Will the internet survive energy contraction?

[PixyMisa]

Right. If a modern industrial society cut down the last tree, they'd just get on the internet and order some seeds. The more advanced your technology, the more options you have.

Which is yet another reason why the idea of retreating to 18th century agrarianism is so foolish. Oh look, we have an outbreak of - let's say - ebola. It's highly contagious, incredibly lethal, and you have no advanced communications, no medical facilities, no research labs. Oops, your prosperous latter-day Monticello suddenly looks more like Roanoke.

 

[Dancing David]

21% actually, but yes, I know it isn't 58% of the total budget, I don't think anyone was making that claim.

Uh sure, whatver!

 

[Dancing David]

Here





Source http://guymcpherson.com/2010/04/surveying-the-field-and-charting-a-course/ Read more there. Seems I was wrong, he said 2012, though very near 2013.

No you said our cars would not have feul, he said

“lights out in the empire” by 21 December 2012

 

[GreyArea]

TFian, I'm going to try to kick this thread up a level. It's time to go "meta".

You don't seem too interested in the technical source material, or even the technical popular media, or the academic economic angle, and you appear to be rejecting the helpful explanations here. This makes me think that you are asking a different question than we are answering. (Even so, I thank you for starting the thread, for I have learned a few things.)

I think you may be more interested in how our society's people behave and are organized, and less interested in how our tools and infrastructure function (or fail to function).

It sounds to me like your position is based on a cultural orientation rather than on technical facts. I suspect that you have found people such as JMG and McPherson (and I would guess James Howard Kunstler) who have a set of critiques of the current (and past) high-extraction, high-consumption, high-waste industrial manufacturing sector and the superficial, self-centered, crass, commercial, consumerist "culture" that is partnered with it.

Am I in the ballpark here?

Is cultural change your priority, and collapse merely a means to that end? Are you concerned that a more-electrified, more wirelessly-networked, more-urbanized, less-polluting, less-spiritual, increasingly-global civilization will simply continue with the casual incivility, frequent inhumanity, ugly architecture, voracious materialism, bad pop music, and stupid dog videos?

If so, I think that may be why our discussion with you is at an impasse. We've been talking past each other.

 

[PixyMisa]

Is cultural change your priority, and collapse merely a means to that end? Are you concerned that a more-electrified, more wirelessly-networked, more-urbanized, less-polluting, less-spiritual, increasingly-global civilization will simply continue with the casual incivility, frequent inhumanity, ugly architecture, voracious materialism, bad pop music, and stupid dog videos?

The problem is, if that is true - and it is not an implausible inference from some of McPherson's and JMG's writing - that makes them the blackest villains in human history.... Except that the world they want to see will not come to pass.

 

[drkitten]

The problem is, if that is true - and it is not an implausible inference from some of McPherson's and JMG's writing - that makes them the blackest villains in human history.... Except that the world they want to see will not come to pass.

Don't overstate your case. The Luddites of the 19th century wanted exactly the same thing that JMG does, but they were also willing to take (criminal) action to further their goal.

The Luddites were genuine terrorists; the Grand ArchLoser is just a wannabe poseur who likes drinking his lattes and posting drivel from the comfortable chairs in the WiFi-enabled Starbucks while he complains about how modern industrial society is ruining his enjoyment of his cinnamon-flavored latte.

 

[GreyArea]

The problem is, if that is true ... that makes them the blackest villains in human history.

How do you figure?

Except that the world they want to see will not come to pass.

As a world, no. As a subculture or lifestyle, I think it (or something like it) will be with us for quite some time.

Don't overstate your case. The Luddites of the 19th century wanted exactly the same thing that JMG does, but they were also willing to take (criminal) action to further their goal.

I don't think they wanted the exact same thing. After all, I don't think that Greer's livelihood as a textile artisan is in question, since he isn't one. Authorship of printed books will continue, as will neopaganism. His ability to keep blogging will persist longer than he expects.

But in a way you might be right. With my post above, I contend that the doomers -- like the Luddites -- don't like what the world is throwing at them. The Luddites were afraid of losing their jobs and status in the face of competition from the new textile factories. The doomers are, I think, afraid that bad cultural practices will continue to make the world uglier and more brutal. But thankfully, the collapse will make this a green and pleasant land again, or so they think.

One group was concerned about making a living. The other is concerned about making a life. I actually think that the doomers are easier to satisfy. Too few can afford handmade textiles to keep the Luddites in business. But agrarians can (and have) formed their own societies to live in their own ways. The question is, will the rest of us accommodate them? After all, we already leave room for the Old Order Amish to keep their ways.

 

[drkitten]

But in a way you might be right. With my post above, I contend that the doomers -- like the Luddites -- don't like what the world is throwing at them. The Luddites were afraid of losing their jobs and status in the face of competition from the new textile factories. The doomers are, I think, afraid that bad cultural practices will continue to make the world uglier and more brutal. But thankfully, the collapse will make this a green and pleasant land again, or so they think.

One group was concerned about making a living. The other is concerned about making a life. I actually think that the doomers are easier to satisfy. Too few can afford handmade textiles to keep the Luddites in business. But agrarians can (and have) formed their own societies to live in their own ways. The question is, will the rest of us accommodate them? After all, we already leave room for the Old Order Amish to keep their ways.

I disagree. If all Greer (and TFian) wanted to do was to raise goats in his back yard, he could do that; as you point out, the Old Order Amish already do that. But you also rarely see the Old Order Amish berating "the English" about how bad their technologically-enhanced lifestyle really is -- and you never see them blogging about it, or logging onto the Randi forum.

I think what motivates them is not a desire to improve their own lives, but a fear that other people might be improving theirs in a way they disapprove of, rather like the way it seems to threaten Republican marriages in Nebraska if two men kiss in California. I actually see a lot of the Old Testament in the type of neo-Pagan that Greer represents -- "I will carry out great vengeance on them and punish them in my wrath. Then they will know that I am the LORD, when I take vengeance on them," that sort of thing. "We" are doing something that "they" consider to be immoral, and so "they" call down the vengeance of God upon "us" to mend "our" ways and prove "them" right all along.

Neither Greer nor TFian wants to be an agrarian -- if they did, they'd be much better at it (they'd understand how to make a turbine, for example). What they want is to not lose to people who do know how to make turbines, and to program internet routers, and to fly planes and do all the things that society values much more than,.... well, than "nothing," frankly.

 

[TFian]

Uh sure, whatver!

That's already been addressed

No you said our cars would not have feul, he said

I can't seem to find the exact post where he made the 2013 and 2018 prediction. I'll keep looking though.

He does say though, lights out by the very end of 2012.

Edit : Still can't find the car one, but found the 2018 one

By 2018, we’ll be firmly in the post-industrial stone age. Kunstler’s novel, A World Made by Hand, closely matches my outlook (I think we’ll approach Kunstler’s version of the world about a decade before his book suggests; it’s set in ca. 2025). The final third of the book descends into distractingly silly superstition, but otherwise the book offers a plausible portrayal of our post-petroleum future. All activities have become very local, and the world has become very large. Travel is restricted, for all practical purposes, to walking and riding animals. Global climate change has warmed upstate New York, where the characters struggle to capture water, grow food, and maintain civility when civilization has failed. Violence is extremely local, unlike the violence we visit upon other countries, cultures, and species on an unrelenting basis.

Source http://guymcpherson.com/2008/12/gazing-into-my-crystal-ball/

 

[PixyMisa]

Don't overstate your case. The Luddites of the 19th century wanted exactly the same thing that JMG does, but they were also willing to take (criminal) action to further their goal.

True, but at the beginning of the 19th century it was not implausible that the world could revert to 18th century agrarianism.

In the 21st century, on the other hand, doing so would clearly kill ~90% of the world's population.

 

[GreyArea]

I disagree. If all Greer (and TFian) wanted to do was...

My comment in #544 is only part of what I originally composed. Some of what I left out was about motivations and psychology, which does touch on some of your points. I may post the rest later, but I do want to hear from TFian first.

But before I got into all of that I wanted to know if my basic observation was correct, that is, that TFian's conclusion is really made of cultural criticism instead of observations about physical resource limits.

If they do not respond to my suggestion soon, I'll add more. So, TFian, what do you say?

 

[TFian]

My comment in #544 is only part of what I originally composed. Some of what I left out was about motivations and psychology, which does touch on some of your points. I may post the rest later, but I do want to hear from TFian first.

But before I got into all of that I wanted to know if my basic observation was correct, that is, that TFian's conclusion is really made of cultural criticism instead of observations about physical resource limits.

If they do not respond to my suggestion soon, I'll add more. So, TFian, what do you say?

I plan to respond to you soon, in detail (assuming that's what you want), among others. Also looking for some other things people requested. In the meantime though you may want to PM me if you are curious as to any psychological motivations.

 

[TFian]

(Even so, I thank you for starting the thread, for I have learned a few things.)

No problem, I've learned a lot as well.

I think you may be more interested in how our society's people behave and are organized, and less interested in how our tools and infrastructure function (or fail to function).

It sounds to me like your position is based on a cultural orientation rather than on technical facts. I suspect that you have found people such as JMG and McPherson (and I would guess James Howard Kunstler) who have a set of critiques of the current (and past) high-extraction, high-consumption, high-waste industrial manufacturing sector and the superficial, self-centered, crass, commercial, consumerist "culture" that is partnered with it.

Am I in the ballpark here?

You're pretty much in the ballpark there. I take a lot of influence from the Grand Archdruid, Professer Emeritus Guy R. McPherson, and James Kunstler. JMG and McPherson are my biggest influences though. I believe the problems we have are not really technical, but cultural. The Grand Archdruid puts it best in this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceRP8rSwlMc

A problem I find with many of the people here, is they seem to forget a very simple sociological truism. A sinking system generally grows more conservative, which is what Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer eloquently points out in his historic and cultural observations. Jared Diamond makes the same exact observations.

Is cultural change your priority, and collapse merely a means to that end? Are you concerned that a more-electrified, more wirelessly-networked, more-urbanized, less-polluting, less-spiritual, increasingly-global civilization will simply continue with the casual incivility, frequent inhumanity, ugly architecture, voracious materialism, bad pop music, and stupid dog videos?

If so, I think that may be why our discussion with you is at an impasse. We've been talking past each other.

I wouldn't say "cultural change" is my priority, I just find it inevitable. I think McPherson has it right, "Nature bats last", we've been raping the planet intensively, without any regard to nature, and it's now our turn to bend over and "take it". Mother Earth will enact her vengeance in full power, very soon. This is of course backed up by evidence. All evidence suggests we're cooking ourselves off the planet, probably by 2030, so you better hope no alternative scales up for industrial use, or we're going to commit suicide. Remember, civilizations die off from suicide, not murder.

 

[Roboramma]

A problem I find with many of the people here, is they seem to forget a very simple sociological truism. A sinking system generally grows more conservative, which is what Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer eloquently points out in his historic and cultural observations. Jared Diamond makes the same exact observations.

What do you mean by "more conservative"?

I wouldn't say "cultural change" is my priority, I just find it inevitable. I think McPherson has it right, "Nature bats last", we've been raping the planet intensively, without any regard to nature, and it's now our turn to bend over and "take it". Mother Earth will enact her vengeance in full power, very soon.

Here's the thing: there is no "mother earth" there is simply a planet with many many different species of life, living, eating, reproducing, in a complex and interlocked system, but there's no overarching intelligence to it, there's no agent capable of vengeance.

If we have over-stressed ecosystems to the point that they become poorer, then, yes, we will be the poorer for that. Loosing ecosystems services means losing real economic value. Sure. But that doesn't mean that civilization will collapse, and it certainly doesn't mean that anything is "taking vengeance".

This is of course backed up by evidence. All evidence suggests we're cooking ourselves off the planet, probably by 2030, so you better hope no alternative scales up for industrial use, or we're going to commit suicide.

All evidence suggests that the planet is warming and will continue to warm. I'm also not very hopeful that we'll be able to do much to stall that process in the near-term. And while that sucks and there are real economic and ecological problems related to that, you'll have to present some real evidence that "we're cooking ourselves off the planet".

Remember, civilizations die off from suicide, not murder.

Perhaps some civilizations die off from suicide, but you'll have to do some real research to show that most do. Certainly not all. Did the Inca commit suicide? Any of the new world civilizations present at the time of European discovery?

 

[Dancing David]

That's already been addressed

In that you barely admitted you were wrong, maybe.
In that it was a mis-statement, maybe.

Add spin doctor to your list of rhetorical abuses.

I can't seem to find the exact post where he made the 2013 and 2018 prediction. I'll keep looking though.

He does say though, lights out by the very end of 2012.

Edit : Still can't find the car one, but found the 2018 one

Source http://guymcpherson.com/2008/12/gazing-into-my-crystal-ball/

Uh huh, sure and the world was supposed to end in 1000 AD as well, so instead of peak oil now we have 'all oil gone' and the collapse of civilization in 2018.

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

 

[Dancing David]

A problem I find with many of the people here, is they seem to forget a very simple sociological truism.

Yeah? Who made that up? Where was that published and what data represent this?

A sinking system generally grows more conservative,

Shows that you are as ignorant of cultural change as you are of energy distribution.
Cultural systems resist change due to their nature and political infrastructure. You don't have a clue.

So your source, their publication and data are?

Here is a hint, cultural systems are conservative by nature, political social systems usually become reactionary during times of change and perceived stress.

which is what Grand Archdruid John Michael Greer eloquently points out in his historic and cultural observations. Jared Diamond makes the same exact observations.

Observations are not always science.

I wouldn't say "cultural change" is my priority, I just find it inevitable. I think McPherson has it right, "Nature bats last", we've been raping the planet intensively, without any regard to nature, and it's now our turn to bend over and "take it". Mother Earth will enact her vengeance in full power, very soon.

Nature bats first, pitches the balls, fields the catches and cheats.
I despise people who anthropomorphize nature, even as a long standing shaman and feminist pagan (who was probably practicing before your were born) I hate this stuff.

Nature does not give a ****. Do you think that nature cares about the trees and plants that die from disease? That babies starve or are eaten? When a big ass volcano blows apart most creation and poisons the earth and sky, do you think that is something else?

Dude get a grip.

The message is like this 'the rain falls on the just and unjust alike', 'the bad man is the good man's charge', there are cycles, do you think that nature gives a ******
When a population over extends its resources its populations dies off. Do you think that planet earth causes droughts? And volcanoes, or are you just some Fereferia who forgets the dark mother?
A comet hits the earth and all the dinosaurs die within 100,000 years.

This is of course backed up by evidence. All evidence suggests we're cooking ourselves off the planet, probably by 2030, so you better hope no alternative scales up for industrial use, or we're going to commit suicide. Remember, civilizations die off from suicide, not murder.

That is more ********.

 

[drkitten]

N
You're pretty much in the ballpark there. I take a lot of influence from the Grand Archdruid, Professer Emeritus Guy R. McPherson, and James Kunstler. JMG and McPherson are my biggest influences though.

Have you considered allowing yourself to be influenced by people who know what they're talking about?

A problem I find with many of the people here, is they seem to forget a very simple sociological truism.

I can't "forget" what I never learned in the first place.

A sinking system generally grows more conservative,

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 wouldn't say "cultural change" is my priority, I just find it inevitable. I think McPherson has it right, "Nature bats last", we've been raping the planet intensively, without any regard to nature, and it's now our turn to bend over and "take it". Mother Earth will enact her vengeance in full power, very soon.

"Vengeance"? We've angered an inanimate abstraction?

 

[GreyArea]

You're pretty much in the ballpark there. ... I believe the problems we have are not really technical, but cultural.

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.

The Grand Archdruid puts it best in this video...

He's more hopeful than I expected.

He even says that the narrative of "complete overnight collapse" is a myth, in the sense of "myth" as a defining cultural narrative. We in this thread have been pointing out that it is also a myth in the sense of an untrue just-so story. Watch the video again from 4:45 to 5:11, and ask yourself if JMG is describing your opinion about peak oil.

At the same time, I don't think that the solutions to our energy problems are "silver bullets" that "they'll come up with". Most of the solutions -- technical and logistical and cultural -- already exist.

The future is already here – it's just not very evenly distributed.

I already mentioned some of my lifestyle choices, but it will take time for more people to do this. People make changes as opportunities arise. Few can or will drop everything for a massive overhaul of their lives. Also, it takes time to expand the reach of new infrastructure. As oil prices rise before all of these improvements are 100% ready, a lot of people will find out the true meaning of the "mean time". But it won't be the end of the world.

Finally, I disagree with Greer somewhat regarding the myth of progress. Sure it's a narrative, but I don't think everyone in our society (especially skeptics) swallow it. For example, I temper optimism by looking at the past's outright mistakes and the times we have fallen backward, both socially and intellectually. I'm fully aware that there are no guarantees of continued learning or continued material improvement, so the Archdruid has no revelation for me.

But the physical facts of the world remain regardless of the stories people lay on top of them. Objective reality is immune to the charge of "myth" as false fable, even when people spin stories about what to do with its boon and within its limits.

In other words, put your horse before your cart.

A sinking system generally grows more conservative....

Do you mean instead that a society in crisis is more likely to hold tightly to established ways of life and less likely to try new, possibly more-adaptive, ways?

If yes, are you referring to the way of life that requires fossil-fuel consumption?

If yes to that as well, I must say that I think only a very small number of Western, Northern people think that burning coal and oil, as activities in themselves, are central to their way of life. The rest of us are happy to continue the more meaningful ends (such as transport, communication, construction, and entertainment) using different means (such as electric power). The Promethean fetishists are and will continue to be an eccentric micro-cult. (I'm not even sure they exist.)

Or did you mean something else?

I wouldn't say "cultural change" is my priority, I just find it inevitable.

It is indeed inevitable. But I think we can and should make it viridian and electric, not a new dark age.

By the way, I encourage you to read this last link. It has had a good influence on my choices over the last ten years. And you might like it (or at least some of it), too.

 

[TFian]

Yeah? Who made that up? Where was that published and what data represent this?

Shows that you are as ignorant of cultural change as you are of energy distribution.
Cultural systems resist change due to their nature and political infrastructure. You don't have a clue.

So your source, their publication and data are?

Here is a hint, cultural systems are conservative by nature, political social systems usually become reactionary during times of change and perceived stress.

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?

 

[TFian]

Do you mean instead that a society in crisis is more likely to hold tightly to established ways of life and less likely to try new, possibly more-adaptive, ways?

If yes, are you referring to the way of life that requires fossil-fuel consumption?

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

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.

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

It is indeed inevitable. But I think we can and should make it viridian and electric, not a new dark age.

"Viridian" design is just some silly techno religion. I wouldn't put much stock into it, especially since the website hasn't even been updated in quite some time. Techno fixes are fantasy.