Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[TFian]

Really?

Aside from the facts that "sociological truisms" are very rarely true -- sociology is far too complex for that --- and aside from the fact that that particular idea is not, in fact, part of the common parlance of sociology, which makes it not a truism,..... so what?

Even if sinking systems did grow more conservative, you've not yet established that modern industrial society is "sinking." And if you're suggesting that the rise of the modern conservative movement is somehow an indicator of "sinking,"... well, that's a well-known fallacy called "affirming the consequent." Everything that flies has wings. Pizza Hut has wings, therefore Pizza Huts fly.

I'm not referring to the American "conservative" movement, but using the word "conservative" in a more broad sense. Explained in earlier post.

 

[TFian]

No evidence, no data, just one tin foil hat kook and their assertions.

I guess you didn't read the link eh?

 

[TFian]

Okay, then. I think that you are putting the cart before the horse.

I respectfully submit that you are hanging your hopes for a better society on a technical catastrophe. There are several problems with this approach.

First, as we have been pointing out, peak oil is not the end of civilization. It does not even mean the imminent end of oil, or the end of energy, just an economically-forced transition to different energy systems.

Second, if you want people to live differently, you need to entice them. In a greener world, people will still have their usual pursuits, but will do them in a more-efficient and less-destructive way. Helping people with this transition, showing that new means are practical without compromising they ends they genuinely care about, is a better way to encourage positive cultural change than trying to restrict behavior with scary warnings that lack a factual basis.

Third, some people already live well but differently, burning smaller amounts of fossil fuel than people in the U.S. Even JMG points this out about Europe in the video you cited. Some of these are painless cultural choices that don't require catastrophe to enforce. For example, I intentionally sought out and chose to buy a house in a city where I can take the bus to work, my partner can cycle to work, and the city center is within a ten-minute walk. Look for these kinds of choices -- and others -- becoming more popular, in addition to the non-fossil technical improvements we've already outlined.

Finally, whatever your cultural preferences are, there is no guarantee that they would be realized during or after a serious civilizational crisis. If anything, things would get uglier both morally and aesthetically. This is not something to hope for.

I think you seriously misunderstand my position. I'm not looking to engineer some new "ideal" society. I agree with Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer on this, Human societies, like ecosystems, evolve in complex and unpredictable ways, making it futile to try to impose rigid ideological forms on the patterns of evolutionary change. Instead, social change must explore many pathways over which we have no control. I'm not looking to create a more "Greener" world, nor do I think a better world would be realized after a serious civilizational crisis. I agree with JMG though that the world after the crash will not utilize any advanced technology, both because we'd lack the energy and frankly, there's no real purpose to it. I agree more though with Guy R. McPherson on a timeline, and the die off. I do think though we'll be lucky if we don't go extinct.

 

[GreyArea]

Fossil Fuel consumption isn't the only thing I'm referring to, and it's not the only thing we do that will cause our collapse.

Such as what else? Perhaps something that isn't caused by peak oil?

I'm sure you'd be happy to continue industrial society with a "techno fix", too bad reality doesn't work this way.

What do you mean by "techno fix"?

I wouldn't put much stock into it, especially since the website hasn't even been updated in quite some time.

The manifesto was issued in 1999. Of course it hasn't been updated, since it served its purpose. And Sterling would probably find your religion accusation hilarious.

The point of mentioning it was to reinforce the idea that doom-prophesying is not a good way to motivate people, especially when you have your basic facts wrong.

 

[GreyArea]

Human societies, like ecosystems, evolve in complex and unpredictable ways, making it futile to try to impose rigid ideological forms on the patterns of evolutionary change.

Okay.

You wrote earlier that "I believe the problems we have are not really technical, but cultural." First, which current societies are you paying attention to? And second, what are the two or three most significant cultural issues?

...advanced technology, both because we'd lack the energy and frankly, there's no real purpose to it.

Can you think of any counter-examples? What is an advanced technology that uses no fossil fuels and has a real purpose? Who decides purpose and genuineness of purpose? Does "advanced" mean anything developed after the steam engine?

 

[TFian]

Such as what else? Perhaps something that isn't caused by peak oil?

Just our general callous nature towards Mother Earth and nature in general. It will be our undoing.

What do you mean by "techno fix"?

That all we need to do is apply a "fix" to our problems and we can go on with business as usual. Nice fantasy, but that's all it is, a fantasy.

The manifesto was issued in 1999. Of course it hasn't been updated, since it served its purpose.

Well it was humorous to say the least. But I was referring to the "Viraxian" or whatever the hell site as a whole.

And Sterling would probably find your religion accusation hilarious.

So? I think you should put down Sterling and read more Paul Kingsnorth.

The point of mentioning it was to reinforce the idea that doom-prophesying is not a good way to motivate people, especially when you have your basic facts wrong.

Who says I'm trying to motivate anyone to do anything?

 

[TFian]

Okay. You wrote earlier that "I believe the problems we have are not really technical, but cultural." First, which current societies are you paying attention to?

Western Industrial civilization in particular.

And second, what are the two or three most significant cultural issues?

1.) A sinking system tends to grow more conservative, so we'll continue our failed ways rather than new adaptive ways. Case in point, Albertan tar sand extraction and shale oil.

2.) Our desire for more, and better life styles, which is incompatible with a proper ecological lifestyle.

Can you think of any counter-examples? What is an advanced technology that uses no fossil fuels and has a real purpose

I can't think of any

Who decides purpose and genuineness of purpose? Does "advanced" mean anything developed after the steam engine?

The purpose and genuineness is decided on how much energy it uses, and if a more primitive version can do the same task just fine, with less energy.

I'm referring to advanced as anything after the advent of the steam engine yes.

 

[Roboramma]

Yup, Jared Diamond shows this is a painfully true historic fact.

Diamond didn't demonstrate any such thing. He showed that some societies failed to make enough change. That's very different from that societies in general fail to change.

I'm sure you'd be happy to continue industrial society with a "techno fix", too bad reality doesn't work this way.

Why not? What's impossible about a "techno fix"? For instance, would you consider the solution to the scarcity of whale oil to have been a techno fix?

One suggested solution to the problem of global warming, for instance, is pumping particulates into the upper atmosphere. I see problems with this, but certainly it could be effective at least in controlling some aspects of climate change.

 

[Roboramma]

You just agreed with what I just said, you realize that right? Cultural systems resist change is EXACTLY what I said. Cultural systems are conservative by nature, didn't I just say a sinking systems tends to grow MORE conservative?

That's the point: cultural systems are conservative by nature, so by what criteria have you determined that "sinking systems" grow more conservative. All the evidence I've seen shows is that they "sinking systems" are conservative, not that they grow more conservative.

Actually I'd suggest that the opposite is the case: "sinking systems" grow less conservative.

 

[TFian]

That's the point: cultural systems are conservative by nature, so by what criteria have you determined that "sinking systems" grow more conservative. All the evidence I've seen shows is that they "sinking systems" are conservative, not that they grow more conservative.

Actually I'd suggest that the opposite is the case: "sinking systems" grow less conservative.

The Easter Island society is good evidence they grow *more* conservative, rather then less. When they were running out of a critical resource, their trees, instead of conserving them, and trying to cultivate more, they simply hastened up the destruction of their eco system by erecting more of their stupid statues. And that's how they killed themselves.

 

[TFian]

Diamond didn't demonstrate any such thing. He showed that some societies failed to make enough change. That's very different from that societies in general fail to change.

He did demonstrate civilizations usually kill themselves, rather than being killed by others. As his quote goes "Civilizations die off from suicide, not murder". It's an uncomfortable truth. Civilization in general is unadaptable.

Why not? What's impossible about a "techno fix"? For instance, would you consider the solution to the scarcity of whale oil to have been a techno fix?

Because it's magical thinking. We can't go on with business as usual with a simple "Techno fix"

One suggested solution to the problem of global warming, for instance, is pumping particulates into the upper atmosphere. I see problems with this, but certainly it could be effective at least in controlling some aspects of climate change.

Geo engineering scares me. And I'm quite skeptical that it'll do any good.

 

[Roboramma]

The Easter Island society is good evidence they grow *more* conservative, rather then less. When they were running out of a critical resource, their trees, instead of conserving them, and trying to cultivate more, they simply hastened up the destruction of their eco system by erecting more of their stupid statues. And that's how they killed themselves.

So one society growing more "conservative" is evidence of a trend? It seems more like a single data point to me.

Moreover, I don't see how you can define erecting more statues as conservative. It may show that they weren't aware of the problem. That's very different from becoming more conservative.

 

[Roboramma]

He did demonstrate civilizations usually kill themselves, rather than being killed by others. As his quote goes "Civilizations die off from suicide, not murder". It's an uncomfortable truth. Civilization in general is unadaptable.

No, at best he demonstrated that the examples he chose were examples of civilizations commiting suicide. Considering that the book Collapse isn't about societies that were destroyed by external forces (like genocidal war), it's not surprising that he didn't include examples of it.

What do you think happened to the Iroquois, for instance? Or native peoples all over the world who were displaced by Europeans? Did they commit suicide?
I don't count dying from smallpox as committing suicide.

Because it's magical thinking. We can't go on with business as usual with a simple "Techno fix"

Why not? Because such techno fixes don't exist? Or because of some other reason?

Geo engineering scares me. And I'm quite skeptical that it'll do any good.

Well it scares me somewhat as well, mainly because of potential unintended consequences. But it's still certainly an option and I for one think that we should consider all options. It's unlikely to be worse than 6 billion deaths.

 

[Roboramma]

Oh, you missed this question: For instance, would you consider the solution to the scarcity of whale oil to have been a techno fix?

 

[TFian]

Oh, you missed this question: For instance, would you consider the solution to the scarcity of whale oil to have been a techno fix?

No, why would I?

 

[Roboramma]

No, why would I?

Thanks for the answer, I just want to be clear what a techno fix is.

So, finding and utilizing a new resource that can be substituted for a scarce one is not considered a fantasy techno fix.

 

[TFian]

Thanks for the answer, I just want to be clear what a techno fix is.

So, finding and utilizing a new resource that can be substituted for a scarce one is not considered a fantasy techno fix.

Depends on how it's utilized.

 

[Roboramma]

Depends on how it's utilized.

But substituting oil for whale oil required new technologies. What is the criteria that you use to make the determination?

 

[TFian]

But substituting oil for whale oil required new technologies. What is the criteria that you use to make the determination?

Yeah, but the transition required massive social change. It wasn't just "We found new oil, so business as usual goes on". It wasn't a techno fix.

 

[Roboramma]

Yeah, but the transition required massive social change. It wasn't just "We found new oil, so business as usual goes on". It wasn't a techno fix.

Oh, sure, I can agree to that: any solution to our current problems will require changes. For instance, as we transition away from oil we may move to more mass transport rather than personal cars, or if we continue to use cars, they may have to be newly designed models, like electric cars, or hydrogen, or something else that we haven't considered yet.

I can agree to that.