The Memetics of Peak Oil
by Jason GodeskyThe Oil Drum is one year old today. Salon presented the nicest birthday present of all: an article about that segment of the blogosphere preoccupied with peak oil, titled, “The Oil is Going, the Oil is Going!” It features Matt Savinar, and mentions not only the Oil Drum, but also Energy Bulletin and others.
This weekend, CNN aired a special report: “We Were Warned: Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis.” It tried to broach the topic of peak oil for a mass audience, producing, as the Oil Drum so neatly summaried, pabulum. As the Oil Drum’s “Professor Goose” described it:
What did I find? Instead, I found the beginnings of a message, the beginnings of an emergence and integration of the ideas of the sacrifice and potential suffering this harbinger of the meme beheld, but constructed in a nice, safe sanitary package for easy consumption….
… it may seem like business as usual from the media for many of you. However, I will still maintain that tonight’s program is an important event in the growing meme that underlies this problem we face.
The term “meme” has been greatly abused since Dawkins introduced it in 1978, something I have decried here before. The “meme” of Peak Oil is so far nothing of the sort. We’re seeing the emergence of a new memetic variety–those who can see that global oil production has peaked–but we’ve yet to see a force acting on that variety. By comparison to evolution, we can see a mutation emerging, and we can see a new pressure beginning to build, but no selection has begun as yet. All the same, that variety is growing. The Oil Drum’s first anniversary, today’s Salon article, this week’s CNN special are all parts of it. “Peak Oil” is starting to percolate into mainstream consciousness.
Another crucial element was laid down today by Jeff Vail with, “When Will Peak Oil Tip? (from Backwardation to Contango)” Those are some shiny fifty-cent words, which Vail does an excellent job of explaining, but the real breakthrough comes here:
Backwardation–accepted wisdom tells us–is indicative of current supply shortages, but ALSO of the ASSUMPTION that these shortages are only a short term market inefficiency and will eventually be corrected. However, should the crude oil market switch from backwardation to contago without a significant decline in current prices (suggesting that current supply problems have not been solved), that will suggest that the “market” has accepted the Peak Oil concept that oil supplies will increasingly decline in the future. For this reason, I believe that the switch from backwardation to contango will be the market indicator that the peak in crude oil production is not only here, but more importantly has been accepted by the broader financial community.
Collapse, as we have discussed before, always comes down to a matter of confidence. What price are you willing to pay for complexity? In this case–how much are you willing to pay for oil? When the price becomes too high, that’s when collapse happens. It unfolds like a run on a given stock. If Vail is right–and I suspect he is–then that tip from backwardation to contango is the surest sign one could ask for that the threshold has been reached: the tipping point at which our anabolic growth cycle turns into catabolic collapse.
Once that process begins, collapse becomes a self-reinforcing, accelerating process that cannot be stopped until society has returned to a sustainable level of complexity–in our case, the new stone age.
In another light, the balance of backwardation and contango is a reflection of how much the memetic variety has grown. The expression of that “meme” of peak oil is a lack of investment in petroleum. If the variety grows to a significantly large percentage of the total population, there won’t be enough investment to continue the oil business, and “peak oil” will become something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even the most egregious fool would eventually note that he’s losing a lot of money in all that oil, so the spread of ideas about peak oil only hastens the inevitable–and, one could argue, helps to alleviate its impact.
When that tipping point is reached, then we will see a true meme, as a pressure will come to bear on society. Those who have recognized the impending crisis of peak oil are the most likely to have made preparations, and thus, the most likely to survive the crisis and flourish in a post-peak world. Those caught unawares, as usual, will have significantly slimmer chances. Though I warned of the implications, I find more truth in Steve Laguvalin’s words than problems:
To my eye we’re witnessing a remarkably fine separation or distillation of humanity, a separation not by such gross features as race, location, status or religion but rather a kind of guided selection of people based on their quality of being. This is purely speculation, I admit…but if I were reading our contemporary history as a book I would presume that events seem almost specially crafted to sift from the general mass a select type of people–those who are able to both recognize and take responsibility for adopting a more humble life in true service of the planet and each other. Individuals able to “repent” of the “sins” of modern civilization. Perhaps those who are meek enough to inherit the earth. In fact I’m not actually a Biblical man, but from a more objective point of view I’d have to see this as a winnowing of the “wheat” from the “chaff”.
It has happened before. Whenever complex societies have collapsed, natural selection has acted to give us a sustainable, peaceful, egalitarian society in its place, in its usual bloody, merciless, ruthless way. What we have is the greatest opportunity ever given to one of our species–an opportunity bought with the blood and misery of billions. An opportunity to have just one shot. Whatever else, it must not be squandered.
There’s a big conference coming up in NYC on April 27-29. It’s called “Local Solutions to the Energy Dilemma”, and it’s focusing on Peak Oil and related energy issues, as well as alternative futures post-oil and post-collapse. Matt Savinar is one of the featured speakers, along with Dmitry Orlov, James Howard Kunstler, Derrick Jensen, and Michael Ruppert. Geoff Lawton and David Jacke will be representing the permaculture people, along with some other local community reps and RE-skilled people. For more info check out the event website:
http://www.energysolutionsconference.org/
I’m volunteering at the conference, and I’m interested to see what kind of things come out of it, especially at the local level. If you’ll be in the New York area next month, or if you’d like me to grab any specific info or notes from the conference, let me know.
Comment by Raku — 22 March 2006 @ 6:00 PM
“What we have is the greatest opportunity ever given to one of our species–an opportunity bought with the blood and misery of billions.”
Interesting thought. Instead of looking at collapse as a negative, we can look at it as a positive. We have the chance to rebuild something that is sustainable. I look at it as a responsibility. I don’t have kids, but have nieces and nephews - it is my responsibility to try and help build something that will sustian them through the tough times and into the future.
Comment by Peter D — 22 March 2006 @ 6:01 PM
Overall, the effects of collapse are profoundly positive. Collapse is an end of oppression, war, genocide, poverty, even disease … in return for health, security, happiness, egalitarianism, real community, and above all else, freedom. That may come as cold comfort to those caught in the transition, but it has to happen eventually, now or later, because the way we live now is not sustainable. We’re dying of our own misery. Every day that it’s delayed makes that transition that much worse.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 March 2006 @ 6:06 PM
I think one of the things that we can do is to try and help people understand that they have a choice. Most people I know don’t feel as though they have that. I didn’t learn I had a choice until about 7 years ago - that was a very freeing moment in my life. People don’t have to live this life as Mother Culture dictates. It sounds easy, but we all know that people are profoundly attached to our dysfunctional civilization, simply because they believe that this is, as Quinn says, “the one right way to live.”
Comment by Peter D — 22 March 2006 @ 6:16 PM
That’s precisely why this blog exists.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 22 March 2006 @ 6:34 PM
Well it’s a great site and I’m glad to have found it. My partner and I are exploring buying some property here in Saskatchewan to build a sustainable home/life for ourselves. This place is a great resource to hook up with people who have much more knowledge that I do. I’m still a baby with all this
Comment by Peter D — 22 March 2006 @ 7:32 PM
WE DIDN’T LISTEN!!!
Comment by Mike Godesky — 22 March 2006 @ 7:51 PM
…”but if I were reading our contemporary history as a book I would presume that events seem almost specially crafted to sift from the general mass a select type of people–those who are able to both recognize and take responsibility for adopting a more humble life in true service of the planet and each other. Individuals able to ‘repent’ of the ’sins’ of modern civilization.”
This statement is so typical of the disgustingly priviliged mindset of so many, uh, collapsists(?).
Being a member of the educated middle class within some of the most powerful nations means that you - to a far greater degree than the vast majority of the people on earth - are responsible for the “’sins’ of modern civilization”. It also means you have sufficent resources to insulate youself from the most horrific effects of said “sins”.
“Collapse” is here already for billions of people across the globe struggling in slums, dying from modern pollutants, unable to access food, ect.
quote: “but from a more objective point of view I’d have to see this as a winnowing of the ‘wheat’ from the ‘chaff’.”
Bullshit. Take a look at the current droughts in Africa, they’ve become more severe due to the co2 emmisions of the first world and people are starving as a result. Without food aid from the UN, etc. even more would starve. In a post collapse world these people will be fucked, while many of those who contributed to their suffering will be able to assume a new and relativly good life in permacultural communities / foraging tribes etc.
Is that an effective “winnowing”?
Comment by Michael — 22 March 2006 @ 11:08 PM
I prefaced that quote from Laguvalin with a whole article I wrote cautioning about it: “Repent, for the End is Nigh,” where I wrote:
Now, you may accuse me of being a priveleged, educated elite, but then, I can just as easily accuse you of being blinded by your sense of guilt. You can accuse me of “the disgustingly priviliged mindset of so many, uh, collapsists,” but I can just as easily accuse you of lacking an understanding of the situation. Africa’s situation has been made precarious by Western intervention. Suffering there will be significant, as our “charity” has made Africa’s population utterly unsustainable. But ultimately, the average African probably has a better chance of survival than the average American. Africa already is much less dependent on oil than we are, and losing that energy source will do more to end the reign of Africa’s despots than it will to end Africans’ lives. More importantly, in Africa, unlike America, there are still functioning cultures that can provide for people.
That is true.
That is not true. The resources most necessary to survival here are not material, but cultural. Buying land will mean little; stockpiling is suicidal. In fact, the only thing my comparative material wealth can buy me now is schooling, to learn all the things that many Third Worlders have known since birth. In the matters of wealth that actually matter in the future that approaches, it’s people like us who are poor–and it’s the Third Worlders who are wealthy.
Our lives need to transform on a far greater scale than theirs–and the key to our survival is learning the things they already know.
Not quite; it isn’t really collapse in a peer polity. See “We All Fall Down.” The reason for the miseries you list is not collapse; collapse would alleviate that misery. No, it’s because they’re caught between. We prop them up. They need to collapse, but they’re not allowed to. The slum, the pollution, the starvation, the lack of water, the disease, the war–they’re all just the myriad symptoms of what happens when an area can no longer support a given level of complexity, but its neighbors aren’t willing to let it collapse. The weapons come from the former USSR, though gun runners from affluent First World countries. The disease is maintained by parasitic pharmaceutical companies from America and Europe. The pollution comes from the factories that set up in the Third World to avoid First World environmental laws and exploit cheap labor created by post-colonial devastation. The food and the lack of water are the results of our short-sighted “charity,” rushing in to allow an already unsustainable population to keep growing, so that a mere lean period can grow into a genocide.
A situation we’ve created, indeed … and every day that the UN does feed them, it becomes that much worse. We damned them to a Malthusian hell, and every day that it’s postponed, the sentence becomes that much heavier.
Hardly so easy. Most of those wealthy First Worlders will die not for lack of resources, but for lack of imagination. The survival rate of the Third World will very likely be higher than the First’s, because while we need to invent sustainable communities, they already have them.
Not in the least. That’s why I wrote a whole article about going too far with such a statement. It’s imperfect, and often, unjust.
But it is a winnowing, nonetheless. It is a natural selection, in favor of sustainable, egalitarian cultures. We need to temper that with a proper understanding of how ruthless and bloody the process is, to remember that this is a force as ambivalent as it is powerful.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 March 2006 @ 12:34 AM
Jason,
You said:
Hmm. So the Huns, Visigoths and Vandals whose societies replaced the collapsing Roman Empire were “sustainable, peaceful, [and] egalitarian”? Or was it the Franks, Saxons, Lombards and assorted Germanic tribes who replaced them, or the early medieval Christian European societies that evolved out of these latter?
One bad example? Well, let’s go elsewhere and have a look at the empire of Teotihuacan in early Mexico, the most complex society in Mesoamerican history. It collapsed (in a fine example of catabolic collapse, BTW) and was replaced by…the Toltecs. Who collapsed in turn, and were replaced by…the Aztecs. “Sustainable, peaceful, [and] egalitarian”? Not hardly.
It’s one thing, and I think quite a reasonable one, to point out that modern industrial society is lurching toward collapse, that this is a form of natural selection, and that there are positive as well as negative aspects to collapse. But the sort of apocalyptic utopianism in your comment above is quite another matter. As stated, as an absolute (”Whenever complex societies have collapsed…) it is not supported by the evidence of history. Might be worth reconsidering.
Comment by John Michael Greer — 23 March 2006 @ 5:18 AM
Rome’s a very special case–I’m not sure if I’d really call it “collapse” at all. You started your paper with a problem in Tainter’s time element in his definition of collapse, pointing to the Roman Empire, and came up with two forms of collapse: maintenance crisis and catabolic collapse. I took away a slightly different interpretation from the facts you presented: that catabolic collapse is collapse, and maintenance crisis is simply a loss of complexity. I thought the most powerful part of your idea of catabolic collapse was the fact that it’s a self-reinforcing cycle. In other words, there’s lots of ways to reduce complexity, but collapse is the process whereby that reduction occurs in a positive feedback loop.
In the specific case of Rome, there’s a lot of continuity. Kenneth Dark’s Civitas to Kingdom really exhibits this process in the British province. The “barbarian invasions” were more a continuation of Rome’s own policies, and even as the Germanic tribes were trying to become more Roman, the Romans were becoming more Germanic. So, to what extent can we say that Rome collapsed? I think it is just as true to say that Rome continued on, in the form of the kingdoms of the Middle Ages.
Teotihuacan destroyed itself before the Toltecs moved in from the north. The Toltecs were not the survivors of Teotihuacan’s collapse, but rather, a wholly different group who moved into the same area. The Toltecs collapsed some two centuries before the Aztecs moved in, though later Aztec kings would try to link themselves to the Toltecs by descent. In other words, I don’t think either of these are examples of survivors of collapse. In all three cases, we’re talking about a neighboring group that moves in after collapse has taken place. Might this not be more analogous to the peer polity scenario?
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 March 2006 @ 10:48 AM
So I guess this shows that collapse can be defined in many ways.
Comment by aksum — 23 March 2006 @ 3:36 PM
I think it shows that defining collapse isn’t exactly straightforward.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 23 March 2006 @ 3:48 PM
Let me just comment in defense of my elitism that in the piece Jason referenced I was specifically speaking to our modern, American society and not trying to draw generalizations about the world. My point was that it’s curious how few people actually let these issues enter their awareness…and then even for the ones who do, many of them seem strangely satisfied with endless intellectualizing about it rather than in taking significant, life-changing practical preparations.
I mean as regards the first commenter, for instance–and I really don’t mean to be inflammatory here although I’m sure I will be–but do we really need another Peak Oil Conference? I mean there’s talk that’s valuable, and there’s talk that’s cheap. For me…personally…just my opinion…”conferences” are an Empire-culture response. They are to a large degree a way of weaving the illusion of “legitimacy” around a subject. Not to say that’s all there is to it or that there aren’t plusses to that–after all we still live in an Empire culture which values “legitimacy” and “credentials” and such, and we certainly want to reach out to the media, businesspeople, etc. But do we still feel we must depend on “waking up” people in cultural positions of authority in order to somehow make our own personal preparations more possible? To me it seems to be an over-idealization of the issue.
But as far a preparation goes what could possibly be accomplished? Are skills being taught? Are specific regional alliances being formed or encouraged to help rediscover our pre-petroleum infrastructure? Maybe I’m misreading things, but I don’t see anything beneficial that I’m going to learn by traveling to New York City to listen to peopl–that I already respect!–speak again. I’ve benefitted from the abundant information they’ve made available on the internet already. I don’t think another Conference is the right approach for taking anything to the “next level”. The “next level” is within me, within my life.
Preparation begins when I first get myself into a more self-reliant place and then begin to encourage and help the people in my immediate community to do the same. “Local Solutions to the Energy Dilemma” will probably best be found in the place I choose to live for the next couple decades. I don’t want to confuse this with “activism” which is often just another form of intellectualization, but certainly it’s about becoming more active. And that seems to me to be the simple, direct culture of the “old school” way of life.
Comment by Steven Lagavulin — 23 March 2006 @ 4:03 PM
Yes–that’s true too.
Comment by aksum — 23 March 2006 @ 4:08 PM
Jason,
Okay, let’s take another example: Easter Island. Did the collapse of Easter Island’s society lead to one that was “sustainable, peaceful, [and] egalitarian”? No again, unless you consider “The flesh of your mother sticks between my teeth” a pacifist manifesto. As a blanket generalization, your claim still doesn’t work.
But I’d like to take issue as well with a few of your comments. You wrote:
In the western Roman Empire, population crashed by 60% to 90% depending on the region, a developed market economy disintegrated and was replaced by local subsistence agriculture, political integration broke down over large areas, nearly all the advanced technology of the time was lost, and the vast majority of Roman cultural heritage vanished forever. (What we have today is maybe 5% of what there was in 350 CE.) If that’s not a collapse, I’m not sure what counts.
Of course the barbarian tribes who settled on the ruins of Rome made use of the symbols of empire; that’s almost universal in the aftermath of a collapsed society. Five hundred years from now, warlords of petty fiefdoms in what are now Ohio and New Jersey will doubtless aspire to the title of “President.”
Hmm. You’re suggesting, then, that the term “collapse” should be restricted only to situations where, in the terms I’ve used, the catabolic cycle proceeds until all social capital is converted to waste? That seems unnecessarily narrow to me. One of the points of the catabolic collapse theory is that the same process that leads to temporary collapses in sustainable societies also causes the permanent collapse of unsustainable ones.
No, because the peer polity scenario envisages a group of contemporary societies sharing a common technological and economic basis. In both the examples I’ve given, a civilization imploded, and then invading peoples with a simpler technological and economic basis moved in, and made some use of the social and technical forms of the collapsed society. The same thing is just as likely in the present case. My guess is that five or ten centuries from now, most of the people who inhabit what is now the USA will be speaking languages descended from Spanish.
One of the things that Tainter’s peer polity concept misses, and Toynbee (among others) gets, is that every imperial society is surrounded by what Toynbee calls the “external proletariat,” a group of cultures who are denied most of the benefits of the imperial society and pay a disproportionate share of the costs. The role of tributary kingdoms on the fringes of the Roman Empire is exactly parallelled by that of Third World countries today.
When the imperial society collapses, people in the external proletariat have a major adaptive advantage; they’re used to getting by without the benefits of the society, and so survive the collapse in much larger numbers than the inhabitants of the imperial center. They also generally have a score or two to settle.
The result is the usual sequence of events following the collapse of an imperial society: people from outside its borders move in, and establish new societies on the ruins of the old at a much simpler technological, economic, and political level. I see no reason why that standard pattern won’t happen here. To some extent, it’s already under way.
Comment by John Michael Greer — 26 March 2006 @ 4:46 PM
Cannibalistic insults don’t prove anything. I readily admit that I don’t know much about Easter Island, but I was under the impression that after the collapse, there were a few centuries of peace prior to European contact?
It also happened quite gradually, over a period of some 300 years. That, to my mind, is the defining difference between “collapse” and “decline”–how quickly it happens.
It was much more profound than just that. Romanitas was their highest aspiration. Remember, the “barbarian invasions” were less matters of hostile invasion than they were matters of the Roman Senate reneging on paying its mercenaries. Sometimes there were invasions, but they were more often rebellions–and the mercenaries spent as much time fighting in civil wars, as fighting other barbarians invading the empire.
To some degree … otherwise, we’re neglecting the fact that we have another term, “decline.” The cycle need not go on indefinitely, but if it does not end with the termination of the complex society in question, is it really collapse, or something else? Societies survives “crises”; they do not survive “collapses,” and only sometimes do they survive “declines.”
All societies have some level of complexity. Once polity A’s complexity became lower than its neighbors’ complexity, they moved in and used the resources thus available to them to raise their own complexity.
In a peer polity, when polity A’s complexity becomes lower than its neighbors’ complexity, the neighbors move in and use the resources available there to raise its complexity again.
There does seem to be some kind of relationship there, I think.
Very likely for the southwest if nothing else, but I’m not sure what they would farm.
One big problem I see is that most of our external proletariat shares no borders with us. Also, our own collapse is likely to involve the very same resources that their own complexity relies on–to say nothing of what is probably the single most important factor here, climate change. Finally, we have created dependent populations in most of these countries that are incapable of supporting themselves without food from the First World. When such aid is no longer forthcoming, that situation can only resolve itself in a Malthusian catastrophe.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 26 March 2006 @ 5:19 PM
It would seem to me that the biggest problem in using previous collapse scenarios to project future consequences would be in the extreme nature of the present case. After all, despite popular myth, size does matter. Never before did a minor fluctuation in the price of rice in Japan have such an impact in the US (just an off-hand example). Also, we’ve never been close to this far over the carrying capacity of the regions we inhabit. Easter Island is the only previous case I can think of that even closely mirrors what is likely to happen regarding our food supplies. But what happened next to them was very different. Both us have destroyed our farm land, but unlike them we still have forests and ample food stuffs. Granted no where near sufficient food stuffs for the whole of civilization, but most people don’t know that dandelions are edible and buttercups are poisonous. Also, like Jason said, due to our size, we’ve managed to not only export our slave class, but to remove it to such a distance that any score to settle would be impotent. Post collapse, there will be no war party of African farmers taking the United States.
Comment by Benjamin Shender — 26 March 2006 @ 9:04 PM
Jason, for what it’s worth I think John Michael (I don’t know how to address you, I’ve referred to you as “Greer” in the past, but that seems overly formal) has a point about your generalization being a generalization.
Further, I see no disconnect between what he is saying –
– and what your main arguments are. I think the difference may lie in what level of complexity/simplicity you foresee as being possible in the future. But that is another discussion entirely.
- Devin
Comment by Devin — 27 March 2006 @ 7:40 AM
My point was that it’s curious how few people actually let these issues enter their awareness…and then even for the ones who do, many of them seem strangely satisfied with endless intellectualizing about it rather than in taking significant, life-changing practical preparations.
Hmmm. I agree with you on this, but how do you propose we go about taking significant, life changing practical preparations? Nearly every aspect of the system is trying to prevent us from doing exactly that. You might be extremely lucky in having an existant community of family, friends, or neighbors who are a)aware of the future growing instability of civilization and/or open to discussing it; b)in a physical or finiancial situation to be able to realistically do something about it; c)willing to work together with others to figure out some way to make a living in all this, but I would say that the majority of us are not so lucky. I definitely have the desire to do something, but I certainly can’t do it alone. So where do I find like-minded people?
If you don’t already have a community, I’m interested to know where and how you plan on going about getting it. My frustration with the internet is that I might very well find like-minded people, but they all live very far away from me, and the little that I do know of my surroundings is limited to my bioregion, so I’m not so hot on moving and starting all over again. Sure, my friends, family and neighbors might be more than willing to listen when things get to be so bad that they have no choice, but for me that’s to late to start preparing.
But as far a preparation goes what could possibly be accomplished? Are skills being taught? Are specific regional alliances being formed or encouraged to help rediscover our pre-petroleum infrastructure?
I certainly hope so. People with experience in the successes and failures of permaculture, renewable energy, and community building will be there, along with local organizations currently experimenting or offering opportunities, so that’s the hope.
Maybe I’m misreading things, but I don’t see anything beneficial that I’m going to learn by traveling to New York City to listen to peopl–that I already respect!–speak again. I’ve benefitted from the abundant information they’ve made available on the internet already. I don’t think another Conference is the right approach for taking anything to the “next level”. The “next level” is within me, within my life.
I don’t care about waking up people in authority (unless they want to “sponsor” my efforts :)). I’m interested in finding other interested people in my area, and people who know something about what I want to do. So if you’re not in the Northeast region, then no, this conference would probably not be useful to you. I was posting in the hopes that there might be some regional people who are interested, or some regional or non-regional people with a specific request for something that I could do for them there. Apparently there are neither. Hence my frustration.
Comment by Raku — 27 March 2006 @ 11:43 AM
Oh, I think that’s an exaggeration. Every aspect of the system is blind to the very possibility. It doesn’t care if you do or not, because it can’t even concieve of it as an alternative. The system is ambivalent to your attempts to escape it, because as far as it’s concerned, there’s nothing outside of it.
I was very distressed about this once. Then I formed Tribal Dawn, and I quickly learned that like attracts like. I don’t worry about the Tribe of Anthropik’s growth, or lack thereof. It grows on its own.
In my experience, if you “plan” for it, you’ve already lost. Communities don’t develop out of plans; they develop for and by themselves. Look to your friends. Don’t any of them share your concerns? That alone can be enough to start something. Go camping more often, start turning a mere circle of friends into a real community. You don’t need to agree on everything; in fact, it’s better if you don’t. All you need is to share a basic idea of what kind of life it is that you would prefer. That’s probably the biggest stumbling block I’ve seen. Most people are surrounded by others who want the same things–we just focus so much on what seperates us, and become blind to the things we share in common.
I know how frustrating and worrying it can be, but the sooner you can let that go, the faster you’ll find that you’re already surrounded by a community, if only you could recognize it.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 March 2006 @ 4:36 PM
Raku,
I’m certainly tuned-in to your concerns, and what I’ve become convinced of lately is that most people who are aware of the impending collapse or our civilization are in the same boat. Lately though, I feel we have to make the decision to move to a more self-reliant community. I don’t see how anything else is realistic or workable. Yes there are all sorts of obstacles to doing that, but I think the main one is really just our lack of conviction about how real our situation is becoming.
In this light I have a question for Jason: and please, please forgive my ignorace but I guess I’m still not really aware what the Tribe of Anthropik is really advocating as preparation? Is it something akin to a kind of rootless intentional community of hunter gatherers?
Comment by Steven Lagavulin — 27 March 2006 @ 6:29 PM
Something like that. Find some people you can form a community with, and learn the skills to stay alive under your own power, i.e., as a hunter-gatherer. Then–go do it.
We’re at the “learn the skills” step right now. We’re on schedule for a 2010 departure deadline, which should give us a few years of using this stuff to stay alive before it becomes the only option. It’s always good to learn to swim before you get thrown into the ocean.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 March 2006 @ 6:32 PM
Every aspect of the system is blind to the very possibility.
What’s the difference? If it’s blind to the possibility, it provides no support network whatsoever for it. So you basically have to jump off the cliff in order to accomplish what you want.
Look to your friends. Don’t any of them share your concerns?
Yup. But they’re MUCH more concerned about paying their rent, having health insurance, getting married and having kids. And the friends that I do have that are on the same page live hundreds or thousands of miles away.
In my experience, if you “plan” for it, you’ve already lost. Communities don’t develop out of plans; they develop for and by themselves.
I realize this, and I’m not planning per se, but in my experience, nothing’s happening.
I know how frustrating and worrying it can be, but the sooner you can let that go, the faster you’ll find that you’re already surrounded by a community, if only you could recognize it.
A few dozen people scattered across the country, tethered by an internet connection, is not a community. The college student, construction worker, businessman, etc. who live in my building aren’t a community, because they’re not planning on sticking around long enough to become one, or they already belong to their own ethnic communities.
Comment by Anonymous — 27 March 2006 @ 6:38 PM
There’s a big difference between a system that doesn’t notice you, and one that’s actively trying to stop you.
Well of course they are. You’re looking for divisions instead of common ground. Ask them to join you on a fishing trip, or a camping trip. It can begin as simply as that. They just want to survive, and rent and insurance is the only way they know how. Don’t tell them about another way, share it with them. A simple camping trip is something even the most civilized folk engages in; it’s also a great opportunity to impress them that life is not so difficult there as they’ve been led to believe.
I wasn’t talking about people you know online; I was talking about your flesh-and-blood friends. Sounds like they’re as far along as any I’d expect. That’s fertile ground, if you’re willing to try.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 27 March 2006 @ 6:43 PM
Jason, I grew up on a boy scout camp. My friends and I have gone camping since we could walk. Some of them are full-time scouts and as such spend months at a time living in tents and building fires and all the rest. And they’ve even read Ishmael. So they’re in fact much farther along than you’d expect of typical civilized people. But despite this, they’re still more interested in the house with the 2-car garage, saving for their kid’s college education, and having health insurance. Because that’s what every aspect of society is conditioning them to want. That’s what I mean about the system actively discouraging people. Even those who have the experience and the skills and the possibilities are convinced that it’s not a viable or desirable option.
Comment by Raku — 28 March 2006 @ 10:22 AM
I don’t know what to tell you. I’ve never met anyone who wasn’t interested. Sometimes it needed to be presented in a slightly different way; sometimes it took a good deal of time to convince them; but when you get right down to it, every human being is a hunter-gatherer. I’ve met a lot of people who defined “like-minded” in a far too narrow manner, and discounted all the natural allies around them, but I’ve never met anyone who wasn’t ammenable to the notion, if you just took the time to engage them from their own perspective.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 March 2006 @ 10:34 AM
I think culture does promote & condition people to a degree, but that’s not why these people choose the house w/ 2 car garage. As long as abundance is available–food, home, comfort items—the great majority of folks will choose this lifestyle. Until things get rough enough that more choose to learn to adapt, they will go with the flow of the system they are in. Except for a few people who choose to be different because of ideology/philosophy.
Unless you believe at some level the human condition is damaged at some level by modernity, its unlikely you will make a serious effort to move out of the system.
Based on the above comment, is for many rationale people who may not believe a collapse is coming anytime soon—is living in a tent & doing boy scout activities really a viable option for living compared to a home, car,tv, easy to come by food etc?
IF people don’t believe a collapse is really coming, what skills/hobbies they have don’t mean anthing.
This has been often mentioned by Jason in the post here. There is a world of difference between hunting as a hobby, and being a “hunter”. My great uncle trapped & hunted to survive, he didn’t go to stocked game areas to “hunt” etc. Most people even with a modicum of survival skills, view it as a hobby not as something they would truly rely on as as a means to live.
Like minded folks may very well have a different philosophy of life–basically that they want to leave the “rat race” of civilization for various reasons, in addition to seeing the writing on the wall of peak oil/energy, environmental destruction, economic collapses etc.
Best of luck, most will cling tenaciously to civilization, for most dreaming about their kids going to college is more powerful/real to them–then the family picking berries together.
Comment by bubba — 28 March 2006 @ 10:40 AM
So is your family going to be a part of the Tribe of Anthropik? That’s really great if you’ve been able to do that. But I think that the reason why most of us hang out on these kinds of sites in the first place is because our family, friends and neighbors are so unresponsive to what we say. Perhaps they can agree with us to a certain extent, or “see where we’re coming from”, but I agree with bubba: at this point in time, it’s still easier to go with the flow of the system than to go against it, or around it, or under it.
Comment by Raku — 28 March 2006 @ 1:41 PM
I have spoken with many family members & friends about this topic. Most will concede that we have a problem, but many revert to techno-optimist notions, that things will be fixed by smart people in the tech fields.
Those that agree to a larger degree about the impending Oil/energy crisis, just can’t believe that things will collapse, even if they can’t provide a logical reason>>they merely “believe”, basically rely on wishful thinking. And honestly, I find very few people who actually critically think anymore at any deep level. People are busy worrying about making money, their kids, what form of entertainment they will purchase this weekend, what celebrity is banging which other celeb.
Some have some general concerns about the environment & energy but don’t have any ideas currently, and when I present the primitive, simplification options>>they tend to knee jerk Balk at the idea. Most people are trying to retain their current level of complexity (lifestyle) or improve it continually. Others just seem too tired, depressed, drugged up on booze or legal psychotropics to care–since they are dealing with the crisis of the moment, family, health problems, lost jobs etc.
Others focus more on Nationalistic worries, middle-east, wars, the weaking of US Hegemony and the like.
All in all, I thus far have only three friends/family members that are willing to consider “doing something different” which is what really matters. I have a couple friends willing to talk about things–but do nothing…Wishful thinking, and other forms of external “magic” that can save people from their global messes remain powerful–I suppose God will make things better, eh?
Perhaps I’m not the salesman Jason is, since I don’t share his optimism, in terms of his above statement in talking with others. And ultimately it boils down to action again, going from the realm of ideas/thoughts/logic to the old fashion dirt on the hands & more simplistic manners of living…few are interested in this, since people have a choice–eventually that choice will be a regret for most, but tis only my opinion. Who knowns, I wish I believed that Nanotechnology was going to turn our garbage into Oil, but I’m really not that good at being an optimist.
Comment by bubba — 28 March 2006 @ 2:14 PM
There’s my brother, but otherwise, they share in the techno-utopian dream and dismiss me and my brother as having fallen sway to “doomsayers.” I hope that when it all unfolds the way I’ve told them, they’ll catch on and come find us. Giuli wants to send me on a suicidal rescue mission to New York to pluck her family out when the time comes. So, we’re hoping they come find us when things start to get rough, but right now, no, they’re not on board.
Instead, I go about my business as usual. Sometimes people ask what I’m doing, and I tell them. Sometimes they think I’m crazy, but over time, it begins to have an effect. My parents are interested in gardening now. If they do join us, they’ll have plenty to contribute.
In the meantime, those of us who are preparing ahead of time don’t agree on everything. You see us arguing here all the time. That’s a good thing; a diversity of thought is a good thing. If we all agreed, we’d be much weaker for it. What we agree on is enough to start.
I know unresponsive. My family has questioned my very sanity. But as time goes on, they come closer and closer to my way of seeing things. Partially, it’s the fact that reality is constricting the vise. Partially again, it’s the impact of me and my brother.
If you’re looking for allies, that can be enough to start from. It’s more than I started from.
Wow! You’re way ahead of me! That’s enough for a fairly active tribe, right there!
Consider what you’re asking of them. You’re asking them to leave behind everything they know, everything that’s working just fine, to join you in some crazy venture that may or may not work, because of theories X, Y and Z.
Would you go for it?
Don’t tell them about it. Do it. People aren’t inspired by words, they’re inspired by action. Start living it, and they’ll join you. People will come out of the woodwork to join you. Your biggest concern won’t be finding people; it’ll be turning so many people away.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 March 2006 @ 3:23 PM
Good advice, thanks. I agree, as actions begin to become more noticeable perhaps others I know will be inspired by that. Especially since “reality is the constricting vise” and it will be become more & more obvious within the next couple years.
So we are back to the Nike slogan from back in the day, “just do it”. Or perhaps field of dream, build it and they will come?
Yeah, you are probably right. Time to get to work–spring is upon us and the dirt is ready again to perform its miracles.
Comment by bubba — 28 March 2006 @ 3:33 PM
Amen.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 28 March 2006 @ 3:41 PM
“All in all, I thus far have only three friends/family members that are willing to consider “doing something different” which is what really matters. I have a couple friends willing to talk about things–but do nothing…
Wow! You’re way ahead of me! That’s enough for a fairly active tribe, right there!”
I count myself absolutely blessed to be a member of a tribe with four active members and two others who “want in.”
I gotta agree with a lot of what Jason said in his post up there. (In fact, Jason, you really should clean that up and post it as an actual post). In a world with so much uncertainty, a small group of people who are actually making plans and changing their lives and making a difference in the world will attract more than just attention; they’ll attract people who want to do the same thing, but aren’t sure how to begin.
I’ve found that giving yourself permission to begin is the hardest part.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 28 March 2006 @ 7:27 PM
And keep in mind that some day very soon the words Peak Oil may appear on the nightly news. And then all those people who wrote you off as crazy will start desperately wanting to know “what it all means”….
Unless of course they cover it all up with a war or plague or some other sleight of hand excuse…
Comment by Steven Lagavulin — 30 March 2006 @ 1:25 PM
“And keep in mind that some day very soon the words Peak Oil may appear on the nightly news. And then all those people who wrote you off as crazy will start desperately wanting to know “what it all means”….”
I response to this, sadly I think that will not be the case. Yes the media will target it more & more as time goes forward, but I think that the great majority will still consider it “crazy” to become more primitive & sustainable.
The more likely outcome is people will conserve a bit more (save $) maybe plant a small garden, but a hybrid, add insulation to their house and listen to the many people who will say “we have 50-100years before this issue hits, but we should start doing something now.”
Ultimately people will believe & maybe start relying on techno-optimist “solutions” to peak oil. More solar powered stuff, and some other so called ‘greener” ideas. But all in all–their lives will not look a lot different, a bit more frugal & minimalistic perhaps–but that’s about it.
Actually moving dramatically out of civilizations complexity is very unlikely, people will cling tenaciously to it–the media will present hope, the politicians hope, but the hope will be based on more unsustainable ideas>>>like magically turning the leftovers of agrobusiness into ethanol to meet our energy needs in the next 20 years, yeah right.
Not too many people are going to start eating dandelions the next few years. Plus as you mentioned there will be without a doubt wars, plagues, terrorism, viruses etc to keep people fearful, and desiring destractions & modern society presents distratctions galore…
Comment by Bubba — 30 March 2006 @ 2:23 PM
“But all in all–their lives will not look a lot different, a bit more frugal & minimalistic perhaps–but that’s about it.”
One of the main reasons that I don’t think Peak Oil will be instantly apocalyptic in America is because there’s so much fucking consumption that can be cut out. When gas hits 6 bucks a gallon, people will just take mass transit. When the buses and trains stop running, people will start to use bicycles scavenged from junk heaps, and walking a whole lot more. When the electricity goes off, people won’t ransack candle stores, they’ll just go to bed when the sun goes down and eat more vegetables raw. Most water systems are gravity fed, so there’s likely not to be a major thirst problem, but even if they are (as in most of the Los Angeles valley’s satanic desert), the shutoff will be slow enough that smart people will get the hint and walk away. It interests me that the cataclysmic end of the world is such a civilizational meme, yet many primitivists use this pre-packaged story to explain, “what happens next” in the goriest and most two-thirds-of-the-earth-dying-wormwood-tainting-water kind of way.
Peak Oil will very likely spell doom for the control structures and many of the institutions required to keep the civilizational flywheel running, but for the average man, there’s a lot that can be cut out while still remaining content and “materially wealthy”.
Of course, once various militaries start competing with fertilizer producers for oil use, yeah, then we’ll probably see some seriously bad shit… but by then, it is my earnest hope that most of the smart people will have altered their lives sufficiently to be interdependent on the local people and economy, enough to allow a few time enough to knit a parachute to cushion their fall.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 30 March 2006 @ 8:41 PM
I certainly agree with you Chuck, that we have a lot of F***ing consumption to cut out. But debt, double mortgages and the like have allowed people to continue to live beyond our ‘means’.
I’m not sure what your talking about in terms of Water supplies, since every city I know of requires the use of Energy for waste treatment & water treatment and distribution. The gravity fed water system doesn’t seem to work to well when the power goes out, maybe its different in your area?
But most cities have 24hr-48hrs after the lights go out, before the basics of Water & Sanitation go ‘bye bye’. Thus the complexity of civilization is bound to cause some major problems, that merely cutting back on consumption will not solve.
You appear more optimistic than I, I have seen crime increase locally & what I have seen when the power goes out>>looting & general increase in crime occur.
Maybe people will go to bed with the sun & eat more raw veggies (from their local gardens?? since food will be amazingly expensive as energy costs soar).
This would mean that the entire economic system would need to change, to adapt to a slower crash scenario. The short-sighted view of corporations in general & the political system, make it more likely that a collapse will occur in stages, but ultimately in a relatively quick period of time (decade or so?).
I hope your right Chuck, going to bed with the sun & eating raw veggies & having everyone cut back on consumption sounds good to me… I guess we will have to see, but I wouldn’t suggest waiting for that scenario to come to pass.
Comment by Bubba — 31 March 2006 @ 10:24 AM
” I guess we will have to see, but I wouldn’t suggest waiting for that scenario to come to pass.”
Oh, hell no, man! In six years I hope to be with my tribe in the boonies of the Pacific Northwest. My tribe’s specific stated purpose (vision, if you will) is to get out there first and figure out the basics, so that if and when “it” hits the fan, we’ll be able to teach and help the people who come into the area, needing assistance.
The above scenario describes the escape of the people my tribe would be helping, not a scenario where vast swathes of urban landscape explodes with life and color. Either way, the car’s crashing into the wall. But you tap those brakes just a little bit, and it can make all the difference in the world.
I don’t think many city areas will survive (and those that do will probably be empty for good long while before being reinhabited), but they’ll crash slowly enough for the smart people to, in the words of Eric Cartman, “get the fudge out”. Even if a crash only took a year, that’s quite a bit of time for smart people to adjust to changing conditions and get out of the bad areas.
- Chuck
Comment by Chuck — 31 March 2006 @ 2:26 PM