IntegralJournal (September 18, 2007)

I'd like to recommend a reading of Richard Heinberg's edited introduction to his about-to-be published book: Peak Everything.  The edited introduction can be found here.  Richard has been thinking about this for as long as anyone and tends to be ahead of the curve on where the whole thing is headed.

After you read the introduction, please come back here for some of my thoughts on the content.  I'll post excerpts from the article and respond to them.  I think that I have some of the answers.

During the past few years the phrase Peak Oil has entered the global lexicon.

It should be noted that only a small percentage of the world population has any idea what Peak Oil is about.  Maybe less than 1%.  The Spokane Library does not even have any of Heinberg's books on its shelves.

Upon first encountering Peak Oil, most people tend to assume it is merely a single isolated problem to which there is a simple solution - whether of an eco-friendly nature (more renewable energy) or otherwise (more coal). But prolonged reflection and study tend to eat away at the viability of such "solutions"; meanwhile, as one contemplates how we humans have so quickly become so deeply dependent on the cheap, concentrated energy of oil and other fossil fuels, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have caught ourselves on the horns of the Universal Ecological Dilemma, consisting of the interlinked elements of population pressure, resource depletion, and habitat destruction - and on a scale unprecedented in history.

It should be noted that those who understand that this is not a single isolated problem are only a fraction of the 1% noted above.  If we are to attempt to change people's behavior, we have to create a system that can be "sold" to the public without them having knowledge of the consequences of peak oil -- the general public simply does not have the inclination to change unless collapse occurs.

Once we accept that energy, fresh water, and food will become less freely available over next few decades, it is hard to escape the conclusion that, while the 20th century saw the greatest and most rapid expansion of the scale, scope, and complexity of human societies in history, the 21st will see contraction and simplification. The only real question then is whether societies will contract and simplify intelligently or in an uncontrolled, chaotic fashion.

Contraction and simplification can lead to happiness under the right circumstances.  Under the current system, societies will not contract or simplify in an intelligent fashion because the system itself is not intelligent.

None of this is easy to contemplate. Nor can this information easily be discussed in polite company: the suggestion that we are at or near the peak of population and consumption levels for the entirety of human history and that it's all downhill from here is not likely to win votes, lead to a better job, or even make for pleasant dinner banter. Most people turn off and tune out when the conversation moves in this direction; advertisers and news organizations take note and act accordingly. The result: a general, societal pattern of denial.

Ain't that the truth.

The most leisurely societies were without doubt those of hunter-gatherers, who worked about 1000 hours per year, though these societies seldom if ever thought of dividing "work time" from "leisure time," since all activities were considered pleasurable in their way.

This 1000 hours per year is comparable to the 20 hours of "labor" that is expected for the scholars/fellows that represent half of the occupancy of the club I describe in this blog.  Capital comes from the other half of the residents of property -- the members.  It should be noted that both members and fellows will be able to flow from one role to the other.  Members can become fellows and fellows can become members.  The important thing to remember is that there will be no vacant private living spaces and that the system protects against inflation and deflation through a lesser of cost or market policy.  Although I may have not used the term before, these will be eco-villages -- high quality eco-villages.  Quality is a key component of sustainability.

Addressing the economic, social, and political problems ensuing from the various looming peaks will require enormous collective effort. If it to be successful, that effort must be coordinated, presumably by government, and enlisting people in that effort will require educating and motivating them in numbers and at a speed that has not been seen since World War II.

Based on everything that I have witnessed in the last 25 years, I don't see government stepping up to play a leading role.  Leadership has to be provided from another institution -- one that does not currently exist.  A synthesis of university, religion, and corporations that surpasses each in the ability to comprehensively respond to crisis.

...The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year analysis of the world's ecosystems released in 2006, in which 1300 scientists participated, concluded of 24 ecosystems identified as essential to human life, 15 are "being pushed beyond their sustainable limits," toward a state of collapse that may be "abrupt and potentially irreversible."

Nevertheless, a decline in population, complexity, and consumption could, at least in theory, result in a stable society with characteristics that many people would find quite desirable. A reversion to the normal pattern of human existence, based on village life, extended families, and local production for local consumption - especially if it were augmented by a few of the frills of the late industrial period, such as global communications - could provide future generations will the kind of existence that many modern urbanites dream of wistfully.

Bold emphasis is mine.  Essentially, this describes the spa/club concept that I have developed over the past few years.  One difference is that the "family" that operates the system will be related through an insatiable quest for quality and wisdom, as opposed to the biological structure that has served to retard meaningful change.

Comments

[Matt]

Found this worth excerpting:

Jared Diamond's recent book detailing the ways societies collapse suggests that American society, or industrial civilization as a whole, once it is aware of the dangers of its current course, can learn from the failures of the past and avoid their fates. But it will never happen, and for a reason Diamond himself understands.

As he says, in his analysis of the doomed Norse society on Greenland that collapsed in the early 15th century: "The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over adversity." If this is so, and his examples would seem to prove it, then we can isolate the values of American society that have been responsible for its greatest triumphs and know that we will cling to them no matter what. They are, in one rough mixture, capitalism, individualism, nationalism, technophilia, and humanism (as the dominance of humans over nature). There is no chance whatever, no matter how grave and obvious the threat, that as a society that we will abandon those.

Kirkpatrick Sale @ http://www.counterpunch.org/sale02222005.html

[Matt]

another excerpt(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift ) cited here: http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/2007/09/18/nobody-here-but-us-shrews/

Sometimes the convincing force is just time itself and the human toll it takes, Kuhn said, using a quote from Max Planck: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."