21 February 2012
Norman Pagett writes:
Around 10000 years ago, a farmer exchanged excess produce for something he couldn’t make himself, probably weapons.
That transaction locked humanity into the world economy we use today, with the
concept of trade, profit and loss, moving goods around and the slow growth of population through better food availability. It created accounting, money, but from the beginning was inherently unstable because it could only prosper through constant growth.
More people meant clashes over resources, needing force, money or guile to obtain them.
Greed meant survival. World economics still functions on that basis. We are still locked into that system of greed and acquisition bequeathed to us by prehistory. That’s why men strive for the second billion after they’ve made the first. It’s not necessary, but they can’t help it.
No matter how we wish otherwise, occupations, protests, riots local collectives or other wheezes won’t alter the reality: there’s just too many of us, all wanting 21st century prosperity, yet still locked into the acquisitive greed-economics of the stone age. In 10000 years, our brains have not had time to evolve to recognise the effects of our destructive behaviour, or see our current ‘wealth’ as an anomaly; no more than a brief flash of light as we burned (finite) fossil fuel to illuminate a single century in our million years of existence. We perhaps see an unsure future, so grab what we can to survive it.
A century ago, when we kicked off our current age of plenty, energy was cheap and industrial output grew as we built millions of machines to burn it. We called that ‘Gross Domestic product’, burning it faster was called ‘growth’. Oil coal and gas leveraged human effort to a colossal degree, and we used that power to build cities, roads, boost our food supplies and engage in collective homicide.
But our main employment has always been industrialized fuelburning, without cheap energy we don’t have jobs and money has no value
In global terms, humanity is a parasite trying to destroy its host, a warming world is a reaction to that and climate change is the sneeze that will get rid of us. But climate change will run its course to the bitter end, because to do otherwise would require humanity to alter its fundamental way of living.
So we must continue to destroy our future in the name of progress. Few accept that we are facing a triumvirate of chaos: runaway climate change, overpopulation and energy depletion. They are inseparable, and it matters not which hits us first, because that will exacerbate the impact of the other two
We are locked into a global economic system that can only function by forward growth. We delude ourselves that our prosperity has been the product of human ingenuity, ignoring the fact that it coincided exactly with fossil fuel use. We called that prosperity GDP, and growth depended on burning fuel at ever faster rates. Cheap oil became our security for the future, the supply of it was infinite, (at least in econospeak) the faster we used it, the wealthier we became.
Our lives were changed by cheap oil, but our current ‘wealth’ was an anomaly; no more than a brief flash of light as we burned (finite) fossil fuel to illuminate a single century in our million years of existence. We have an unsure future, the unpleasant struggle to survive it is just beginning.
Succinct evaulation of the current predicament. Have you read Craig Dilworth’s, Too Smart for our Own Good? If not, I am sure you will appreciate it.
While I am making efforts to unplug from the system, I’m finding significant obstacles (financial) to doing so effectively. It’s also very difficult to function in “the real world” having come to understand the triumverate you effectively outline here. As Guy McPherson has said, “once you’ve seen, you can’t unsee.” The human behaviour that contributes to all our problems is rarely questioned or even considered on a conscious level. I walk around and see zombies in a fantasy land of their own creation. Psychologically, I am finding this difficult to reconcile. Even worse is I don’t believe we’ll save ourselves in time. Some change is occuring but not on the scale required. Perhaps this is a matter of perspective in time, but it’s a tenuous optimism.
On one hand, I would like to disagree with the general theme, but on the other hand, I fear that the theme is true.
I will only point out that
1) It is very difficult to predict the future
2) The problems that we experience, resulting from climate/debt/oil/environment/water/food/etc crises, may be significantly worst than currently forecasts. Time will tell.
3) Generally, people only make choices to improve their individual, family, or community existence.
4) Peoples options, or choices they can make, are generally associated with their local environment. People like to believe that they have free will and choices, but I believe that is only an illusion.
What I see coming is a challenge, a struggle, but not unhappiness, which is a relative experience. Those of use who had child hood before the start of the oil decline will die off in the nearer future, while those of us who survive will only have media to inform them of what life was like. So, I just don’t see the struggle as being inherently unpleasant.
You either will be one of the survivors, or you are not. The survivors will enjoy the life they experience, and the non-survivors won’t continue to have the life experiences.
We have a tendency to believe that we can influence future events. I think we have less ability to influence than we think, and our limited ability may reduce in the future. So, those that end up surviving, or not, will be more a matter of luck than choices or planning. In nature, it appears that in the longer term, survival is a matter of favorable environment, genetics and competition; not of intelligence, communication, or decision making. Human’s are unique in the recent past that they have had greater ability to shape their environment in order to improve the odds of survival, including the ability to work together as an ad hoc team. These abilities to shape the environment and form ad hoc cooperation will continue in to the future, it is a trait of our species. But the survival will occur in an environment that is different than the past, which has always been the case.
The benefits of trade, to obtain something needs in exchange for something one has excess of, will continue to exist. The advantages of a common exchange, such as money, will continue to exist. And, the advantage of being able to leverage, or borrow, against one’s future income or production, will continue to exist; along with the relative advantage of being able to indenture others. So, I don’t see the financial world as dependent on growth as some people suggest. The advantages of finance continue, and finance will exist and prosper in a declining energy world.
One place that I differ is that I don’t think we have long to wait to see the changes. I’m anticipating rather significant changes in the logistic supply aspects within the next few years, as the supply system accommodates new patterns of finance distributions. I’m very interested in what occurs with the PA and NY oil distribution systems if Sunoco Philadelphia refinery closes July 2012. On one hand, the potential disruption, and mitigation solution, of the petroleum distribution to a large area that includes dense population will be interesting to observe. But also, just the existence of the macro risks presented by financial constraints to the supply logistics system is an interesting aspect too. I fear that this event is only an indicator what the actual energy decline will look like. We are no longer trying to forecast what the future of energy decline will be like, for it has arrived. While the Sunoc closing may be mitigate with minimal disruption, the risk is real and will present more challenging situations in the near future.
We are still benefiting from cheap oil, even with the current increased prices. Currently, I think the decisions to purchase energy are more of selecting between degrees of convenience or types of enjoyment. Soon enough, we will have to make decisions between having energy to enable, or doing without, some significant aspects of our livelihood. Some people suggest is that we will be making decisions that influence the rate of survival. I’m not so sure that it will be that evident.
With the industrial revolution, carbon that was locked up beneath the earth is now part of the ecosystem, there will be more plants because of it. With the Green revolution, there is more nitrogen available to plants, thus more humus and organic matter. When the oil does run out, the planet will be warmer, winters will be milder, there will be more plants, and thus more animal life, including us. There will be plenty of food, the only changes that we need to adjust to, is that more of us will be farmers, a farmer growing food with hand implements can feed 25 people, right now with current technologies, a farmer feed 325 people. Farms will be smaller, 20-40 acres, cities will melt into towns and villages, people will move back to the countryside where all the food is. Most people will be living on farms. Everyone will have a victory garden in their yards, no one will have lawns anymore. everyone will know each other again. Life will be better.
Alma, I totally agree with you. However, I think that the transition to reach that point will be rough and will probably involve at least one or two wars or revolutions, change is almost never peaceful.