the past. That does not mean it will also be adaptive in the future.
User avatar
Leanan
News Editor
News Editor
 
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu 20 May 2004, 03:00:00

Unread postby Ludi » Tue 22 Feb 2005, 16:20:12

You make many good points. Yes, foraging is easier than our kind of farming. However, you're not looking at some forms of agriculture which are not labor intensive, and they have existed. But I'm not going to try to convince you of this because you have your mind made up.
Ludi
 

Next

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron