The downside of dependence

[TFian]

Great piece by John Michael Greer

Synopsis :

The American middle class is never going to come back and most people will be shut out of it forever. We need to get used to using much much less, and the future of America is that of a third world country on par with Brazil's 1970s era. 1970s appropriate style technology is the answer (to some of our problems).

Compelling piece really. Pick apart at your will.

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2011-05-04/downside-dependence

 

[Darat]

Wouldn't it cost a fortune to get rid of everything that uses technology developed since the 1970s and replace it with new "1970s" stuff?

 

[TFian]

Wouldn't it cost a fortune to get rid of everything that uses technology developed since the 1970s and replace it with new "1970s" stuff?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Appropriate technology is generally cheap, largely because it can be manufactured by DIY methods.

 

[Darat]

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Appropriate technology is generally cheap, largely because it can be manufactured by DIY methods.

I thought you were talking about 1970s technology not the 1900s?

 

[TFian]

I thought you were talking about 1970s technology not the 1900s?

1970s appropriate style technology. You can read more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology#Growing_Trend

 

[timhau]

Oh look, someone is predicting the demise of America. Nobody has ever done that before.

 

[Darat]

1970s appropriate style technology. You can read more about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology#Growing_Trend

You meant style - so people would put their 2010s TVs into wooden frames and the like?

ETA: And the one thing I remember about 1970s appliances is that they used hell of a lot more material in their manufacturing - there was none of this "just strong enough" approach that modern technology uses.

 

[TFian]

You meant style - so people would put their 2010s TVs into wooden frames and the like?

No, I am referring to appropriate technology, with a style based in the 1970s variant most fitted for the United States. TV's aren't even part of the picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology

 

[Darat]

No, I am referring to appropriate technology, with a style based in the 1970s variant most fitted for the United States. TV's aren't even part of the picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriate_technology

Why the 1970s?

 

[Joey McGee]

Endless story-telling, analogies and comparisons. This is a quasireligious screed. Who is this guy? Ohhhhhhhh makes sense.

So basically the reason we should be listening to this guy instead of the pseudoenvironmentalists at The Guardian is that he's a cleverer wordsmith? He wastes at least 1000 words here. It's not compelling, it's mind-meltingly verbose and useless. I don't think he speaks to where his opponents were coming from in their posts. It doesn't even rise to being an intellectual challenge to the mainstream view of the future. Guy should stick to writing about UFOs and giving Tarot readings.

 

[TFian]

Why the 1970s?

That was when they reached the peak of their development in the United States.

 

[TFian]

I don't think he speaks to where his opponents were coming from in their posts.

How so?

 

[Darat]

That was when they reached the peak of their development in the United States.

How was that determined, especially given the huge environmental costs involved in technologies from that period?

 

[TFian]

How was that determined, especially given the huge environmental costs involved in technologies from that period?

IE it was generally abandoned with the coming of the 80s for more petroleum use.

I still think you're confusing mainstream technology of the 70s and appropriate style. Very different beasts there.

 

[TFian]

Oh look, someone is predicting the demise of America. Nobody has ever done that before.

No, just coming washes of massive poverty. It's not like this hasn't happened to the United States before.

 

[Joey McGee]

How so?

He says of Kay...

His conclusion is that we might as well wallow in our fossil-fueled lifestyles while we can, since everyone else is going to do that anyway, and the only hope he offers is that technology might save us before the consequences hit.

First of all, Kay never suggests we should "wallow" in anything. He's simply pointing out the reality of human nature. He rightly points out that we need new technology that is less-expensive than fossil fuels. He rightly points out that we will need human cooperation on a never-before-seen level. He rightly points out that population control will pay an important role in our future.

This caricature of a position is typical from your camp.

 

[TFian]

He says of Kay...



First of all, Kay never suggests we should "wallow" in anything. He's simply pointing out the reality of human nature. He rightly points out that we need new technology that is less-expensive than fossil fuels. He rightly points out that we will need human cooperation on a never-before-seen level. He rightly points out that population control will pay an important role in our future.

This caricature of a position is typical from your camp.

I don't believe it's a caricature, and I believe you proved it wasn't. Kay's general point is we should simply continue with business as usual, and hope some very wildcard events may save us in the end. As for pointing out the reality of human nature, I'm not sure how one can be "realistic" about then point to solutions that go against the very "human nature" they're trying to accurately portray.

 

[Joey McGee]

I don't believe it's a caricature, and I believe you proved it wasn't. Kay's general point is we should simply continue with business as usual,

Where does he imply this except for in your imagination? What he implies is that human nature shows us that we shouldn't collectively try and stop using oil because that will fail. Instead we need to do something much harder than "business as usual" and cooperate in ways we have never dreamed of before...

and hope some very wildcard events may save us in the end.

He, and generally most sane scientists today, do not think the solutions he is suggesting are wildcards. I think Google dropped a few billion on wind farms etc. He suggests working insanely hard on all of the helpful measures. The furthest thing away from "hope" possible.

As for pointing out the reality of human nature, I'm not sure how one can be "realistic" about then point to solutions that go against the very "human nature" they're trying to accurately portray.

He doesn't do this. You're misunderstanding where he's coming from on both points. What he's saying is, human nature as it is, these kinds of solutions will serve that condition.

Anyway, I refuse to spend anymore time trying to get you to understand mainstream environmentalism. Good luck with that. Perhaps scientists are a better source of science than mystics?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Appropriate technology is generally cheap, largely because it can be manufactured by DIY methods.

No.

My dad graduated with his masters in computing science in 1972 and went straight to work running computers for the Alberta Government.

In 1972, computer memory was running about a dollar a byte. My cell phone in 1972 would have cost upwards of thirty-five billion dollars.

 

[TFian]

No.

My dad graduated with his masters in computing science in 1972 and went straight to work running computers for the Alberta Government.

In 1972, computer was running about a dollar a byte. My cell phone in 1972 would have cost upwards of thirty-five billion dollars.

Oi! I'm not talking about the "mainstream" technology of the era.