Dismantle Civilisation Rotating Header Image

act local

'The Zero Point of Systemic Collapse "

Hier ist eine große Artikel von Chris Hedges, dass viel von dem, was wir denken, hier spiegelt, ist es lohnt sich zu lesen:

Wir stehen an der Schwelle zu einem der gefährlichsten Momente der Menschheit.

Aleksandr Herzen, Sprechen vor einem Jahrhundert zu einer Gruppe von Anarchisten, wie man den Zaren zu stürzen, erinnerte seine Zuhörer, dass es nicht ihre Aufgabe, ein sterbendes System zu retten, sondern um sie zu ersetzen: "Wir denken, wir sind die Ärzte. Wir sind der Krankheit. "All Widerstand muss erkennen, dass das Gemeinwesen und den globalen Kapitalismus tot sind. Wir sollten aufhören, Energie zu verschwenden versuchen, Reform oder Appell an sie. Dies bedeutet nicht, das Ende des Widerstandes, aber es hat sehr unterschiedliche Formen des Widerstands bedeuten. Es bedeutet, sich unsere Energien zum Aufbau nachhaltiger Gemeinschaften zu den kommenden Krise zu überstehen, da wir werden nicht überleben und ohne eine gemeinsame Anstrengung widerstehen.

Diese Gemeinschaften, wenn sie in eine reine Überlebenskünstler Modus Rückzug ohne Verknüpfung sich die konzentrischen Kreise der größeren Gemeinschaft, dem Staat und den Planeten, wird als moralisch und spirituell bankrott wie die Unternehmens-Kräfte gegen uns angetan wird. Alle Infrastrukturen bauen wir, wie die Klöster im Mittelalter, sollte sich am Leben zu halten die intellektuellen und künstlerischen Traditionen, die eine Zivilgesellschaft, des Humanismus und des Gemeinwohls möglich zu machen. Der Zugang zu der landwirtschaftlich genutzten Parzellen werden an erster Stelle. Wir müssen begreifen, wie die mittelalterlichen Mönche taten, dass wir keinen Einfluss auf die größere Kultur um uns herum, zumindest kurzfristig, aber vielleicht können wir den moralischen Codes und Kultur seit vielen Generationen über uns behalten. Widerstand wird auf kleine, oft unmerklichen Trotzreaktionen reduziert werden, wie diejenigen, die ihre Integrität in der langen Nacht des 20. Jahrhunderts Faschismus und Kommunismus entdeckt beibehalten.

Wir stehen an der Schwelle zu einer der düstersten Perioden in der Geschichte der Menschheit, wenn die hellen Lichter der Zivilisation heraus blinken, und wir werden seit Jahrzehnten steigen, wenn nicht Jahrhunderte, in die Barbarei. Die Eliten haben uns erfolgreich davon überzeugt, dass wir nicht mehr die Kapazität haben, die offenbarten Wahrheiten vor uns vorgestellt verstehen oder sich zu wehren gegen das Chaos durch ökonomische und ökologische Katastrophe verursacht. Solange die Masse der verwirrten und verängstigten Menschen, gefüttert Bilder, die sie ständig halluzinieren, gibt es in diesem Zustand der Barbarei zu ermöglichen, können sie schlagen in regelmäßigen Abständen mit einem blinden Wut gegen zunehmende staatliche Repression, die weit verbreitete Armut und Lebensmittelknappheit. Aber sie werden nicht über die Fähigkeit und das Selbstvertrauen, um in großen und kleinen Wegen die Strukturen der Steuerung Herausforderung. Die Phantasie von der weit verbreiteten Aufstände und Massenbewegungen brechen die Hegemonie des Ständestaates ist genau das - eine Fantasie.

Meine Analyse kommt nah an die Analyse von vielen Anarchisten. Aber es gibt einen entscheidenden Unterschied. Die Anarchisten nicht verstehen, die Natur der Gewalt. Sie begreifen das Ausmaß der Fäulnis in unserer kulturellen und politischen Institutionen, sie wissen, sie müssen die Tentakeln des Konsums sever, aber sie naiv glauben, dass es mit körperlichen Formen des Widerstands und Gewalttaten begegnet werden kann. Es gibt Debatten innerhalb der anarchistischen Bewegung - wie die auf die Zerstörung von Eigentum - aber wenn man mit Plastiksprengstoff zu starten, unschuldige Menschen getötet. Und wenn anarchische Gewalt auf die Governance-Mechanismen zu stören beginnt, wird die Machtelite verwenden diese Taten, egal wie gering, als Vorwand, um unverhältnismäßige und rücksichtslose Mengen von Gewalt gegen echte und vermutete Rührwerke eingesetzt werden, nur treibt die Wut der Enteigneten.

Ich bin kein Pazifist. Ich weiß, es gibt Zeiten, und sogar zugeben, dass dies schließlich einer von ihnen, wenn Menschen gezwungen sind, auf Montage Unterdrückung mit Gewalt zu reagieren. Ich war in Sarajevo während des Krieges in Bosnien. Wir wussten genau, was die serbischen Truppen um die Stadt würde mit uns tun, wenn sie durch die Verteidigung und Graben-System rund um die belagerte Stadt brach. Wir hatten die Beispiele der Drina-Tal oder die Stadt Vukovar, wo etwa ein Drittel der moslemischen Einwohner getötet worden waren und der Rest hütete in Flüchtlings-oder Flüchtlingslagern. Es gibt Zeiten, in denen nur die Wahl gelassen abholen eine Waffe, um Ihre Familie, Nachbarschaft und Stadt zu verteidigen ist. Aber diejenigen, die am geschicktesten zu verteidigen Sarajevo bewiesen ausnahmslos kamen aus dem kriminellen Klasse. Wenn sie nicht schießen serbischen Soldaten waren Plünderungen der Wohnungen von ethnischen Serben in Sarajevo und oft deren Ausführung sowie terrorisieren ihre Glaubensbrüder. Wenn Sie das Gift der Gewalt einzunehmen, auch in einer gerechten Sache, es verdirbt, verformt und verdreht sie. Gewalt ist ein Medikament, ja, es ist die stärkste Narkotikum der Menschheit bekannt ist. Die meisten der Gewalt verfallen sind diejenigen, die Zugang zu Waffen und eine Vorliebe für Gewalt zu haben. Und diese Mörder auf der Oberfläche von jedem bewaffneten Bewegung Aufstieg und verunreinigen sie mit dem berauschenden und verführerische Macht, mit der Fähigkeit zu zerstören kommt. Ich habe es in den Krieg nach dem Krieg gesehen. Wenn Sie unten gehen diesen Weg Sie am Ende messen Sie Ihre Monster gegen ihre Monster. Und die empfindlichen, die humane und die sanfte, diejenigen, die eine Neigung zu nähren und zu schützen, Leben zu haben, an den Rand gedrängt und oft getötet. Die romantische Vorstellung von Krieg und Gewalt ist so weit verbreitet unter den Anarchisten und den harten gelassen, wie es in der Mainstream-Kultur ist. Diejenigen, die mit Gewalt widersetzen, werden in keinem Fall die Ständestaat oder aufrechtzuerhalten, die kulturellen Werte, die nachhaltig, wenn wir eine lebenswerte Zukunft haben muss. Von meinen vielen Jahren als Kriegsberichterstatter in El Salvador, Guatemala, Gaza und Bosnien habe ich gesehen, dass die bewaffneten Widerstandsbewegungen immer sind Mutationen der Gewalt, die sie hervorgebracht hat. Ich bin nicht naiv genug zu glauben, ich könnte diesen bewaffneten Bewegungen vermieden werden können, hatte ich eine landlose salvadorianischen oder guatemaltekischen Bauern, ein palästinensischer in Gaza oder ein Muslim in Sarajevo, aber diese gewaltsame Reaktion auf Repression ist und wird immer tragisch. Es muss vermieden werden, wenn auch nicht auf Kosten unseres eigenen Überlebens.

Demokratie ist ein System optimal ausgelegt, um den Status quo herausfordern, wurde beschädigt und gezähmt zu sklavisch dienen, den Status quo. Wir haben erfahren, wie John Ralston Saul schreibt, einen Staatsstreich in Zeitlupe. Und der Putsch vorbei ist. Sie gewannen. Wir haben verloren. Das elende Scheitern Aktivisten Unternehmens-, Industrie-Staaten gegenüber ernsthaften ökologischen Reform zu drücken, zu vereiteln kaiserlichen Abenteurertum oder eine humane Politik gegenüber den Massen der Armen der Welt stammt aus einer Unfähigkeit, die neuen Realitäten der Macht erkennen zu bauen. Das Paradigma der Macht hat sich unwiderruflich verändert und so muss das Paradigma der Widerstand verändern.

Es gab eine Menge OF TALK IM LETZTEN JAHR ÜBER WIE Barack Obama eine "transformative" PRESIDENT - aber echte Transformation, es stellt sich heraus, erfordert eine Menge MEHR ALS USWAHL ONE telegenen LEADER. TATSÄCHLICH Wenn diese Gegend ist GOING TO TAKE Jahren der Belagerung Kriegsführung gegen tief verwurzelte INTERESSEN, verteidigt ein zutiefst dysfunktionalen politischen SYSTEM.

Paul Krugman, "MISSING Richard Nixon," THE NEW YORK TIMES, 30. August 2009

Zu viele Widerstandsbewegungen weiter in die Fassade durch Wahlen legitimierte Politik, Parlamente, Verfassungen, bills of rights, Lobbyismus und das Aussehen einer rationalen Wirtschaft zu kaufen. Die Hebel der Macht haben sich so verschmutzt, dass die Bedürfnisse und die Stimmen der Bürger irrelevant geworden sind. Die Wahl von Barack Obama war ein weiterer Triumph der Propaganda über die Substanz und eine geschickte Manipulation und Verrat an der Öffentlichkeit durch die Massenmedien. Wir hielten Stil und Ethnizität - eine Werbe-Taktik erstmals von der United Colors of Benetton und Calvin Klein - für progressive Politik und echte Veränderung. Wir verwechseln, wie wir gemacht wurden, um mit Wissen zu fühlen. Aber das Ziel, wie bei allen Marken, war es passive Konsumenten Fehler eine Marke für eine Erfahrung zu machen. Obama, nun eine globale Berühmtheit, ist eine Marke. Er hatte fast keine Erfahrung neben zwei Jahre in den Senat, fehlte jegliche moralische Kern und wurde als alle Dinge für alle Menschen vertrieben. Die Obama-Kampagne wurde als Advertising Age 's Marketer of the Year für das Jahr 2008 und verdrängt Zweitplatzierten Apple und Zappos.com. Nehmen Sie es von den Profis. Marke Obama ist ein Vermarkter Traum. Präsident Obama tut eine Sache und Marke Obama bekommt man zu einem anderen zu glauben. Dies ist die Essenz erfolgreicher Werbung. Sie kaufen oder tun, was die Werbekunden, weil, wie sie sich fühlen Sie sich wünschen.

Wir leben in einer Kultur von dem, was Benjamin DeMott genannte "Junk-Politik." Junk Politik nicht fordern Gerechtigkeit oder die Wiedergutmachung von Rechten aus. Es ist immer personalisiert Probleme, anstatt sie zu klären. Sie meidet echte Debatte hergestellt Skandale, Promi-Klatsch und Brillen. Es Trompeten ewigen Optimismus, endlos lobt unsere moralische Stärke und Charakter, und kommuniziert in einem Wohlfühl-your-Schmerz Sprache. Das Ergebnis der Junk-Politik ist, dass sich nichts ändert ", das heißt Null Unterbrechung in die Prozesse und Praktiken, die bestehenden, Stellwerke der sozio-ökonomischen Vorteil zu stärken."

Die kulturelle Überzeugung, dass wir die Dinge durch Denken geschehen, durch die Visualisierung von ihnen wollen, indem Sie in unsere innere Stärke oder durch das Verständnis, dass wir wirklich außergewöhnlich sind, ist magisches Denken. Wir können immer mehr Geld verdienen, lernen Sie neue Quoten, mehr zu konsumieren Produkte und der Weiterentwicklung unserer Karriere, wenn wir genug Glauben haben. Dieses magische Denken, predigte uns quer durch das politische Spektrum von Oprah, Sport Promis, Hollywood-, Selbsthilfe-Gurus und Christian Demagogen, ist weitgehend verantwortlich für unsere wirtschaftliche und ökologische Kollaps, da jeder Cassandra, die es kommen sah als "negative entlassen wurde. "Dieser Glaube, der Männer und Frauen sich zu verhalten und zu handeln wie die kleinen Kinder erlaubt, diskreditiert berechtigten Bedenken und Ängste. Er verschlimmert Verzweiflung und Passivität. Sie fördert einen Zustand der Selbsttäuschung. Der Zweck, Struktur und Ziele des Ständestaates sind nie ernsthaft in Frage gestellt. In Frage zu stellen, um in Kritik an der Corporate kollektiven engagieren, ist es hinderlich sein und negativ. Und es hat pervers, wie wir sehen uns, unserer Nation und der natürlichen Welt. Das neue Paradigma der Macht, mit seinen bizarren Ideologie des grenzenlosen Fortschritt und unmöglichen Glück verbunden, hat ganze Nationen wandte, einschließlich der Vereinigten Staaten, zu Monstern.

Wir können in Kopenhagen marschieren. Wir können an Bill McKibben weltweite Tag des Klima-Protesten. Wir können Kompost in unseren Hinterhöfen und hängen unsere Wäsche zum Trocknen. Wir können Briefe an unsere gewählten Beamten zu schreiben und die Abstimmung für Barack Obama, aber die Macht-Elite ist unempfindlich gegen die Scharade der demokratischen Partizipation. Power ist in den Händen der moralischen und intellektuellen Trolle, die rücksichtslos zu schaffen sind ein System von Neo-Feudalismus und die Tötung des Ökosystems, dass die menschliche Spezies trägt. Und ansprechend ihrer besseren Natur, oder versuchen, die internen Hebel der Macht zu beeinflussen, wird nicht mehr funktionieren.

Wir werden uns nicht, vor allem in den Vereinigten Staaten, zu vermeiden unserer Götterdämmerung. Obama, wie Kanadas Premierminister Stephen Harper und die anderen Köpfe der Industrienationen, als feige ein Werkzeug des Ständestaates als George W. Bush unter Beweis gestellt. Unser demokratisches System hat, was der politische Philosoph Sheldon Wolin Etiketten invertierten Totalitarismus verwandelt. Inverted Totalitarismus, im Gegensatz zu klassischen Totalitarismus, nicht um ein Demagoge oder charismatischen Führer zu drehen. Es findet seinen Ausdruck in der Anonymität des Ständestaates. Es behauptet, die Demokratie, Patriotismus, eine freie Presse, parlamentarische Systeme und Verfassungen zu schätzen, während die Manipulation und korrumpieren internen Hebel zu unterlaufen und zu vereiteln demokratischen Institutionen. Politische Kandidaten sind in Volksabstimmungen von den Bürgern gewählt, sondern von einem Heer von Lobbyisten in Washington, Ottawa oder anderen Landeshauptstädten, die Autorin der Gesetzgebung ausgeschlossen und erhalten die Gesetzgeber, es weiterzugeben. Ein Corporate Media steuert fast alles, was wir lesen, sehen oder hören und erlegt eine milde einheitliche Auffassung. Die Massenkultur, Besitz und Verbreitung von Unternehmen, lenkt uns mit Wissenswertem, Brillen und Promi-Klatsch. In der klassischen totalitären Regimen, wie Nazi-Faschismus oder der sowjetische Kommunismus, war Ökonomie der Politik untergeordnet. "Unter umgekehrten Totalitarismus das Gegenteil der Fall ist", schreibt Wolin. "Wirtschaft die Politik beherrscht - und damit Herrschaft kommt verschiedenen Formen von Rücksichtslosigkeit."

Inverted Totalitarismus schwingt Gesamtleistung ohne Rückgriff auf gröbere Formen der Kontrolle, wie Gulags, Konzentrationslager oder Massenterrors. Es nutzt Wissenschaft und Technik für ihre dunklen Zwecke. Es erzwingt ideologische Gleichförmigkeit durch Massenkommunikation Systeme verschwenderischen Konsum als ein innerer Zwang zu vermitteln und unsere Illusionen von uns für die Wirklichkeit zu ersetzen. Es ist nicht gewaltsam zu unterdrücken, Dissidenten, solange diese Dissidenten wirkungslos bleiben. Und wie es uns lenkt es demontiert Produktionsstandorte, verwüstet Gemeinden, entfesselt Wellen des menschlichen Elends und Schiffe Arbeitsplätze in Länder, wo Faschisten und Kommunisten wissen, wie die Arbeitnehmer in Einklang zu halten. Es bedeutet all dies, während die Fahne und mouthing patriotischen Parolen. "Die Vereinigten Staaten haben sich zum Schauplatz, wie die Demokratie kann ohne zu scheinen, unterdrückt werden verwaltet werden", schreibt Wolin.

Die Praxis und die Psychologie der Werbung, die Herrschaft der "Marktkräfte" in vielen Arenen andere als die Märkte, die kontinuierliche technologische Fortschritte, die aufwendige Phantasien (Computerspiele, virtuelle Avatare, Raumfahrt) zu fördern, die Sättigung durch Massenmedien und Propaganda jeden Haushalt und der Übernahme der Universitäten haben die meisten von uns Geiseln gemacht. Die rot des Imperialismus, die immer als unvereinbar mit Demokratie, gesehen hat, das Militär und die Arme Hersteller monopolisieren 1000000000000 $ pro Jahr in der Abwehr-Ausgaben in den USA sogar als die Nation wirtschaftlichen Kollaps steht. Imperialismus immer militarisiert Innenpolitik. Und diese Militarisierung, wie Wolin Noten, kombiniert mit den kulturellen Fantasien der Heldenverehrung und Geschichten der einzelnen Fähigkeiten, ewige Jugendlichkeit, Schönheit durch Operation Aktion in Nanosekunden gemessen und ein Traum-beladenen Kultur der ständig wachsenden Kontrolle und die Möglichkeit, große Segmente zu trennen der Bevölkerung von der Realität. Wer die Bilder steuern uns. Und während wir durch die Zelluloid-Schatten an den Wänden von Platos Höhle, diese Corporate Kräfte hingerissen haben, preisen die Vorteile der Privatisierung, haben effektiv die Institutionen der sozialen Demokratie (Social Security, Gewerkschaften, Wohlfahrts-, öffentlichen Gesundheitswesens und des sozialen Wohnungsbaus) demontiert und wälzte den sozialen und politischen Ideale des New Deal. Die Befürworter der Globalisierung und des unregulierten Kapitalismus verschwenden keine Zeit mit der Analyse anderer Ideologien. Sie haben eine Ideologie, oder vielmehr ein Aktionsplan, der von einer Ideologie verteidigt wird, und sklavisch folgen. Wir auf der linken Seite haben Dutzende von Analysen der konkurrierenden Ideologien ohne kohärenten Plan unserer eigenen. Dies hat uns zappeln, während Corporate Kräfte rücksichtslos zu demontieren Zivilgesellschaft.

Wir sind durch eine Zivilisation der großen seismischen Auflösung leben. Die Ideologie der Globalisierung, wie alle "unausweichlich" utopischen Visionen, wird als Betrüger entlarvt. Die Machtelite, ratlos und verwirrt, klammert sich an die katastrophalen Prinzipien der Globalisierung und ihrer veralteten Sprache, um die sich abzeichnenden politischen und wirtschaftlichen Vakuum-Maske. Die absurde Idee, dass der Markt allein soll die wirtschaftliche und politische Konstrukte zu bestimmen führte Industrienationen auf andere Bereiche des menschlichen Bedeutung zu opfern - von der Arbeitsbedingungen, der Besteuerung, Kinderarbeit, Hunger, Gesundheit und Umweltverschmutzung - auf dem Altar des Freihandels. Er ließ die Armen der Welt schlechter geht und die Vereinigten Staaten mit den größten Defiziten - die nie zurückgezahlt werden können - in der Geschichte der Menschheit. Die massiven Rettungsaktionen, Konjunkturpakete, Giveaways und kurzfristigen Schulden, zusammen mit imperialen Kriege, die wir nicht mehr leisten können, verlassen die Vereinigten Staaten kämpfen um fast $ 5000000000000 in Fremdfinanzierung in diesem Jahr. Dies erfordert Washington zu versteigern über 96000000000 $ Schulden pro Woche. Einmal China und die ölreichen Staaten zu Fuß von unserer Schuld, die eines Tages zu geschehen hat, wird die Federal Reserve die Käufer der letzten Instanz geworden. Die Fed hat vielleicht so viel wie 2000 Milliarden neue Dollar in den letzten zwei Jahren gedruckt, und den Kauf dieses viel neue Schulden wird es sehen, in Kraft-, Druck-Billionen mehr. Dies ist, wenn die Inflation, und wahrscheinlich Hyperinflation, wird der Dollar in Junk einzuschalten. Und an diesem Punkt das gesamte System zusammenbricht.

IMAGINE Führende Ökonomen verbrachte ein wenig Zeit in der Wildnis. VIELLEICHT DIE Chef der Federal Reserve könnte Ein Nachmittag stand am Mund des Tsin RIVER ON wenig erforschten LOST CENTRAL Alaskas Küste verbringen, WIE DER SLEEK STELLEN Silver Salmon ÜBERALL schwoll UPSTREAM PUSHING gegen ihn.

EF SCHUMACHER GESELLSCHAFT, SMALLISBEAUTIFUL.ORG

Alle traditionellen Normen und Überzeugungen sind in einer schweren Wirtschaftskrise erschüttert. Die sittliche Ordnung auf den Kopf gestellt. Die ehrliche und fleißige werden, während die Gangster, Schieber und Spekulanten zu Fuß entfernt mit Millionen vernichtet. Die Elite wird sich zurückziehen, wie Naomi Klein in The Shock Doctrine geschrieben hat, in gated communities, wo sie Zugang zu Dienstleistungen, Essen, Unterkunft und Sicherheit verweigert, um den Rest von uns haben wird. Wir beginnen eine Zeit, in der Geschichte der Menschheit, wenn es nur Meister und Sklaven werden. Die Corporate Kräfte, die versuchen, ein Bündnis mit der radikalen christlichen Rechten und andere Extremisten machen will, nutzt Angst, Chaos, die Wut auf die herrschenden Eliten und das Gespenst der Linken Opposition und den Terrorismus zu drakonische Kontrollen aufzuerlegen, rücksichtslos auszulöschen Opposition Bewegungen. Und während sie es tun, werden sie schwenkten die amerikanische Flagge und skandierten Parolen patriotischen, vielversprechende Recht und Ordnung und umklammerte das christliche Kreuz. Totalitarismus, George Orwell wies darauf hin, ist nicht so sehr ein Zeitalter des Glaubens, sondern ein Alter von Schizophrenie. "Eine Gesellschaft wird totalitär, wenn ihre Struktur wird schamlos künstlichen" Orwell schrieb. "Das ist, wenn seine herrschende Klasse hat ihre Funktion verloren, aber gelingt es, Festhalten an Macht durch Gewalt oder Betrug." Unsere Eliten haben Betrug verwendet. Force ist alles, was sie noch haben.

Unsere mittelmäßigen und bankrotten Eliten versucht verzweifelt, ein System, das nicht gerettet werden können sparen. Noch wichtiger ist, versuchen sie, sich selbst zu retten. Alle Versuche, innerhalb dieses verfallene System zu arbeiten und diese Klasse von Machthabern wird als nutzlos erweisen. Und Widerstand muss den rauen neuen Realität einer globalen, kapitalistischen Ordnung, die Leistung durch immer Bauformen brutaler und offener Repression festhalten zu reagieren. Sobald Kredit austrocknet für den durchschnittlichen Bürger, schafft einmal massiven Arbeitslosigkeit eine dauerhafte und wütend Unterschicht und die billigen Industriegütern, dass die Opiate unserer Ware Kultur verschwinden, werden wir wahrscheinlich in ein System, das mehr ähnelt klassischen Totalitarismus zu entwickeln. Gröberen, mehr gewalttätige Formen der Repression werden müssen als die weicheren Mechanismen der Kontrolle durch invertierte Totalitarismus begünstigt brechen eingesetzt werden.

Es ist kein Zufall, dass die Wirtschaftskrise wird mit der ökologischen Krise zusammen. In seinem Buch The Great Transformation (1944), legte Karl Polanyi auf die verheerenden Folgen - die Depressionen, Kriegen und Totalitarismus - das herauswachsen einer sogenannten Selbst-regulierten freien Marktes. Er begriff, daß "der Faschismus, wie der Sozialismus, wurde in einer Marktgesellschaft, die Funktion verweigert verwurzelt." Er warnte, dass ein Finanzsystem immer zufällt, ohne schwere staatliche Kontrolle, in eine Mafia Kapitalismus - und eine Mafia politische System - das ist eine gute Beschreibung unserer finanziellen und politischen Struktur. Ein sich selbst regulierenden Markt, Polanyi schrieb, dreht sich die Menschen und die natürliche Umwelt in Waren, eine Situation, die Zerstörung der Gesellschaft und der natürlichen Umwelt sorgt. Der freie Markt die Annahme, dass Natur und Mensch Objekte, deren Wert vom Markt bestimmt werden, kann jeder für Gewinn bis zur Erschöpfung oder Zusammenbruch ausgeschöpft werden. Eine Gesellschaft, die nicht mehr erkennt, dass die Natur und das menschliche Leben eine heilige Dimension, einen inneren Wert hinaus Geldwert haben begeht kollektiven Selbstmord. Solche Gesellschaften kannibalisieren sich, bis sie sterben. Das ist das, was wir durchmachen.

Wenn wir in sich geschlossene Strukturen, diejenigen, die so wenig Schaden wie möglich für die Umwelt tun zu bauen, können wir das Wetter der kommenden Zusammenbruch. Diese Aufgabe durch die Existenz von kleinen, körperlichen Enklaven, die den Zugang zu einer nachhaltigen Landwirtschaft haben wird erreicht werden, sind in der Lage, sich so weit wie möglich zu trennen von der kommerziellen Kultur und kann weitgehend autark. Diese Gemeinden müssen Wände gegen elektronische Propaganda und befürchten, dass über den Äther wird gepumpt werden zu bauen. Kanada wird wahrscheinlich ein gastfreundlicher Ort, um diese als die Vereinigten Staaten, da Amerikas starke Unterströmung von Gewalt zu tun. Aber in jedem Land, werden diejenigen, die überleben, isolierten Gebieten des Landes sowie Entfernung von städtischen Gebieten, die der Lebensmittel-Wüsten in den Innenstädten sehen, sowie wilde Gewalt, ausgelaugt durch die Stadtlandschaft als produzieren müssen und Waren werden teuer und staatlicher Repression wird härter und härter.

Die zunehmend offene Anwendung von Gewalt durch die Eliten, die Kontrolle zu behalten sollten nicht zu Ende Akte des Widerstands. Akte des Widerstands sind moralische Handlungen. Sie beginnen, weil die Menschen des Gewissens der moralische Imperativ zu verstehen, um Systeme von Missbrauch und Willkür Herausforderung. Sie sollten durchgeführt werden, nicht weil sie effektiv sind, sondern weil sie Recht haben. Diejenigen, die diese Handlungen beginnen, sind immer nur wenige und entließ von denen, die ihre Feigheit verstecken sich hinter ihren Zynismus. Aber der Widerstand jedoch marginal, weiterhin das Leben in einer Welt im Überfluss in den Tod zu bestätigen. Es ist der höchste Akt des Glaubens, die höchste Form der Spiritualität und allein macht Hoffnung möglich. Diejenigen, die durchgeführt großen Taten des Widerstands oft opferten ihre Sicherheit und Komfort, oft verbrachte Zeit im Gefängnis und in einigen Fällen getötet wurden. Sie verstanden, dass, um im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes zu leben, als freie und unabhängige Menschen existieren, auch unter dem dunkelsten Nacht der staatlichen Repression, meinte zu trotzen Ungerechtigkeit.

Wenn der Dissident lutherischer Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer aus seiner Zelle in einem Nazi-Gefängnis am Galgen genommen wurde, waren seine letzten Worte: "Das ist für mich das Ende, sondern auch der Anfang." Bonhoeffer wusste, dass die meisten Bürger in seiner Nation Komplizen durch ihr Schweigen in einem riesigen Unternehmen des Todes. Doch so hoffnungslos schien es in dem Moment, bekräftigte er, was wir alle zu bejahen. Er hat den Tod nicht vermeiden. Er wusste nicht, wie ein individuelles, unverwechselbares, zu überleben. Aber er verstand, daß sein Widerstand und sogar seinen Tod Taten der Liebe waren. Er kämpfte und starb für die Heiligkeit des Lebens. Er gab auch zu denen, die nicht beigetreten sind ihm andere Erzählung, und seine Missachtung letztlich seine Henker verurteilt.

Wir müssen auch weiterhin zu widerstehen, aber tun Sie dies jetzt mit dem discomforting Erkenntnis, dass wesentliche Veränderung wird wahrscheinlich nie in unserem Leben vorkommen. Das macht Widerstand härter. Sie verschiebt den Widerstand der Sachanlagen und der unmittelbaren dem amorphen und dem unbestimmt. Aber aufgeben Akte des Widerstands ist geistige und intellektuelle Tod. Es ist auf die unmenschlichen Ideologie des totalitären Kapitalismus hinzugeben. Akte des Widerstands wach halten andere Erzählung, Sustain unsere Integrität und befähigen andere, die wir nie treffen können, um aufzustehen und tragen die Flamme gehen wir zu ihnen. Kein Akt des Widerstands ist nutzlos, ob es sich weigert, Steuern zu zahlen, kämpfen für eine Tobin-Steuer, zusammen, um die neoklassische Ökonomie Paradigmenwechsel, den Widerruf einer Corporate Charter, hält globale Internet-Abstimmungen oder mit Twitter zu einer Kettenreaktion der Ablehnung gegen die Katalyse neoliberalen Ordnung. Aber wir werden Widerstand leisten müssen und dann finden den Glauben, dass der Widerstand sich lohnt, weil wir nicht sofort ändern, werden die schrecklichen Konfiguration der Macht. Und in dieser langen, langen Krieg eine Gemeinschaft uns stützen, emotional und materiell, wird der Schlüssel zu einem Leben des Trotzes werden.

Der Philosoph Theodor Adorno schrieb, dass die ausschließliche Beschäftigung mit persönlichen Anliegen und Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber dem Leiden anderer über die Selbst-identifizierte Gruppe ist es, was letztendlich gemacht Faschismus und der Holocaust möglich: "Die Unfähigkeit, mit anderen zu identifizieren war fraglos die wichtigste psychologische Bedingung für die Tatsache, dass etwas wie Auschwitz sich inmitten der mehr oder weniger zivilisierten und unschuldige Menschen aufgetreten sind. "

Die Gleichgültigkeit gegenüber dem Leid anderer und die höchste Erhebung des Selbst ist, was der Ständestaat, in uns zu wecken versucht. Es nutzt Angst, ebenso wie Hedonismus, um menschliches Mitgefühl zu vereiteln. Wir werden auch weiterhin die Mechanismen der dominanten Kultur Schlacht, wenn aus keinem anderen Grund als durch kleine, sogar winzige Handlungen, unsere gemeinsame Menschlichkeit zu bewahren. Wir müssen der Versuchung, in uns selbst zu falten und die Grausamkeit vor unserer Haustür zu ignorieren widerstehen. Hoffnung währt in diesen oft unmerklichen Trotzreaktionen. Dieser Trotz, diese Fähigkeit, nein zu sagen, was ist der psychopathische Kräfte in der Steuerung unserer Energiesysteme zu beseitigen suchen. Solange wir bereit sind, trotzen diese Kräfte haben wir eine Chance, wenn nicht für uns selbst, dann zumindest für diejenigen, die folgen werden. Solange wir trotzen diesen Kräften haben wir am Leben bleiben. Und jetzt ist dies der einzige Sieg möglich.

Anteil

Die wirkliche Krise stehen wir vor

Die Klimaverhandlungen in Kopenhagen - die 15 th Konferenz aller Parteien des UNFCCC - haben nun zu einem Ende gekommen. Die Hoffnung war, dass die versammelten Führer der Welt und die Politiker wäre ein rechtlich verbindliches Abkommen, dass die globalen Emissionen von Treibhausgasen drastisch sinken, wie die Wissenschaft gefordert, Begrenzung des Umfangs des Klimawandels bereits über uns gekommen wäre geschaffen haben.

Aber das ist, was es war - eine Hoffnung. Der Copenhagen Accord lediglich zum Ausdruck, dass die Führer der Welt zu akzeptieren, dass der Klimawandel zu sollte unter 2 Grad Celsius begrenzt werden, liefert aber keine Aktion oder die Verpflichtung dazu. 20 Jahre präsentiert die Wissenschaft an die Politik, 2 Jahre Arbeit in Richtung dieser Konferenz, 2 Wochen Verhandlungen über den Text, und alles, was erreicht worden ist ist ein umstrittenes Stück Papier behauptet, dass unsere Führer möchten Klimachaos begrenzt zu sehen, aber nicht genug, um actually put anything on the line. Meanwhile, apathy grips the majority of those not lobbying the leaders for change, and consumerist society and industrial civilisation continue to wreak their path of destruction unabated. Despite the best efforts of the environmental and social justice movements, we seem to be the closest we've ever been to the brink of defeat. Warum?

For years the strategy of those in the movement has been that if we can convince the public, sceptics and politicians of the great destruction being wrought on people and planet, then they'll automatically support action to stop it. But even with the majority believing that global warming is anthropogenic, knowing about the suffering and poverty of the third world and all the injustices present in our society, this has not happened. After years of campaigning, of laying out the facts and science, of presenting the unfolding tragedy of climate change, we've finally reached the core of the crisis. Most people now know and accept the science. They know what the future holds if they don't act. They know the suffering that grips and will tighten its grip on humanity. And they don't care. It can be shrugged off, ignored and forgotten about. All they really care about is themselves, and they reckon they'll be fine. Compassion for those suffering and being destroyed in their name is suppressed. They simply don't care.

And that's the problem. This is why the emerging crisis has occurred, this is why the environment has continually been trashed, this is why injustice continues and grows at an ever increasing pace. It's because society as a whole doesn't care. The environmental and social crises enveloping humanity is a crisis of compassion, not of some specific technologies, countries or policies. There is no doubt these are factors in the crisis, contributing to and accelerating it, but the true source is psychological. Climate chaos, social injustice, tyranny and oppression are merely symptoms of a deeper psychological crisis at the heart of civilisation.

That is not to say that each individual is inherently heartless or a monster, and that it is their fault they are like that. Many people are capable of great acts of compassion, selflessness and generosity. But each and every one of us has been taught and imbued with the collective values of society and civilisation, and that collective story is one based on fear, selfishness and greed. Consumerism marks the perfection of this social ideal, but it has existed as long as civilisation itself, indeed it was the necessary conditions that allowed the first empires to grow in the first place. Each of us has been indirectly taught and indoctrinated to accept that the happiness of our self is prime, that we are all separate and different from each other and everything else, and that to show compassion and kindness is to be weak. But it is this selfishness and this lack of compassion that drives our collective ability to be able to allow the perpetuation of environmental and social injustice, and led to their creation in the first the place. It is no understatement to say that this central story of our society and civilisation will ultimately lead to the destruction of humanity and its home, consigning billions to chronic suffering in the process.

Once we can see and grasp this, it is imperative to act. There is no use in blaming ourselves for holding this unspoken agreement – it was not our fault or our parents fault to accept the only version of reality presented and taught to us. Forgive yourself of the past. But once we realise what is happening we bear responsibility for the consequences of our implicit support of this agreement. And if we see those consequences as unacceptable, we must decide to act as a result. But what to do? We seek the big, effective and seemingly magical solutions and silver-bullets. But there is no way to somehow make everyone adopt a now societal foundation and make everyone spontaneously more compassionate, breaking millennia of civilised dogma in the short time available to us. The only thing we can definitely change is ourselves and how we interact with those around us. We must act with compassion and cultivate selflessness in our own lives, using the ancient practice of mindfulness for example, in order to help change the default setting of fear and selfishness and effect all who we interact with in our lives with this new story. We must create a new central story for our society that holds up selflessness, compassion and harmony over our differences.

But many will say this is not nearly enough, that this is such a small action as to be insignificant and that we don't have enough time to change the established dogma. And to them I say – what else can we do? Do we only fight for and do what is right if we can be sure of winning? Do we not do it anyway even if our doom seems assured? Or do we do it anyway as the only responsible, noble and compassionate path available, even if defeat stares us in the face? I choose to fight for justice anyway, armed with the seeds of compassion and justice.

Und wir wissen nicht erst schaffen diese neue Geschichte für die Gesellschaft und dementsprechend zu handeln, wir schaffen auch die praktischen Grundlagen für diese neue Gesellschaft mehr Verantwortung zu. Es gibt bereits viele Aktivisten schaffen und helfen, lokalen Gruppen, Community Building Gärten nach den Prinzipien der Permakultur unterrichtet, beginnend städtischen Kleingärten, die Unterstützung Community Supported Agriculture-Projekte im Land, ihre eigenen erneuerbaren (und damit unabhängig) Energieversorgung mit lokalen wilden Lebensmittel-und Nahrungssuche, den Aufbau lokaler stabilen Zustand Volkswirtschaften und Währungen, die in Arbeiter-Genossenschaften, Kauf von Lebensmitteln über die Nahrung co-ops, Förderung lokaler und frei zugänglichen Kultur und die Verbesserung ihrer Nachbarschaft, zum Beispiel. Sobald genug von diesen lokalen Projekten existieren und zu überlappen beginnen, ein Netzwerk von Alternativen zum Mainstream-Gesellschaft geschaffen werden kann, den Aufbau lokaler Belastbarkeit und den Menschen ermöglichen, mehr unabhängig von der Zivilisation leben und legen damit den Grundstein für diese neue Gesellschaft. Zusammen mit den neuen gesellschaftlichen Geschichte, kann dieses Netz von lokalen Aktivismus ein Phönix geworden, um aus der verfallenden Gebäude der alten Gesellschaft entstehen. Dies ist nichts weniger als Masse kulturellen zivilen Ungehorsams, eine kulturelle Aufstand gegen das Konsumdenken, Globalisierung und die industrielle Zivilisation. Es gibt keine Führer dieser Bewegung, keine Gremien oder Organisationen, um es zu führen; Desorganisation ist unsere Stärke, Verhinderung der Korruption und Untätigkeit, dass alle Bürokratien zu züchten.

Ich möchte nicht, um eine Liste der "Dinge, die Sie tun sollten" oder ein bestimmtes Rezept für Ihre eigenen Handlungen Problem, aber ich finde eine einfache Sammlung von Ideen helfen können, um zu bestätigen, dass ich in die richtige Richtung:

  • Schließen Sie mit der Natur und unserer lokalen Landschaft
  • Schließen Sie mit unseren Fähigkeiten und praktische Potential
  • Schließen Sie mit uns selbst, unsere wahren Werte und unser Mitgefühl
  • Schließen Sie mit unserer Gemeinde
  • Helfen Sie anderen Reconnect durch Unterminierung der Werkzeuge der Trennung, die uns getrennt zu halten (siehe Keith Farnish die ausgezeichnete Arbeit an diesem)

Unter diesen Titeln die Aktionen erforderlich, um diese neue Gesellschaft zu schaffen und zu demontieren Zivilisation gefunden werden kann. Gelegentlich, wenn ich verzweifelt am Zustand der Welt und wie wenig ich glaube, ich kann in Reaktion zu tun, habe ich oft zu dieser Liste zurückkehren und sehen, was ich tue, dass die Arbeit zur Erreichung dieser Ziele, und dies kann helfen, bestätigen die Kraft und das Potenzial der was wir tun.

Und was machen wir gegen sein Problem? Mit dem Scheitern der Bemühungen zur Eindämmung des Klimawandels, die Nationalstaaten der Welt wird beginnen, sich selbst an erster Stelle, damit beginnen, ihre Grenzen zu stärken und zu erhöhen internen Polizeiarbeit mit dem Chaos von Nahrungsmittelknappheit, Flüchtlinge und Katastrophen zu bewältigen. Spannungen zwischen Ländern über immer knapper Ressourcen wie Wasser wachsen, was zu unvermeidlichen bewaffneten Auseinandersetzungen. Zu Hause, Regierungen wird immer bedrückender, um fertig zu werden, wird Rassismus und Nationalismus Überspannungsschutz und Extremisten beginnen zu agitieren. Schließlich wird der traditionelle Nationalstaat selbst brechen, aber in der Zwischenzeit wird es kämpfen bis zum Tod. Also haben wir nicht nur uns bewegen gegen den Egoismus und die Gier, die die Krisen, vor denen wir erstellt haben, können wir auch gegenüber dem Wegwerfen Todeskampf der Zivilisation und der Faschismus und das Chaos wird es zu laichen. Wir müssen die Fackelträger auf eine bessere Art, die Dinge durch dunkle Zeiten.

So wird der Anruf einfach. Sie haben gesehen, die Politiker versagen. Sie haben gesehen, die Aktivisten nicht. Sie haben die industrielle Zivilisation nicht gesehen. So, jetzt liegt es an uns. Schließen Sie mit der Natur, Ihre praktischen Möglichkeiten, dein Selbst, verbinden Sie Ihre Gemeinde und anderen helfen, die Praxis Mitgefühl und Achtsamkeit, zu fördern und starten in jedem Projekt, mit deren Hilfe diese Ziele zu erreichen kann, und tun es jetzt. Die Zeit für Hoffnung in das bestehende System ist vorbei - sie und ihre fehlerhafte Geschichte hat sich bewährt, gebrochen zu werden. Die Schwere der Krise Anforderungen, die wir jetzt handeln, und dass wir aufgeben Politiker und Führer, die noch so viel geliefert versprach so wenig. Gemeinsam schaffen wir die mitfühlende, verantwortungsvolle und gerechte Gesellschaft wir so lange waren suchen. Der Aufruf ist einfach - do it yourself - es ist die einzige vernünftige und mitfühlend, was zu tun.

Anteil

Kreative Aktivismus: Die Blogger, die brüllte

Während eine Menge Leute über Adam Sacks 'zugegebenermaßen brillante und Grist-breaking Artikel namens "sprechen den Irrtum des Climate Activism ", leise und ohne Fanfare Dave Pollard wurde unterziehen eigene seismische Verschiebung. Dave runs the grandly titled blog “ How to Save the World “, and up till recently he has used his expertise in behavioural analysis to build up a workbook containing all sorts of important and useful ideas for creating global change.

Es scheint, dass nach mehr als fünf Jahren fleißig bloggen, Dave endlich geschnappt, und etwas, das auf der Oberfläche sieht harmlos produziert, die aber in Wirklichkeit ist höchst subversiv und sehr erfrischend. He calls it “ Creative Activism ” — I call it “Personal Revolution”:

Today I joined the Applied Improv Network, in part to signal my move from passive writer and idea-ist and story-teller to activist. Eines der Dinge, Ich mag über Improv ist, dass es vollständig auf das Jetzt konzentriert. Es ist aktiv und aufmerksam. In an earlier article on Improv I defined it as “minimally structured play”:

It includes conversation, group stand-up, jazz improv, dancing, cooperative games (frisbee etc.), flirtation, play (with those who have not forgotten how), and perhaps even sex…

Die Kompetenzen, die es tun gut sind: aktives Zuhören, volle Aufmerksamkeit, erfinden, sich selbst auszudrücken, schnell zu reagieren, Erinnern, Lehr-/ helfen schnell, lernen schnell, Loslassen und Verpachtung kommen. Es ist ein zen-artigen Zustand, den Sie in erhalten können, wenn Sie haben, und üben, diese Kompetenzen: Es ist eine Kombination von extremer Wachsamkeit und extreme Entspannung. That's only a paradox to the incompetent. Wohl ist es unser natürlicher Zustand.

In my most recent article on the subject I argued that what we must do, as individuals, and as members of communities and organizations, is to become more adaptive and improvisational, because the important challenges we will face in this century do not lend themselves to political or economic or planned solutions, and they will introduce permanent shifts, not the temporary and cyclical ones we've been accustomed to. Wir sind lange über das Stadium der Kontrolle über unser eigenes Schicksal - die Natur ist gekommen, um Fledermäuse, und wir sind dabei, unsere ephemeren "Sieg" über ihr schnell und völlig verschwinden zu sehen. But she has never been our opponent. She is just here to clean up the mess we couldn't clean up ourselves. Wir sind auf ihr Team, und es ist Zeit, dass wir ihr geholfen den Job zu erledigen.

Also, was sollen wir tun? Woher wissen wir, wie Aktivisten, kreativ und menschlich zu behindern, zu stören, zu sabotieren und zu stoppen diese und andere Organisationen, die uns töten und zerstören unsere Welt heute?:

    die großen Verschmutzer Kohlenstoff: Bergbau, Berggipfel Entfernung und Verbrennung von Kohle, die Ölsande, Offshore-Schiefer, die Automobil-und Straßenbau-Industrie, die Öl-Explorations-Unternehmen (vor allem in der Arktis), die Flugzeug-und Luftfahrtindustrie, das Militär, der Zementindustrie, der Klima-Branche
    the nuclear industry
    die giftigen industriellen Landwirtschaft Industrie (insbesondere Werk Betriebsleiter und andere große Nutzer von Wasser-und Öl-basierten Chemikalien)
    der Bauindustrie (Herstellung billig crappy Häuser und Energieverschwendung Einkaufszentren)
    die Politiker, die nicht zu gewinnen und verheerenden Kriegen (einschließlich verdammt Obama in Afghanistan) Lohn
    the forest industry, especially clear-cutters, tropical and old-growth forest destroyers
    the industrial fishing industry
    the multinational corporations, arms dealers and other gangsters in affluent nations who mindlessly exploit and desolate struggling nations for the profit of a tiny elite
    die Politiker und andere korrupte corporatists, die systematisch zu nutzen und brutal die Schwachen, die Armen, die Kranken, die Entrechteten und Schwachen (manifestiert durch unser Strafvollzug, unsere Behandlung von psychisch Kranken und der nicht versichert ist, und eine "Gerechtigkeit", das bestraft Opfer und Täter Belohnungen)
    der Finanzindustrie, dass die Mittel alle der oben genannten, und die brinksmanship spielt mit unserer Wirtschaft durch Übernahme Groteske und unrepayable Schulden, die übrig bleibt, zusammen mit den anderen toxischen Produkten unserer industriellen Wachstums Wirtschaft, mit meinem zukünftigen Generationen behandelt werden
    the mainstream media whose propaganda machine absurdly oversimplifies what it reports, and fails to report what is really important
    die Ausbildung der Industrie, die uns Dumbs hinunter, schlägt Individualität, Kreativität und Autonomie von uns und Pfund uns zu glauben, dass unsere Art zu leben nur so können wir leben, ist
    die Pharma-und Versicherungsbranche, die Krankheit und Unwissenheit und Angst zu nutzen und behindern die Bereitstellung von benötigten medizinischen Produkten und Dienstleistungen für diejenigen, die sie wirklich brauchen, weil sie nicht rentabel sind

Wir haben die Demonstrationen und die Petitionen und die Blockaden und den sanften Formen der Sabotage versucht, und alles, was sie zu erreichen, ist, uns getötet, eingesperrt, tasered, die schwarze Liste gesetzt, brutal und gekennzeichnet als Terroristen, indem sie ihre politischen Freunde, thuggish Polizei-und Sicherheitsbehörden und willfährigen Medien, um uns als Kriminelle zu malen.

We need to organize and get more creative. Wir müssen Technologie nutzen, um in virtuellen Weise organisieren, vernetzten und kooperativen nicht inszeniert, so können wir nicht einfach unterwandert werden und aufgerundet. We need to use imagination and ingenuity to disrupt and dismantle the operations of the corporatist criminals in ways that don't get caught until they're too late, and in ways that don't get us caught. We need to hit them from a million points at once, coordinated but independent, so they are so busy trying to deflect us and deal with our successes that they simply never get operational again. Understand, they're massively centralized, and hence enormously vulnerable. Es ist eine äußerst fragile System, das sie zu enormen Kosten, eine, die auseinander fallen wird kraft seiner schieren massiv und schwerfällig Größe erhalten sind. Wenn wir schlau sind, können wir sie aufhalten. Wir müssen herausfinden und nutzen ihre Schwachpunkte - sie sind völlig abhängig von billigen zuverlässigen Strom, Öl, Wasser und Telekommunikation zum Beispiel. Wir machen damit sie so frustriert, dass sie aufgeben, nehmen ihre enorme Nest-Eier von Geld und einfach aufhören.

Wir müssen aufhören, sie zu bekämpfen zu ihren Bedingungen und zu stoppen Effekthascherei für die Medien, die uns zu nichts. Die Maßnahmen unseres Erfolges wird eine konsequente Rückgang des BIP und einem entsprechenden Anstieg in mehr relevanten Indizes von echtem Wohlbefinden, und in eine gerechte Verteilung des Reichtums. Und, natürlich, einen dramatischen Rückgang der Treibhausgas-Emissionen.

Um dies alles begann, müssen wir reden. One-on-one, in small groups, in unofficial meetups and conferences. Wir brauchen einen Namen, was wir für sind, sagt nicht, was wir gegen sind. Our product will be practical ideas and actions on how to stop the worst aspects and abuses of the industrial growth economy, relentlessly.

We must put the corporatist criminals out of business. So wie die Menschen in manchen Vierteln haben ihre Stadtteile zurück von Straßengangs durch kollektive Maßnahmen ergriffen, indem sie sich zu ihnen, ist es Zeit für uns, kollektive Strategien, die unsere belagerten Planeten Rücknahme aus dem korporatistischen Verbrecher, die Brutalisierung und terrorisieren entwickeln uns und unsere Welt.

Dies wird ein rohes Bewegung, ein Improvisations-eins, eins, wo wir sagen und handeln, was wir kümmern uns um das, was wir fühlen. We'll get terrible PR, because the corporatists run the media and have all the money, but we'll have to put up with that, and keep working to get the job done. We have to keep asking: What kind of a world do we want, and want to leave as a legacy for future generations, and what do we have to do to achieve it? Das wird uns leiten, uns sagen, ohne Bedarf für eine zentrale Richtung, genau das, was wir tun müssen.

Dies ist nur ein Samenkorn Ich pflanze. Es fühlt sich richtig. Es fühlt sich an wie es an der Zeit für sie ist.

Ich fühle mich endlich bereit sich zu befreien von dem, was wurde hält mich zurück, was hat mich sitzen auf dem Sims für zwei Jahre und forderte mich auf zu handeln, aber nicht handeln. Ich denke, der Durchbruch war, als ich, dass, um wirklich zu verändern, um wirklich zu bewegen, Sie lassen Ihr Herz gebrochen haben realisiert. You have to stop living in your head, inside those stories, thinking yourself to death, and ask yourself: What do you feel? Was wissen Sie wirklich über Pflege Und dann lassen Sie diese Gefühle pour out:? Die Wut. The rage. The loathing of those who keep fucking up this world. Der Selbsthass zu realisieren wir tun nichts, um sie zu stoppen, dass wir tatsächlich sind Teil des Problems. Die Trauer über das sechste große Aussterben der Gaia Leiden.

Anteil

Who You Going to Call?: People and Possibilities in the Coming Collapse

Reprinted from Reality Sandwich .

If you want to go fast, walk alone. If you want to go far, go together.

Whilst, like you, I've read many a tale of imminent ecological collapse, impending disaster, and fervent fear mongering within the pages of some of our more dubious dailies, I could never say I'd been “shaken to the core” in terms of impact to my everyday life. Obviously I'd had a certain appreciation for the gravitas of the climate and resource situation — just enough to become involved in the UK transition town movement, founding Transition Town Wandsworth in SW London, and even persuading our local council to give us “waste” land to turn around into community gardens. And of course, I've seen all those documentaries, from Chris Martenson's excellent Crash Course, through to the ultra bleak End of Suburbia, and onto the more hopeful Power of Community, yet the ingrained inertia of routine remained.

“What's it going to take to wake you up?,” you may ask. Indeed, my — and almost everyone else's — determined denial of the coming tsunami of change seems to be a very interesting (but not very helpful) by-product of our information saturated media existence. Perhaps the picture is too big for one mind to get a handle on, or maybe we're overly skeptical, because of a saturation of conflicting data, and wary of misinformation — throwing out the baby of facts with the bathwater of sensationalist dross? My personal opinion is that most may only make the necessary maneuvers when their direct interests are perceived to be under threat — sad but true.

Or maybe the situation will just change in time (although I don't think we have too much more of that) as different perspectives dawn. It certainly did for me.

It was only two more straws that finally broke this particular camel's back. Rob Stewart's excellent Shark Water, a film that pulls no punches documenting the hellish worldwide decline of 90% of shark species as a result of a needless finning orgy to fill the stomachs of the Eastern rich, directly followed by a reading of a particularly unsettling Friends of the Earth report, Climate Code Red. I finally internalised the idea that yes, we are actually all screwed. Now, today, this generation, in our own backyard, your life and the life of everyone you know RIGHT NOW. There is no room for any more complacency — THIS. IS. IT. Needless to add, for me, all the dots have very much joined.

“Well now,” you might say from behind your hastily Googled climate models, government reports and caseloads of petroleum dollar funded refutations,”'there's no need to worry, as it is a fact that the whole solar system is warming.” Well friend,”so what?,” is my response to that particular short cut to thinking. Even if it's true that it's all a cunning ruse orchestrated by the PTB to raise revenue or put a clamp on your “way of life,” what about all the other data? What about the disappearing rain forests, species extinction, increasing seawater acidification, depleted fish stocks, GM contamination of the biosphere? Is it all an exaggeration? Are you prepared to bet thousands of carefully balanced eco-systems, the future of our descendents, the future of hundreds of thousands of species and everything that nature has attained so far (including us) on your own opinion? As the Climate Code Red report states, you probably wouldn't travel by airline if the risk of crashing was 1 in 1000, yet we're prepared to bet EVERYTHING on lesser odds. A risk only the insane would take (no offence if you are crazy, you are absolved, but please turn out the lights when you leave the room).

Now I'm not going to deny that little red devils routinely prod at my best intentions or slam the door to my optimism, but these facts even out-do the worst my sometimes-Sunday-night pessimism can conjure up. In short, it is time for action. But I'm not advocating anarchy, stepping out with the sandwich board, or even escaping into some new-age wishful group-think. We know the risk, so the time for business-as-usual navel gazing has now passed; we need to take action; it's not easy, but you'd be surprised what could be achieved. For example, I live and work in London, around people who most of the time seem as indifferent to what's coming as they are to each other. Yet plunge them into an emergency situation, the Blitz, IRA, or bombs on the tube, and time and again they step up and act together. So regardless of the drag of the day-to-day chains of obligation typical of the western lifestyle, I think we're capable of making ready for the fast approaching day when they break irrevocably; clear the decks on our own terms, as we don't want to merely react.

But it can only happen if we act together.

Whenever there's a catastrophe under way, it helps to start by creating a bit of space — not only for the casualty (the environment), but also for those on the scene (us). It allows a proper evaluation of what needs to be done. As the repetitive riffs from the media become ever more conflicted and frantic, now's the time to create just enough space for your own story to grow. As I'm sure you're already aware, fixations on incessant fear mongering, blind chattering from the “celebrity” circus, and the monotonous arm lock of pop culture can play havoc with your ability to actually think for, and be, yourself. How about you stop absorbing other people's junk (even mine) and make your own with your own (community/ family) — it's what you're here for. It will also prevent you from panicking.

What I'm suggesting here is, aside from the somewhat run of the mill act of distancing yourself from all the crazes and cravings of consumerism (giving all the stuff you don't need away, giving up on the pre-packed lifestyle), is some kind of commitment to the consequences of your lifestyle. It might sound like an easy deal, until you realise that I am definitely NOT talking about your own desires to take more than you need, follow your personal ambitions and appetites, or ignore the realities of where you live. Given the way the future is shaping up these things have probably become a liability anyway — they certainly are to the planet.

No, the best thing you can do is to wake up to the precarious situation you've found yourself in. When it all goes down, on whom are you going to call? Where's your next meal coming from? What are the origins of the resources you depend on and are you capable of emulating them if/ when the plug is pulled? Did you think we could carry on doing what we're doing in this way forever? (Well, speaking personally, I did actually.) Finally, do you think that any authority actually gives a damn about you?

Maybe what we should all be doing is getting out from the shadow of all those screens and becoming well acquainted with the people and possibilities of where we live. After all, pretty soon we may have to find allies in the former who can help you fully make use of the latter. If we strengthen our ties to our locality, we're all the more likely to ride out any big waves of change headed our way. I'm talking community gardens, knitting circles, brewing collectives, sports teams, musical associations, recycling and composting committees, swap shops, social events, and children's herb patches. Do whatever suits you and your particular neck of the woods, but try and be inclusive of everyone — you don't just want the”'usual suspects” (white, educated, left leaning folk) involved. The best way is to appeal to everyone through their interests, not through your own dogma.

So is binding to your immediate surroundings what you call an effective response to species extinction and ecological collapse? Can getting to know your neighbours make a jot of difference now that so many of our bridges are already burned? I believe it can. The authoritarian ideal of keeping us separated and ideologically strangled (it takes several thousand hours of airtime to keep that up), has only served to disempower us into accepting a life we're not really into anymore. As you can't break it all by yourself, force of numbers is the finest option. Besides, I believe that creating space for reflection, space for the story of others, and space for personal creativity (we're going to need lots of that) is actually a better way to live than blind acceptance of the way things are, especially as that way leads to a dead end.

We're in a time of massive challenges which some predict will really put a squeeze on everything we are used to now. Even though I find it somewhat surreal to even write these words, it's impossible to overstate the responsibility that we now have. Afraid as I was of thinking for myself, so accustomed to the really big choices being out of my hands, and so insulated from the consequences of my actions, I've found creating space for my community to be my best response so far to a systemic inertia that is keeping us all strapped to this careening car crash. I want to put the wheel back in my hands and quit just being the passenger.

Anteil

Temporary Recession or The End of Growth?

An essay by Richard Heinberg of the Post Carbon Institute posted on The Oil Drum on how the current recession and economic troubles could be a symptom of a deeper crisis that will ultimately end economic growth forever:

This is a guest post by Richard Heinberg. Richard is a Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and author of five books on resource depletion and societal responses to the energy problem. He can be found on the web at www.richardheinberg.com and www.postcarbon.org.

Everyone agrees: our economy is sick. The inescapable symptoms include declines in consumer spending and consumer confidence, together with a contraction of international trade and available credit. Add a collapse in real estate values and carnage in the automotive and airline industries and the picture looks grim indeed.

But why are both the US economy and the larger global economy ailing? Among the mainstream media, world leaders, and America's economists-in-chief (Treasury Secretary Geithner and Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke) there is near-unanimity of opinion: these recent troubles are primarily due to a combination of bad real estate loans and poor regulation of financial derivatives.

This is the Conventional Diagnosis. If it is correct, then the treatment for our economic malady might logically include heavy doses of bailout money for beleaguered financial institutions, mortgage lenders, and car companies; better regulation of derivatives and futures markets; and stimulus programs to jumpstart consumer spending.

But what if this diagnosis is fundamentally flawed? The metaphor needs no belaboring: we all know that tragedy can result from a doctor's misreading of symptoms, mistaking one disease for another.

Something similar holds for our national and global economic infirmity. If we don't understand why the world's industrial and financial metabolism is seizing up, we are unlikely to apply the right medicine and could end up making matters much worse than they would otherwise be.

To be sure: the Conventional Diagnosis is clearly at least partly right. The causal connections between subprime mortgage loans and the crises at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers have been thoroughly explored and are well known. Clearly, over the past few years, speculative bubbles in real estate and the financial industry were blown up to colossal dimensions, and their bursting was inevitable. It is hard to disagree with the words of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, in his July 25 essay in the Sydney Morning Herald: “The roots of the crisis lie in the preceding decade of excess. In it the world enjoyed an extraordinary boom…. However, as we later learnt, the global boom was built in large part on a … house of cards. First, in many Western countries the boom was created on a pile of debt held by consumers, corporations and some governments. As the global financier George Soros put it: 'For 25 years [the West] has been consuming more than we have been producing … living beyond our means.'” (1)

But is this as far as we need look to get to the root of the continuing global economic meltdown?
A case can be made that dire events having to do with real estate, the derivatives markets, and the auto and airline industries were themselves merely symptoms of an even deeper, systemic dysfunction that spells the end of economic growth as we have known it.

In short, I am suggesting an Alternative Diagnosis. This explanation for the economic crisis is not for the faint of heart because, if correct, it implies that the patient is far sicker than even the most pessimistic economists are telling us. But if it is correct, then by ignoring it we risk even greater peril.

Economic Growth, The Financial Crisis, and Peak Oil

For several years, a swelling subculture of commentators (which includes the present author) has been forecasting a financial crash, basing this prognosis on the assessment that global oil production was about to peak. (2) Our reasoning went like this:

Continual increases in population and consumption cannot continue forever on a finite planet. This is an axiomatic observation with which everyone familiar with the mathematics of compounded arithmetic growth must agree, even if they hedge their agreement with vague references to “substitutability” and “demographic transitions.” (3)

This axiomatic limit to growth means that the rapid expansion in both population and per-capita consumption of resources that has occurred over the past century or two must cease at some particular time. But when is this likely to occur?

The unfairly maligned Limits to Growth studies, published first in 1972 with periodic updates since, have attempted to answer the question with analysis of resource availability and depletion, and multiple scenarios for future population growth and consumption rates. The most pessimistic scenario in 1972 suggested an end of world economic growth around 2015. (4)

But there may be a simpler way of forecasting growth's demise.

Energy is the ultimate enabler of growth (again, this is axiomatic: physics and biology both tell us that without energy nothing happens). Industrial expansion throughout the past two centuries has in every instance been based on increased energy consumption. (5) More specifically, industrialism has been inextricably tied to the availability and consumption of cheap energy from coal and oil (and more recently, natural gas). However, fossil fuels are by their very nature depleting, non-renewable resources. Therefore (according to the Peak Oil thesis), the eventual inability to continue increasing supplies of cheap fossil energy will likely lead to a cessation of economic growth in general , unless alternative energy sources and efficiency of energy use can be deployed rapidly and to a sufficient degree. (6)

Of the three conventional fossil fuels, oil is arguably the most economically vital, since it supplies 95 percent of all transport energy. Further, petroleum is the fuel with which we are likely to encounter supply problems soonest, because global petroleum discoveries have been declining for decades, and most oil producing countries are already seeing production declines. (7)

So, by this logic, the end of economic growth (as conventionally defined) is inevitable, and Peak Oil is the likely trigger.

Why would Peak Oil lead not just to problems for the transport industry, but a more general economic and financial crisis? During the past century growth has become institutionalized in the very sinews of our economic system. Every city and business wants to grow. This is understandable merely in terms of human nature: nearly everyone wants a competitive advantage over someone else, and growth provides the opportunity to achieve it. But there is also a financial survival motive at work: without growth, businesses and governments are unable to service their debt. And debt has become endemic to the industrial system. During the past couple of decades, the financial services industry has grown faster than any other sector of the American economy, even outpacing the rise in health care expenditures, accounting for a third of all growth in the US economy. From 1990 to the present, the ratio of debt-to-GDP expanded from 165 percent to over 350 percent. In essence, the present welfare of the economy rests on debt, and the collateral for that debt consists of a wager that next year's levels of production and consumption will be higher than this year's.
Given that growth cannot continue on a finite planet, this wager, and its embodiment in the institutions of finance, can be said to constitute history's greatest Ponzi scheme. We have justified present borrowing with the irrational belief that perpetual growth is possible, necessary, and inevitable. In effect we have borrowed from future generations so that we could gamble away their capital today.

Until recently, the Peak Oil argument has been framed as a forecast: the inevitable decline in world petroleum production, whenever it occurs, will kill growth. But here is where forecast becomes diagnosis: during the period from 2005 to 2008, energy stopped growing and oil prices rose to record levels. By July of 2008, the price of a barrel of oil was nudging close to $150—half again higher than any previous petroleum price in inflation-adjusted terms—and the global economy was beginning to topple. The auto and airline industries shuddered; ordinary consumers had trouble for buying gasoline for their commute to work while still paying their mortgages. Consumer spending began to decline. By September the economic crisis was also a financial crisis, as banks trembled and imploded. (8)

Given how much is at stake, it is important to evaluate the two diagnoses on the basis of facts, not preconceptions.

It is unnecessary to examine evidence supporting or refuting the Conventional Diagnosis, because its validity is not in doubt—as a partial explanation for what is occurring. The question is whether it is a sufficient explanation, and hence an adequate basis for designing a successful response.

What's the evidence favoring the Alternative? A good place to begin is with a recent paper by economist James Hamilton of the University of California, San Diego, titled “Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock of 2007-08,” which discusses oil prices and economic impacts with clarity, logic, and numbers, explaining how and why the economic crash is related to the oil price shock of 2008. (9)

Hamilton starts by citing previous studies showing a tight correlation between oil price spikes and recessions. On the basis of this correlation, every attentive economist should have forecast a steep recession for 2008. “Indeed,” writes Hamilton, “the relation could account for the entire downturn of 2007-08…. If one could have known in advance what happened to oil prices during 2007-08, and if one had used the historically estimated relation [between price rise and economic impact]… one would have been able to predict the level of real GDP for both of 2008:Q3 and 2008:Q4 quite accurately.”

Again, this is not to ignore the role of the financial and real estate sectors in the ongoing global economic meltdown. But in the Alternative Diagnosis the collapse of the housing and derivatives markets is seen as amplifying a signal ultimately emanating from a failure to increase the rate of supply of depleting resources. Hamilton again: “At a minimum it is clear that something other than housing deteriorated to turn slow growth into a recession. That something, in my mind, includes the collapse in automobile purchases, slowdown in overall consumption spending, and deteriorating consumer sentiment, in which the oil shock was indisputably a contributing factor.”

Moreover, Hamilton notes that there was “an interaction effect between the oil shock and the problems in housing.” That is, in many metropolitan areas, house prices in 2007 were still rising in the zip codes closest to urban centers but already falling fast in zip codes where commutes were long. (10)

Why Did the Oil Price Spike?

Those who espouse the Conventional Diagnosis for our ongoing economic collapse might agree that there was some element of causal correlation between the oil price spike and the recession, but they would deny that the price spike itself had anything to do with resource limits, because (they say) it was caused mostly by speculation in the oil futures market, and had little to do with fundamentals of supply and demand.

In this, the Conventional Diagnosis once again has some basis in reality. Speculation in oil futures during the period in question almost certainly helped drive oil prices higher than was justified by fundamentals. But why were investors buying oil futures? Was the mania for oil contracts just another bubble, like the dot.com stock frenzy of the late '90s or the real estate boom of 2003 to 2006?

During the period from 2005 to mid-2008, demand for oil was growing, especially in China (which went from being self-sufficient in oil in 1995 to being the world's second-foremost importer, after the US, by 2006). But the global supply of oil was essentially stagnant: monthly production figures for crude oil bounced around within a fairly narrow band between 72 and 75 million barrels per day. As prices rose, production figures barely budged in response. There was every indication that all oil producers were pumping flat-out: even the Saudis appeared to be rushing to capitalize on the price bonanza.

Thus a good argument can be made that speculation in oil futures was merely magnifying price moves that were inevitable on the basis of the fundamentals of supply and demand. James Hamilton (in his publication previously cited) puts it this way: “With hindsight, it is hard to deny that the price rose too high in July 2008, and that this miscalculation was influenced in part by the flow of investment dollars into commodity futures contracts. It is worth emphasizing, however, that the two key ingredients needed to make such a story coherent—a low price elasticity of demand, and the failure of physical production to increase—are the same key elements of a fundamentals-based explanation of the same phenomenon. I therefore conclude that these two factors, rather than speculation per se, should be construed as the primary cause of the oil shock of 2007-08.”

Aftermath of the Peak

There is also controversy over to what degree troubles in the automobile, trucking, and airline industries should be attributed to the oil price spike or the economic crash. Of course, if the Alternative Diagnosis is correct, the latter two events are causally related in any case. However, it may be helpful to review the situation.

Everyone knows that GM and Chrysler went bankrupt this year because US car sales cratered. The current forecast is for sales of about 10.3 million vehicles in the US for 2009, down from last year's 13.2 million and 16.1 million in 2007. US car sales have not been this low since the 1970s. Sales of light trucks, the most profitable vehicles, took the biggest hit during 2008, as fuel prices soared and car buyers avoided gas-guzzlers. It was at this point that the auto companies really began feeling the pain.

The airline industry's ills are summarized in a recent GAO document: “After 2 years of profits, the US passenger airline industry lost $4.3 billion in the first 3 quarters of 2008 [as jet fuel prices climbed]. Collectively, US airlines reduced domestic capacity, as measured by the number of seats flown, by about 9 percent from the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2008…. To reduce capacity, airlines reduced the overall number of active aircraft in their fleets by 18 percent…. Airlines also collectively reduced their workforces by about 28,000, or nearly 7 percent, from the end of 2007 to the end of 2008…. The contraction of the US airline industry in 2008 reduced airport revenues, passengers' access to the national aviation system, and revenues for the Trust Fund.” (11)

For the trucking industry, fuel accounts for nearly 40 percent of total operational costs. In 2007, as diesel prices rose, carriers began losing money and added fuel price surcharges; meanwhile the volume of freight began falling. After July 2008, as oil prices crashed, tonnage continued to decline. Overall, the cumulative decrease in loads for flatbed, tanker, and dry vans ranged between 15 percent and 20 percent just in the period from June to December 2008. (12)

This last set of statistics raises a couple of questions crucial to understanding the Alternative Diagnosis: Why, if global oil production had just peaked, did petroleum prices fall in the last five months of 2008? And, if oil prices were a major factor in the economic crisis, why didn't the economy begin to turn around after the prices softened?

Why Did Oil Prices Fall? And Why Didn't Lower Oil Prices Lead to a Quick Recovery?

The Peak Oil thesis predicts that, as world oil production reaches its maximum level and begins to decline, the price of oil will rise dramatically. But it also forecasts a dramatic increase in the volatility of prices .

The argument goes as follows. As oil becomes scarce, its price will rise until it begins to undermine economic activity in general. Economic contraction will then result in substantially reduced demand for oil, which will in turn cause its price to fall temporarily. Then one of two things will happen: either (a) the economy will begin to recover, stoking renewed oil demand, leading again to high prices which will again undermine economic activity; or (b), if the economy does not quickly recover, petroleum production will gradually fall due to depletion until spare production capacity (created by lower demand) is wiped out, leading again to higher prices and even more economic contraction. In both cases, oil prices remain volatile and the economy contracts. (13)

This scenario corresponds very closely with the reality that is unfolding, though it remains to be seen whether situation (a) or (b) will ensue.

Over the past three years, oil prices rose and fell more dramatically than would have been the case if it had not been for widespread speculation in oil futures. Nevertheless, the general direction of prices—way up, then way down, then part-way back up—is entirely consistent with the Peak Oil thesis and the Alternative Diagnosis.

Why has the economy not quickly recovered, given that oil prices are now only half what they were in July 2008? Again, Peak Oil is not the only cause of the current economic crisis. Enormous bubbles in the real estate and finance sectors constituted accidents waiting to happen, and the implosion of those bubbles has created a serious credit crisis (as well as solvency and looming currency crises) that will likely take several years to resolve even if energy supplies don't pose a problem.

But now the potential for renewed high oil prices acts as a ceiling for economic recovery. Whenever the economy does appear to show renewed signs of life (as has happened in May-July this year, with stock values rebounding and the general pace of economic contraction slowing somewhat), oil prices will take off again as oil speculators anticipate a recovery of demand. Indeed, oil prices have rebounded from $30 in January to nearly $70 currently, provoking widespread concern that high energy prices could nip recovery in the bud. (14)

A barrel of oil from newly developed sources costs in the neighborhood of $60 to produce, now that all of the cheaper prospects have been exploited: finding new oilfields today usually means drilling under miles of ocean water, or in politically unstable nations where equipment and personnel are at high risk. (15) So as soon as consumers demand more oil, the price will have to stay noticeably above that figure in order to provide the incentive for producers to drill.

Volatile oil prices hurt on the upside, but they also hurt on the downside. The oil price collapse of August-December 2008, plus the worsening credit crisis, caused a dramatic contraction in oil industry investment, leading to the cancellation of about $150 billion worth of new oil production projects—whose potential productive capacity will be required to offset declines in existing oilfields if world oil production is to remain stable. (16) This means that even if demand remains low, production capacity will almost certainly decline to meet those demand levels, causing oil prices to rise again in real terms at some point, perhaps two or three years from now. Volatile petroleum prices also hurt the development of alternative energy, as was shown during the past few months when falling oil prices led to financial troubles for ethanol manufacturers. (17)

One way or another, growth will be highly problematic if not unachievable.

Big Picture Diagnosis: Continuing the Trail of Logic

At this point in the discussion many readers will be wondering why alternative energy sources and efficiency measures cannot be deployed to solve the Peak Oil crisis. After all, as petroleum becomes more expensive, ethanol, biodiesel, and electric cars all start to look more attractive both to producers and consumers. Won't the magic of the market intervene to render oil shortages irrelevant to future growth?

It is impossible in the context of this discussion to provide a detailed explanation of why the market probably cannot solve the Peak Oil problem. Such an explanation requires a discussion of energy evaluation criteria, and an analysis of many individual energy alternatives on the basis of those criteria. I have offered brief overviews of this subject previously and a much longer one is in press. (18)

My summary conclusions in this regard are as follows.

About 85 percent of our current energy is derived from three primary sources—oil, natural gas, and coal—that are non-renewable, whose price is likely to trend sharply higher over the next years and decades leading to severe shortages, and whose environmental impacts are unacceptable. While these sources historically have had very high economic value, we cannot rely on them in the future; indeed, the longer the transition to alternative energy sources is delayed, the more difficult that transition will be unless some practical mix of alternative energy systems can be identified that will have superior economic and environmental characteristics.

But identifying such a mix is harder than one might initially think. Each energy source has highly specific characteristics. In fact, it has been the characteristics of our present energy sources (principally oil, coal, and natural gas) that have enabled the building of an urbanized society with high mobility, large population, and high economic growth rates. Surveying the available alternative energy sources for criteria such as energy density, environmental impacts, reliance on depleting raw materials, intermittency versus constancy of supply, and the percentage of energy returned on the energy invested in energy production, none currently appears capable of perpetuating this kind of society.

Moreover, national energy systems are expensive and slow to develop. Energy efficiency likewise requires investment, and further incremental investments in efficiency tend to yield diminishing returns over time, since it is impossible to perform work with zero energy input. Where is there the will or ability to muster sufficient investment capital for deployment of alternative energy sources and efficiency measures on the scale needed?

While there are many successful alternative energy production installations around the world (ranging from small home-scale photovoltaic systems to large “farms” of three-megawatt wind turbines), there are very few modern industrial nations that now get the bulk of their energy from sources other than oil, coal, and natural gas. One example is Sweden, which obtains most of its energy from nuclear and hydropower. Another is Iceland, which benefits from unusually large domestic geothermal resources not found in most other countries. Even for these two nations, the situation is complex: the construction of the infrastructure for their power plants mostly relied on fossil fuels for the mining of the ores and raw materials, for materials processing, for transportation, for the manufacturing of components, for the mining of uranium, for construction energy, and so on. Thus a meaningful energy transition away from fossil fuels is still a matter of theory and wishful thinking, not reality.

My conclusion from a careful survey of energy alternatives, then, is that there is little likelihood that either conventional fossil fuels or alternative energy sources can be counted on to provide the amount and quality of energy that will be needed to sustain economic growth—or even current levels of economic activity—during the remainder of this century. (19)

But the problem extends beyond oil and other fossil fuels: the world's fresh water resources are strained to the point that billions of people may soon find themselves with only precarious access to water for drinking and irrigation. Biodiversity is declining rapidly. We are losing 24 billion tons of topsoil each year to erosion. And many economically significant minerals—from antimony to zinc—are depleting quickly, requiring the mining of ever lower-grade ores in ever more remote locations. Thus the Peak Oil crisis is really just the leading edge of a broader Peak Everything dilemma.

In essence, humanity faces an entirely predictable peril: our population has been growing dramatically for the past 200 years (expanding from under one billion to nearly seven billion), while our per-capita consumption of resources has also grown. For any species, this is virtually the definition of biological success. And yet all of this has taken place in the context of a finite planet with fixed stores of non-renewable resources (fossil fuels and minerals), a limited ability to regenerate renewable resources (forests, fish, fresh water, and topsoil), and a limited ability to absorb industrial wastes (including carbon dioxide). If we step back and look at the industrial period from a broad historical perspective that is informed by an appreciation of ecological limits, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that we are today living at the end of a relatively brief pulse—a 200-year rapid expansionary phase enabled by a temporary energy subsidy (in the form of cheap fossil fuels) that will inevitably be followed by an even more rapid and dramatic contraction as those fuels deplete.

The winding down of this historic growth-contraction pulse doesn't necessarily mean the end of the world, but it does mean the end of a certain kind of economy. One way or another, humanity must return to a more normal pattern of existence characterized by reliance on immediate solar income (via crops, wind, or the direct conversion of sunlight to electricity) rather than stored ancient sunlight.

This is not to say that the remainder of the 21st century must consist of a collapse of industrialism, a die-off of most of the human population, and a return by the survivors to a way of life essentially identical to that of 16th century peasants or indigenous hunter-gatherers. It is possible instead to imagine acceptable and even inviting ways in which humanity could adapt to ecological limits while further developing cultural richness, scientific understanding, and quality of life (more of this below).

But however it is negotiated, the transition will spell an end to economic growth in the conventional sense. And that transition appears to have begun.

How Do We Know Which Diagnosis Is Correct?

If the patient is an individual human and the cause of distress is uncertain, more diagnostic tests can be prescribed. But to what sorts of blood tests, x-rays, and CAT scans can we subject the national or global economy?

In a sense, the tests have already been done. During the past few decades thousands of scientific surveys of natural resources, biodiversity, and ecosystems have showed increasing rates of depletion and decline. (20) The continuing increase in human population, pollution, and consumption are likewise well documented. This information formed the basis for the Limits to Growth studies, previously mentioned, which use computer modeling to show how current trends are likely to play out—and most resulting scenarios show them leading to an end of economic growth and a collapse of industrial output some time in the early 21st century.

Why are the results of such diagnostic tests not universally accepted as a challenge to expectations of continued growth? Primarily because their conclusion runs counter to the beliefs and proclamations of most economists, who maintain that there are no practical limits to growth. They deny that resource constraints provide an eventual cap on production and consumption. And so their diagnostic efforts tend to ignore environmental factors in favor of easily measured internal features of the human economy such as money supply, consumer confidence, interest rates, and price indices.

Ecologist Charles Hall, among many others, has argued that the discipline of economics, as currently practiced, does not constitute a science, since it proceeds primarily on the basis of correlative logic rather than through the building of knowledge by a continuous, rigorous process of proposing and testing hypotheses. (21) While economics uses complex terminology and mathematics, as science does, its basic assertions about the world—such as the principle of infinite substitutability, which holds that for any resource that becomes scarce, the market will find a substitute—are not subjected to careful experimental examination. (It is worth noting that Hall and others have made the effort to lay the conceptual foundations for a new economics based on scientific principles and methods, which they call “biophysical economics.” (22)

Moreover, mainstream economists failed on the whole to foresee the current crash. There was no consistent or concerted effort on the part of Secretaries of the Treasury, Federal Reserve Chairmen, or “Nobel” prize-winning economists to warn policy makers or the general public that, sometime in the early 21st century, the global economy would begin to come apart at the seams. (23) One might think that this predictive failure—the inability to foresee so historically significant an event as the rapid contraction of nearly the entire global economy, entailing the failure of some of the world's largest banks and manufacturing companies—would cause mainstream economists to stop and re-examine their fundamental premises. But there is little evidence to suggest that this is occurring.

At the risk of repetition: physical scientists from several disciplines have indeed foreseen an end to economic growth in the early 21st century, and have warned policy makers and the general public on many occasions.

Whom should we believe?

The specifics of the Alternative Diagnosis are falsifiable. If economic activity were to rebound above 2007 levels, or if oil production were to rise above the July 2008 high-water mark, then the attribution of the current economic crisis to resource-tied limits to growth may be considered at least partly disproven. However, even if these things were to occur, the underlying reasoning behind the Alternative Diagnosis might still be correct. If the world oil production peak is delayed until, let us say, 2015 or 2020, and if another—this time bottomless—global economic crash results then, the ultimate outcome will be essentially the same. But if, meanwhile, the Alternative Diagnosis were to be taken seriously and acted upon, the consequences of doing so would be beneficial: a decade would have been spent preparing for the event.

Could the Alternative Diagnosis be altogether wrong? That is, might conventional economists be right in thinking that growth can continue forever? It is often said that anything is possible, but some things are clearly much more possible than others. The perpetual growth of human population and consumption within the confines of a finite planet seems like a very long shot indeed, especially since warning signs are everywhere apparent that ecological limits are already being reached and surpassed. (24)

What Not to Do: Prescribe Punishingly Expensive Placebos

If the physical scientists who warn about limits to growth are right, confronting the global economic meltdown implies far more than merely getting the banks and mortgage lenders back on their feet. Indeed, in that case we face a fundamental change in our economy as significant as the advent of the industrial revolution. We are at a historic inflection point—the ending of decades of expansion and the beginning of an inevitable period of contraction that will continue until humanity is once again living within the limits of Earth's regenerative systems.

But there are few signs that policy makers understand any of this. Their thinking appears to be shaped primarily by mainstream economists' assurances that growth can and must continue into the indefinite future, and that the economic contraction the world is currently experiencing is only temporary–a problem that can and must be solved.

Still, the problem is not a minor one in the eyes of economists and policy makers. Consider the gargantuan size of the Treasury and Federal Reserve bailouts and stimulus packages that have been deployed in the possibly futile attempt to end contraction and restart growth. According to the special inspector general of the US government's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), in remarks submitted to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on July 21, $23.7 trillion have been committed in “total potential federal government support.” This is expensive medicine indeed. It takes a moment to even begin to comprehend the enormity of the figure. It represents about half of annual world GDP, and is over three times the total amount spent by the US government, in inflation-adjusted dollars, on all wars combined, from 1776 to the present. It is nearly fifty times the cost of the New Deal.

Other nations, including Britain, China, and Germany have committed to paying for stimulus packages and bailouts that, while much smaller in absolute terms, represent an impressive (or should we say frightful?) share of national GDP.

If the Alternative Diagnosis is valid, none of this will work in the end, because existing financial institutions—with their basis in debt and interest and their requirements for constant expansion—cannot be made to function in a context where energy and resource constraints impose effective caps on manufacturing and transport.

Are the bailouts and stimulus packages working? Much evidence suggests that they are not, except in limited ways. In the US, unemployment continues to increase, while real estate values continue to fall. And most of the reputed “green shoots” in the economy so far sighted amount merely to an arguably temporary decline in the rate of contraction. For example, the home price index released July 28 of this year showed that in May, seasonally adjusted prices fell just 0.16 percent from the previous month. That represents an annual rate of decline of a little under 2 percent, which is a substantial improvement over the annualized rate of more than 20 percent that prevailed from September 2008 through March of 2009. Many commentators seized upon this news as a sign of an imminent turnaround. Nevertheless, new home sales are down from 1.4 million per year in 2005 to 350,000 per year today, and house prices are down 50 percent from the bubble peak and still declining in most places. Moreover, manufacturing is still shrinking, small businesses are in trouble, there are still significant danger signs on the horizon, including a new round of mortgage resets, a likely dive in commercial real estate values, and the looming reality that toxic assets at the center of the banking crisis have yet to be dealt with. (25)

President Obama has made the argument that bailouts are justified to stabilize the system long enough so that leaders can make fundamental changes to institutions and regulations, enabling the economy to then go forward healthier and more immune to similar crises in the future. But there is little to suggest that the kinds of systemic changes that are actually needed (ones that would enable the economy to function during a prolonged period of contraction) are under way or even contemplated. Meanwhile, as growth-based institutions are temporarily propped up, the ultimate scale of the damage is likely only to increase: when the inevitable collapse of those institutions does come, the consequences will likely be even worse because so much capital will have been squandered in attempting to salvage them.

In using up non-renewable resources like metals, minerals, and fossil fuels, we have stolen from future generations. Now in effect we are stealing from those generations the financial wherewithal that could have been used to build a bridge to a sustainable economy. The construction of a renewable energy infrastructure (including not only generating capacity, but distribution and storage systems, as well as post-petroleum transport and agriculture systems) will require enormous investments and decades of work. Where will the investment capital come from if governments are already buried in debt? If we have committed nearly $24 trillion to propping up an old economy with no real survival prospects, what's left with which to finance the new one?

If the current prescription for our economic malady is wrong-headed, the same is true of many proposed cures for our energy problems. According to the Conventional Diagnosis, today's high oil prices are due to speculation; the cure must therefore lie in the tighter regulation of oil futures trading (which may be a good idea, though it doesn't get to the heart of the problem), while providing more opportunities to oil companies to explore for domestic oil (even though the likely production rates from currently off-limits reserves would be relatively paltry, and would have a negligible effect on oil prices). In fact, though, investing further in fossil fuel energy systems (including “clean coal” technology) will yield declining returns, given that the highest quality resources have already been used up; meanwhile, doing so takes investment capital away from the development of renewable energy, which we will have to rely on increasingly as fossil fuels deplete. (26)

What is required but is still utterly lacking is a fundamental recognition that circumstances have changed: what worked decades ago will not work now.

What To Do: Adapt to the New Reality

If the Alternative Diagnosis is correct, there will be no easy fix for the current economic breakdown. Some illnesses are not curable; they require that we simply adapt and make the best of our new situation.

If humanity has indeed embarked upon the contraction phase of the industrial pulse, we should assume that ahead of us lie much lower average income levels (for nearly everyone in the wealthy nations, and for high wage earners in poorer nations); different employment opportunities (fewer jobs in sales, marketing, and finance; more in basic production); and more costly energy, transport, and food. Further, we should assume that key aspects of our economic system that are inextricably tied to the need for future growth will cease to work in this new context.

What can we do to adapt most rapidly and successfully?

Rather than attempting to prop up banks and insurance companies with trillions in bailouts, it would probably be better simply to let them fail, however nasty the short-term consequences, since they will fail anyway sooner or later. The sooner they are replaced with institutions that serve essential functions within a contracting economy, the better off we will all be. (27)

Meanwhile the thought-leaders in society, especially the President, must begin breaking the news—in understandable and measured ways—that growth isn't returning and that the world has entered a new and unprecedented economic phase, but that we can all survive and thrive in this challenging transitional period if we apply ourselves and work together. At the heart of this general re-education must be a public and institutional acknowledgment of three basic rules of sustainability: growth in population cannot be sustained; the ongoing extraction of non-renewable resources cannot be sustained; and the use of renewable resources is sustainable only if it proceeds at rates below those of natural replenishment.

Without cheap energy, global trade cannot increase. This doesn't mean that trade will disappear, only that economic incentives will inexorably shift as transport costs rise, favoring local production for local consumption. But this may be a nice way of putting it: if and when fuel shortages arise, fragile globe-spanning systems of provisioning could be disrupted, with dire effects for consumers cut off from sources of necessary products. Thus a high priority must be placed on the building of community resilience through the preferential local sourcing of necessities and the maintenance of larger regional inventories—especially of food and fuel. (28)

It currently takes an average of 8.5 calories of energy from oil and natural gas to produce each calorie of food energy. Without cheap fuel for agriculture, farm production will plummet and farmers will go bankrupt—unless proactive efforts are undertaken to reform agriculture to reduce its reliance on fossil fuels. (29)

Obviously, alternative energy sources and energy efficiency strategies must be high priorities, and must be subjects of intensive research using a carefully chosen spectrum of criteria. The best candidates will have to be funded robustly even while fossil fuels are still relatively cheap: the build-out time for the renewable energy infrastructure will inevitably be measured in decades and so we must begin the process now rather than waiting for market forces to lead the way.

In the face of credit and (potential) currency crises, new ways of financing such projects will be needed. Given that our current monetary and financial systems are founded on the need for growth, we will require new ways of creating money and new ways of issuing credit. Considerable thought has gone into finding solutions to this problem, and some communities are already experimenting with local capital co-ops, alternative currencies, and no-interest banks. (30)

With oil becoming increasingly expensive in real terms, we will need more efficient ways of getting people and goods around. Our first priority in this regard must be to reduce the need for transport with better urban planning and re-localized production systems. But where transport is needed, rail and light rail will probably be preferable to cars and trucks. (31)

We will also need a revolution in the built environment to minimize the requirement for heating, cooling, and artificial lighting in all our homes and public buildings. This revolution is already under way, but is currently moving far too slowly due to the inertia of established interests in the construction industry. (32)

These projects will need more than local credit and money; they will also require skilled workers. There will be a call not just for installers of solar panels and home insulation: millions of new food producers and builders of low-energy infrastructure will be needed as well. A broad range of new opportunities could open up to replace vanishing jobs in marketing and finance—if there is cheap training available at local community colleges.

It is worth noting that the $23.7 trillion recently committed for US bailouts and loan guarantees represents about $80,000 for each man, woman, and child in America. A level of investment even a substantial fraction that size could pay for all needed job training while ensuring universal provision of basic necessities during the transition. What would we be getting for our money? A collective sense that, in a time of crisis, no one is being left behind. Without the feeling of cooperative buy-in that such a safety net would help engender, similar to what was achieved with the New Deal but on an even larger scale, economic contraction could devolve into a horrific fight over the scraps of the waning industrial period.

However contentious, the population question must be addressed. All problems that have to do with resources are harder to solve when there are more people needing those resources. The US must encourage smaller families and must establish an immigration policy consistent with a no-growth population target. This has foreign policy implications: we must help other nations succeed with their own economic transitions so that their citizens do not have to emigrate to survive. (33)
If economic growth ceases to be an achievable goal, society will have to find better ways of measuring success. Economists must shift from assessing well-being with the blunt instrument of GDP, and begin paying more attention to indices of human and social capital in areas such as education, health, and cultural achievements. This redefinition of growth and progress has already begun in some quarters, but for the most part has yet to be taken up by governments. (34)

A case can be made that after all this is done the end result will be a more satisfying way of life for the vast majority of citizens—offering more of a sense of community, more of a connection with the natural world, more satisfying work, and a healthier environment. Studies have repeatedly shown that higher levels of consumption do not translate to elevated levels of satisfaction with life. (35) This means that if “progress” can be thought of in terms of happiness, rather than a constantly accelerating process of extracting raw materials and turning them into products that themselves quickly become waste, then progress can certainly continue. In any case, “selling” this enormous and unprecedented project to the general public will require emphasizing its benefits. Several organizations are already exploring the messaging and public relations aspects of the transition. (36) But those in charge need to understand that looking on the bright side doesn't mean promising what can't be delivered—such as a return to the days of growth and thoughtless consumption.

Can We? Will We?

It is important to state the implications of all this as plainly as possible. If the Alternative Diagnosis is correct, there will be no full economic “recovery”—not this year, or the next, or five or ten years from now. There may be temporary rebounds that take us back to some fraction of peak economic activity, but these will be only brief respites.

We have entered a new economic era in which the former rules no longer apply. Low interest rates and government spending no longer translate to incentives for borrowing and job production. Cheap energy won't appear just because there is demand for it. Substitutes for essential resources will in most cases not be found. Over all, the economy will continue to shrink in fits and starts until it can be maintained by the energy and material resources that Earth can supply on ongoing basis.

This is of course very difficult news. It is analogous to being told by your physician that you have contracted a systemic, potentially fatal disease that cannot be cured, but only managed; and managing it means you must make profound lifestyle changes.

Some readers may note that climate change has not figured prominently in this discussion. It is clearly, after all, the worst environmental catastrophe in human history. Indeed, its consequences could be far worse than the mere destruction of national economies: hundreds of millions of people and millions of other species could be imperiled. The reason for the relatively limited discussion of climate here is that (assuming the Alternative Diagnosis is correct) it is not climate change that has proven to be the most immediate limit to economic growth, but resource depletion. However, while there is not as yet general agreement on the point, climate change itself and the needed steps to minimize it both constitute limits to growth, just as resource depletion does. Moreover, if we fail to successfully manage the inevitable process of economic contraction that will characterize the coming decades, there will be no hope of mounting an organized and coherent response to climate change—a response consisting of efforts both to reduce climate impacts and to adapt to them . It is important to note, though, that the measures advocated here (including the development of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, a rapid reduction of reliance on fossil fuels in transport and agriculture, and the stabilization of population levels) are among the steps that will help most to reduce carbon emissions.

Is this essay likely to change the thinking and actions of policy makers? Unfortunately, that is unlikely. Their belief in the possibility and necessity of continued growth is pervasive, and the notion that growth may no longer be possible is unthinkable. But the Alternative Diagnosis must be a matter of record. This essay, composed by a mere journalist, in many ways represents the thinking of thousands of physical scientists working over the past several decades on issues having to do with population, resources, pollution, and biodiversity. Ignoring the diagnosis itself—whether as articulated here or as implied in tens of thousands of scientific papers—may waste our last chance to avert a complete collapse, not just of the economy, but of civility and organized human existence. It may risk a historic discontinuity with qualitative antecedents in the fall of the Roman and Mayan civilizations. (37) But there is no true precedent for what may be in store, because those earlier examples of collapse affected geographically bounded societies whose influence on their environments was also bounded. Today's civilization is global, and its fate, Earth's fate, and humanity's fate are inextricably tied.

But even if policy makers continue to ignore warnings such as this, individuals and communities can take heed and begin the process of building resilience, and of detaching themselves from reliance on fossil fuels and institutions that are inextricably tied to the perpetual growth machine. We cannot sit passively by as world leaders squander opportunites to awaken and adapt to growth limits. We can make changes in our own lives, and we can join with our neighbors. And we can let policy makers know we disapprove of their allegiance to the status quo, but that there are other options.

Is it too late to begin a managed transition to a post-fossil fuel society? Perhaps. But we will not know unless we try. And if we are to make that effort, we must begin by acknowledging one simple, stark reality: growth as we have known it can no longer be our goal.

Infinite Economic Growth on a Finite planet is impossible, and the economic and social systems built upon this assumption are doomed to fail. No more time should be wasted in supporting this system, and instead the creation of local resilient communities should be our primary focus. If anything, Richard does not go far enough – his expressed hope in an alternative energy economy is unrealistic in the face of the huge embodied energy costs required to build and maintain the infrastructure needed for renewable energy to provide even a fraction of today's decadence. Any attempts to create a 'green' civilisation are misplaced, although the suggestion of community resilience as a key component of what we can do is shared here. We need to disconnect from the perpetual growth system and instead reconnect to the earth and form the stable community-based systems that can run in harmony within the earth-system. Let's seize the opportunities this recession is bringing and make this vision a reality!


Anteil

Starting the Conversation on Our Survival

Social change comes down to communication. Great efforts have resulted in fine books, stories for films and books, and there have been some wonderful speeches. But it must really start and end with the conversation wherein the top topic is the issues of the day approached honestly and without fear.

When people talk about a problem openly, then there is a chance of solving it. There may be no solution, but the attempt to converse about it may have other beneficial effects and lead to unexpected breakthroughs.

by Jan Lundberg at culture change

With species extinction now at the highest rate since the disappearance of the dinosaurs, one might assume this crisis is on everyone's mind and discussed widely. One would be wrong. No one knows if it's 100 species a day, many of which have not been named. Massive species loss has been known for many years, but it is “old news” or “boring.”

Neither are other critical topics discussed enough to match their import: melting of the ice caps and glaciers, nuclear weapons and nuclear waste, out of control arms sales, ongoing starvation or malnourishment of hundreds of millions of people, overpopulation, the greed of financiers openly stripping nations of wealth, etc.

In reality, they are all related. It comes down to compassion and taking action wisely. When people manage to discuss the most pressing issues, they can see past the immediate crisis possessing the power to distract. Then a whole-systems approach can serve to unite people into one movement.

In the 1960s there was “The Movement.” People had many definitions for it, and some members were more interested in stopping the bombing over Indochina than securing all rights for the Afro-American population, for example. But The Movement included those concentrating on expanded consciousness, back-to-the-land agrarianism, communalism, armed revolution, women's liberation, environmental protection. It could all be seen as a whole: challenging “plastic society” and the false materialistic values of the flag-waving pro-war older generation.

We can blame the end of The Movement on its splintering into separate movements, or on the end of the Vietnam War draft, or the commercialization and corporatization of popular music, or assassinations of leaders in the 1960s — or all of them combined. The biggest mistake was to stop having the conversation about society in general. Instead people began to take the easy way out and earn more money and stay out of trouble, Those who did not cease the conversation became known as activists, and it was no longer “the youth” or “the students” or “The Movement.” Instead activists were on the fringes and mocked by “being stuck back in the 1960s.” The federal COINTELPRO operations against organizations and leaders took a toll, and there were pleasant distractions such as disco music or take your pick.

Social change comes down to communication. Great efforts have resulted in fine books, stories for films and books, and there have been some wonderful speeches. But it must really start and end with the conversation wherein the top topic is the issues of the day approached honestly and without fear.

When people talk about a problem openly, then there is a chance of solving it. There may be no solution, but the attempt to converse about it may have other beneficial effects and lead to unexpected breakthroughs.

When people avoid talking about serious matters, much harm can be done by others who are intent on opportunism or worse. Distracting people with other issues is therefore the prime tool for those trying to maintain an advantage in the status quo. It can also be said that the main tool is enslavement through economic dominance — a giant distraction from realizing a liberated life style. Many robotic or sheep-like people today have no concept of liberation except personal enrichment.

Talking about food security

We would not know it from the corporate media or our politicians, but we should be worrying big time that food supply will fail untold millions of people. All one has to do is look at energy, topsoil, pressures of the market (such as rising demand for food), and mix in some catastrophic weather that is assured, and we have a huge disaster ahead. It is just a matter of time.

There is a movement to appreciate local food, slow food, organic food. But it has not reduced the average number of miles a piece of food travels via petroleum in the US: 1,500. To produce industrial food — probably 95% of what is eaten in the US — ten caloric units of fossil-fuels produce one caloric unit of food. Farm workers are among the lowest paid in the nation, which is strange when everyone wants to eat. Time in the hot sun, subjected to pesticides and possible immigration raids, make the profession all the less attractive. There is no longer a designation for farmer in the US census when so few people live on their own farms anymore. It was no wonder that when Max Yasgur, who hosted the Woodstock Festival in 1969, began his welcome with “Now I'ma farmer…” at that he was drowned out by cheers and applause. That was The Movement expressing itself for nature. Get the record album and hear it.

Today I picked three pint-sized baskets of three kinds of berries. It took me about an hour, even when the season is just right. I still had to pay eight dollars for the fruit. It is not designated as organic, which would allow for a higher price, but it was unsprayed. If the value of my time is $20 an hour, my overall cost was $28. I spent no money on transportation because I bicycled. There's a problem we don't have a name for: a labor problem? We are not producing our own food locally because we “cannot afford to.” Rather, we subsidize the food in unsustainable ways while upper classes of consumers can afford to pay others to grow, gather, process, truck and prepare the food. This system only works for a few people in a division-of-labor society geared toward surpluses for the elite: ie, Western Civilization.

In the berry patch a father said bitterly to his daughter, “You guys dragged me here and I don't have time for all this work.” She replied “It's fun!” I'm glad to report that he had no further retort. Perhaps he should have a conversation with his family and friends about what he thinks he can do with his time, what he is allowed to do, and how he may provide for his family as well as raise a child directly.

Inane conversation or prattling

More alarming than empty talk and avoiding critical issues is no talking at all, when some modern humans live in a computer-game world, or they communicate mostly in isolation using a cell phone or email. Of these, many don't have much in the way of friendships, and family is something to occasionally visit. Meanwhile, conversation is still key, especially if it can be elevated beyond the personal need to connect to another human being (even to just discuss clothes or beer). The art of conversation is getting harder to encounter. People don't seem to have time.

Before we can work toward starting the conversation on our survival, what is going on all around us that passes for discussion? My observation is that the quality of conversation is almost always and everywhere inane. Wars being fought in the name of the United States of America, in Iraq and Afganistan, are not prime topics of discussion or debate at any given time by “the average person.” After all, there's endless celebrity news, the latest unemployment statistics, the latest iPhone technology, a fire in southern California, President Obama's latest pronouncement on medical care, and a lost doggy found in another city after a heart-rending odyssey.

Admittedly, there is also news in the background on climate change, assassinations, bankruptcies of iconic corporations, and other serious stories. But there's never a common thread in the corporate news media or in a politician's speech. On the street you're more likely to hear something real: “the system sucks.” If it does, what do we do about it?

It should be no wonder that the quality of conversation — whether in the living room of “the average person,” in the employee lunch room, or at a bar or party — is usually inane. Sports news or a review of a television show are favorites, along with gossip or tales of a weekend adventure. When the subjects of politics or ecology come up, these are treated with argument, jokes and derision as often are statements of concern. Rare is a vow of “I will bicycle to work and get rid of my television.” As for everyday banter with meaning, there can be comparisons of home gardening techniques.

Reviving the economy back to growth is the hottest topic in the serious realm, with climate change ranking at bottom. The latter is denied by some, or is too scary to tackle. The tendency is to let “the experts” or public officials deal with it — as they're dealing with the economy and everything else.

They're not bringing us peace. They're not stopping species extinction. They're not redistributing the wealth or jailing the white collar criminals (Madoff is an exception, a sop). If the rulers should not rule, shouldn't this be a major topic of conversation?

What we need is the conversation that's not happening. In the 1960s and into the 1970s the politically minded street threater group The Yippies (Youth International Party) took matters into their own hands to bring attention to the issues. One method was disruption of business as usual. Stunts included burning dollar bills, sewing the American flag on to one's pants, or kissing during college lectures. A book by one of the main instigators, Jerry Rubin, was titled Do It. (The author became a stockbroker, a fate probably from losing his hippie support system.)

Who is “doing it” today? Bloggers? Internet activists? Artists? Obama? There's some good journalism and activism, but the masses of people are somehow left out of the conversation. They want to be left out, when they avoid discussing serious issues relating to their survival on an imperiled planet. The question is, can they be made to discuss it before things are totally out of control, when rational discussion may be impossible? No end of secret government subversion can overcome a big enough conversation.

We Are Many, They Are Few – Really?

If all the able-bodied homeless people in the greater New York City area decided to converge on Wall Street and seize some wealth or demand housing, they could do it. If the millions of minorities discriminated against by ruthless corporate employers staged sit ins and used economic boycotts, such action could earn large concessions. But instead, masses are herded like sheep by a small number of agents of the elite. The corporate state does have effective tools such as the military, prisons, police — the “stick” — to go with bribes and perks and promises of mild reform — the “carrot.” Yet, numerically, if enough people wanted to bring about a truly equitable society, or in particular end the unpopular wars, this could be done with little or no violence in a short amount of time.

The reason it does not happen is that the right conversations are not taking place except by the very few. Even with the huge and growing number of people on mood-control and psychiatric drugs, that sad population unwittingly enriching pharmaceutical companies rather than actually healing is in good enough condition to talk sensibly and stimulate some community action.

The greatest crowd control of all time may be happening right now when a popular US president can give the idea that he is pursuing meaningful change. The sleight of hand includes the idea that he can make substantial change. Obama knows his limitations, as every top politician comes to know. In addition to promising improvements and the impossible return to a growth economy — and the trickle-down prosperity that never really worked — Obama and his allies have some key issues dear to many hearts. Unfortunately, they are bogus: the technological fix for climate mitigation, cleaner energy upon peak oil, and better cars. Obama is such a nice and eloquent guy that most people want to believe he will bring about more jobs, higher wages, peace, and an end to terrorism, the threat to polar bears, etc.

Smooth propaganda — hard for most people to pick apart:
President Barack Obama: “These are some of the challenges that our generation has been called to meet. And yet, there are those who would have us try what has already failed; who would defend the status quo. They argue that our health care system is fine the way it is and that a clean energy economy can wait. They say we are trying to do too much, that we are moving too quickly, and that we all ought to just take a deep breath and scale back our goals. These naysayers have short memories. They forget that we, as a people, did not get here by standing pat in a time of change. We did not get here by doing what was easy. That is not how a cluster of 13 colonies became the United States of America.” – Fourth of July Statement, 2009
Obama is a perfect maestro for keeping people from dealing directly with the global mix of crises. Above all, we should regard Obama as personifying the hierarchy which is seldom questioned. The hierarchy certainly sets the tone at all possible times. Obama is the current “one,” and everyone else is many, but because of laws and convention he is given the right to be master and Pied Piper for a time. Then, in 2012, and only then, he can be re-elected or replaced by a Republicrat or Demopublican. Who the next president might be is NOT the conversation that needs to take place.

The fact that the US can feel it has cleansed itself of racism by electing Obama is a perfect distraction from more serious issues of extinction. For if we consume enough plastic, are exposed to enough radiation, and cling to a lifestyle divorced from nature and health, our species can indeed go extinct — even without the extinction of the Earth's climate as we know it. Our best hope to avoid waiting for the worst may well be collapse of the economic system. This may usher in a sustainable culture. Maybe people will talk about it and take action in anticipation.

Anteil

Beyond Copenhagen

It has become obvious from recent press releases, campaigns and actions that the environmental movement has started to focus on the upcoming Copenhagen Climate Change Conference in December 2009 (COP15). The rallying cry is that this is the last opportunity world governments will have to agree to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions and cut these massively over the next few decades – beyond this, they say, governments and nations have little chance of accomplishing the cuts necessary to avoid disastrous tipping points in the earth's warming climate system. So all hopes have been pinned on politicians and governments at this conference for saving the earth on our behalf. But there are several dangers in pursuing this logic that could ultimately lead to the very thing the movement is trying to prevent.

The first danger is that despite the outcome of the talks, whether positive, neutral or negative, it is likely there will be a 'demobilisation' across the environmental movement. An article at The Change Agency elaborates on the results of an apparent failure:

If the second or third post COP 'Outcome' outlined above come to pass, the Australian (this article focuses on the Australian movement, but is applicable globally) climate movement's may find itself in what could be called a 'Perception of Failure' stage. This is often cited as a 'Stage 5' following a movement 'take-off' period' and often seen to be preceding a period of mainstream acceptance of movement goals.[4]

According to Moyer, the characteristics inherent in this stage include: the widely held belief amongst movement activists that its goals remain un-achieved and power-holders remain unchallenged. Numbers are down at demonstrations as people feel that repetitive and formulaic actions are ineffective. Despair, hopelessness, burnout, dropout are common, membership, particularity active membership of groups declines. Numbers of 'negative rebels', those activists willing to take high risk actions without movement support emerge and garner negative public attention, which further alienates concerned people.

Paradoxically, the results of an apparent 'success' are also undesirable:

Deliberate movement co-option and demobilisation may not be the intention of the Copenhagen Conference of Parties and the climate negotiations process in itself. But the dynamic is what the movement needs to be aware of and respond to. Elites are practised in providing outwardly impressive policy statements with little substance or which hide covert practises. Elite groups also have the advantage of influence over powerful communication channels. Many, if not all, national delegations at Copenhagen will be seeking the most politically profitable outcome at the conference and the appeasement of their domestic climate movements will be a part of their considerations. Whilst it is likely that experienced climate activists and lobbyists, already well versed in climate negotiation politics will be able to perceive duplicity in the COP outcomes, less engaged activists and the concerned public will be more likely to adopt the predominate messaging received via mainstream media.

...
If COP results in something like Outcome 1 described above, even dedicated climate activists who already regularly attend movement events may find themselves wondering if all the effort is worth it now that the US, alongside the rest of the world have come on board and started to turn things around. Surely the thing now is to sit back and see how the international targets are met? Those people, who are looking for a reason not to come to the next rally, may well find one after COP.

The result either way, whether or not serious cuts are agreed on a sensible time scale, will likely results in large-scale demobilisation of the environmental movements. By setting such a definitive deadline, either they will feel so successful that they've done the job and need do no more for the earth, or so defeated and depressed that further action seems pointless. Either way, the total focus on the results of this conference could torpedo future efforts in preventing climate chaos.

The second danger of the Copenhagen logic is the growing reliance on high-up elites to solve the climate crisis for us. As the timings of these talks has been identified as so crucial by the various organisations and groups of the environmental movement, there has been a massive shift to the line of thinking that only #they# can make the difference needed – the politicians, leaders and elites. However, as it is these people's jobs to maintain the status quo, to keep our modern industrial economies running as smoothly and profitably as possible and to facilitate the liquidation of the earth's natural capital to finance these economies, it is inevitable that even with a 'positive' outcome of serious cuts that these promises will contain extensive loopholes, flexibility and wriggle room covered up by dense greenwash language. I have no doubt that communiques from the gathered politicians, that have been pored over by PR reps in order to maximise greenwash, will claim a victory nonetheless, whether or not their promised cuts will make a difference or not. Indeed, to expect anything more from these talks is naive. Minor progress may well be made, but enough to finally turn around the battle against impending climate chaos? Unlikely.

This potential 'perception of success' poses differing challenges to the current climate movement. In a similar way to the movement's downturn in the months following the election of the Rudd government and the symbolic signing of the Kyoto Pact, people, lobbyists and NGO leadership groups, can be deceived by an apparent successful political compromise. The belief that politicians hold the strings of capital and can make the structural shifts actually necessary to halt runaway climate change is mainstream and ubiquitous. This feeds directly into the commonly held belief that elites are essentially powerful and popular movements (and their activities) are not.

What will happen is that the cultural concept of dependence on the leaders, politicians and elites to take action for us and look after us for our best good will become further entrenched. The existing system will fail to be challenged by those who run it and depend on it for wealth and power, and so will continue to wreak havoc and create climate chaos. The push for changing our destructive western lifestyles will fall by the wayside, and attempts to overthrow the destructive culture behind it will falter.

As long as we believe it's their job to fix this, all will be lost. But as soon as we accept that our leaders and elites are incapable of doing enough to stop climate chaos, then there is a chance. If we instead focus on overthrowing the destructive culture they and we are embedded into, abandoning consumerist lifestyles and stopping infinite economic growth, we have a hugely better chance of stopping the juggernaught of industrial economy before it breaks the 2C tipping point. Through local economies, local currencies, local food production, extensive permaculture, stronger communities and cultural subversion we can make a difference. We have to see beyond Copenhagen and its result either way – it's time to focus on the real action each of us can achieve that's infinitely more valuable than the greenwashed communiques of Copenhagen.

Anteil

More Free Range Humans Needed

Definancialisation, Deglobalisation, Relocalisation
Another long but brilliant article, this time by Dmitry Orlov, reprinted from Club Orlov .

This talk was presented at The New Emergency Conference in Dublin, on June 11, 2009.

1. Good morning.

The title of this talk is a bit of a mouthful, but what I want to say can be summed up in simpler words: we all have to prepare for life without much money, where imported goods are scarce, and where people have to provide for their own needs, and those of their immediate neighbours. I will take as my point of departure the unfolding collapse of the global economy, and discuss what might come next. Image It started with the collapse of the financial markets last year, and is now resulting in unprecedented decreases in the volumes of international trade. These developments are also starting to affect the political stability of various countries around the world. A few governments have already collapsed, others may be on their way, and before too long we may find our maps redrawn in dramatic ways.

sustainability

2. “Sustainability” — what's in a word?

In a word, unsustainable. So what does that mean, exactly? Chris Clugston has recently published a summary of his analysis of what he calls “societal over-extension” on The Oil Drum web site. Here is a summary of his summary, in round numbers. I don't want to trifle with his arithmetic, because it's the cultural assumptions behind it that I find interesting. ImageThe idea is that if we shrink our ecological footprint by an order of magnitude or so, that should make the whole arrangement sustainable once again. This is expressed in financial terms: here we are lowering the GDP of the USA from, say $100 thousand per capita per annum, to, say $10 thousand. Clugston draws a distinction between making this reduction voluntarily or involuntarily: we should make it easy on ourselves and come along quietly, so that nobody gets hurt. I find the idea that Americans will voluntarily lower their GDP by a factor of 10 rather outlandish. We keep the same system, just shut down 9/10 of it? Wouldn't that make it a completely different system? This sort of sustainability seems rather unsustainable to me.

dmitry's plan

3. My plan

I would like to offer a more realistic alternative. Everybody should have one US Dollar, for purely didactic purposes. This way, all Americans will be able to show their one dollar to their grandchildren, and say: “Can you imagine, this ugly piece of paper was once called The Almighty Dollar!” And their grandchildren will no doubt think that they are a little bit crazy, but they would probably think that anyway. But it certainly would not be helpful for them to have multiple shoe-boxes full of dollars, because then their grandchildren would think that they are in fact senile, because no sane person would be hoarding such rubbish.

alternative

4. An unpalatable alternative

Clugston offers an alternative to the big GDP decrease: a proportionate decrease in population. In this scenario, nine out of 10 people die so that the remaining 10% can go on living comfortably on $100 thousand a year. I was happy to note that Chris did not carry the voluntary/involuntary distinction over to this part of the analysis, because I feel that this would have been in rather questionable taste. I can think of just three things to say about this particular scenario.

First, humans are not a special case when it comes to experiencing population explosions and die-offs, and the idea that human populations should increase monotonically ad infinitum is just as preposterous as the idea of infinite economic growth on a finite planet. The exponential growth of the human population has tracked the increased use of fossil fuels, and I am yet to see a compelling argument for why the population would not crash along with them.

Second, shocking though this seems, it can be observed that most societies are able to absorb sudden increases in mortality without much fuss at all. There was a huge spike in mortality in Russia following the Soviet collapse, but it was not directly observable by anyone outside of the morgues and the crematoria. After a few years people would look at an old school photograph and realise that half the people are gone! When it comes to death, most people do in fact make it easy on themselves and come along quietly. The most painful part of it is realising that something like that is happening all around you.

Third, this whole budgeting exercise for how many people we can afford to keep alive is a good way of demonstrating what monsters we have become, with our addiction to statistics and numerical abstractions. The disconnect between words and actions on the population issue is by now almost complete. Population is very far beyond anyone's control, and this way of thinking about it takes us in the wrong direction. If we could not control it on the way up, what makes us think that we might be able to control it on the way down? If our projections look sufficiently shocking, then we might hypnotise ourselves into thinking that maintaining our artificial human life support systems at any cost is more important than considering its effect on the natural world. The question “How many will survive?” is simply not ours to answer.

what is happening

5. What's actually happening

ImageBack to what is actually happening right now. There seems to be a wide range of opinion on how to characterise it, from recession to depression to collapse. The press has recently been filled with stories about “green shoots” and the economists are discussing the exact timing of economic recovery. Mainstream opinion ranges from “later this year” to “sometime next year.” None of them dares to say that global economic growth might be finished for good, or that it will be over in “the not-too-distant future” — a vague term they seem to like a whole lot.

There does seem to be a consensus forming that last year's financial crash was precipitated by the spike in oil prices last summer, when oil briefly touched $147/bbl. Why this should have happened seems rather obvious. Since most things in a fully developed, industrialised economy run on oil, it is not an optional purchase: for a given level of economic activity, a certain level of oil consumption is required, and so one simply pays the price for as long as access to credit is maintained, and after that suddenly it's game over. François Cellier has recently published an analysis in which he shows that at roughly $600/bbl the entire world's GDP would be required to pay for oil, leaving no money for putting it to any sort of interesting use. At that price level, we can't even afford to take delivery of it. In fact, at that price level, we can't even afford to pump it out of the ground, because the tool pushers, roughnecks and roustabouts that make oil rigs work don't drink the oil, and there would no longer be room in the budget for beer.

And so, the actual limiting price, beyond which no economic activity is possible, is certainly a lot lower, and last summer we seem to have experimentally established that to be around $150/bbl. which is something like 25% of global GDP. We may never run out of oil, but we have already run out of money with which to buy it, at least once, and will most likely do so again and again, until we learn the lesson. We will run out of money to pump it out of the ground as well. There might still be a few gushers left in the world, and so there will be a little bit of oil left over for us to fashion into exotic plastic jewelry for rich people. But it won't be enough to sustain an industrial base, and so the industrial age will effectively be over, except for some residual solar panels and wind generators and hydroelectric installations.

I think that the lesson from all this is that we have to prepare for a non-industrial future while we still have some resources with which to do it. If we marshal the resources, stockpile the materials that will be of most use, and harness the heirloom technologies that can be sustained without an industrial base, then we can stretch out the transition far into the future, giving us time to adapt.

key points

6. Wichtige Punkte

I know that I am running the risk of overstating these points and oversimplifying the situation, but sometimes it is helpful to ignore various complexities to move the discussion forward. I do believe that these points are all true, roughly speaking.

1. Global GDP is a function of oil consumption; as oil production goes down, so will global GDP. At some point, the inability to invest in oil production will drive it down far below what might be possible if depletion were the sole limiting factor. Efficiency, conservation, renewable sources of energy all might have some effect, but will not materially alter this relationship. Less oil means smaller global economy. No oil means a vanishingly small global economy not worthy of the name.

2. We have had a chance to observe that economies crash whenever oil expenditure approaches 1/4 of global GDP . Attempts at economic recovery will cause oil price spikes that break through this ceiling. These spikes will be followed by further financial crashes and further drops in economic activity. After each crash, the maximum level of economic activity required to trigger the next crash will be lower.

3. Financial assets are only valuable if they can be used to secure a sufficient quantity of oil to keep the economy running. They represent the ability to get work done, and since in an industrialised society the work is done by industrial machinery that runs on oil, less oil means less work. Financial assets that that are backed with industrial capacity require that industrial capacity to be maintained in working order. Once the maintenance requirements of the industrial infrastructure can no longer be met, it quickly decays and becomes worthless. To a large extent, of oil means end of money.

Now that the reality of Peak Oil has started to sink in, one commonly hears that “The age of cheap oil is over”. But does that mean that the age of expensive oil is upon us? Nicht unbedingt. We now know (or should have learnt by now) that once oil rises to over 25% of global GDP, the world's industrial economy stalls out, and as soon as that happens, oil ceases to be particularly valuable, so much so that investment in maintaining oil production is curtailed. The next time industry tries to stage a comeback (if it ever does) it hits the wall much sooner and stalls again. I doubt that it would take more than just a couple of cycles of this market whiplash for all the participants to have two realisations: that they cannot get enough oil no matter how much they pay for it, and that nobody wants to take their money even for the oil they do have. Those who still have it will see it as too valuable to part with for mere money. On the other hand, if the energy resources needed to run an industrial economy are no longer available, then oil becomes just so much toxic waste. In any case, it is no longer about money, but direct access to resources.

reasonable objectives

7. A reasonable set of objectives

Now, I expect that a lot of people will find this view too gloomy and feel discouraged. But I feel that it is entirely compatible with a positive vision of the future, so let me try to articulate it.

First of all, we do have some control. Although we shouldn't hold out too much hope for industrial civilisation as a whole, there are certainly some bits of it that are worth salvaging. Our financial assets may not be long for this world, but in the meantime we can redeploy them to good long-term advantage.

Secondly, we can take steps to give ourselves time to make the adjustment. By knowing what to expect, we can prepare to ride it out. We can imagine which options will be foreclosed first, and create alternatives, so that we do not run out of options.

Lastly, we can concentrate on what is important: preserving a vibrant ecosphere that supports a diversity of life, our own progeny included. I can imagine few short-term prerogatives that should override this – our highest priority.

risk

8. Managing financial risk

It will take some time for these realisations to sink in. In the meantime, we will no doubt keep hearing that we have a financial crisis on our hands. We must do something to shore up the banks, to deal with the toxic assets, to shore up our credit ratings and so forth. There are people who will tell you that this was all caused by a mistake in financial modelling, and that if we re-regulate the financial sector, this won't happen again. So, for the sake of the argument, let's take a look at all that.

Financial management is certainly not my speciality, but as far as I understand it, it is mostly about assessing risk. And to do that, financial managers make certain assumptions about the phenomena they are trying to model. One standard assumption is that the future will resemble the past. Another is that various negative events are randomly distributed. For instance, if you are selling life insurance, you can be certain that people will die based on the fact that they have been born, and you can be reasonably certain that they will not all die at once. When someone dies is unpredictable, when people in general die is random, most of the time. And so here is the problem: the world is unpredictable, but classes of small events can be treated as random, until a bigger event comes along. It may seem like an obscure point, so let me explain the difference in a graphical way.

random

9. This is (pseudo)random

Here is a random collection of multicoloured dots. Actually, it is pseudo-random, because it was generated by a computer, and computers are deterministic beasts incapable of true randomness. A source of true randomness is hard to come by. Even very good random noise generators can have higher-order effects. Small events are frequent, and therefore we can treat them as random, larger events are less frequent and rather unpredictable, and some of the really large events put an end to the careers of the statisticians trying to model them, and so we never find out whether they are random or not. To a layman, this is random enough, but eventually you run out of randomness and hit something very non-random.

predictable

10. This is not random but predictable

Like this. Now this is not random, even to a layman. This is like oil expenditure going to 1/4 of global GDP. That certainly wasn't random. But was it unpredictable? We had a few years of monotonically increasing oil prices, and the high prices failed to produce much of a supply response in spite of record-high drilling rates, investment in ethanol, tar sands, and so on. We also have some good geology-based models that accurately predicted oil depletion profile for separate provinces, and had a high probability of succeeding in the aggregate as well. So this is definitely not random, and it is not even unpredictable. So, at a higher level, what sort of mathematics do we need to accurately model the inability of our financial and political and other leaders and commentators to see it, or to understand it, even now? And do we really need to do that, or should we just let this nice brick wall do the work for us. Because, you know, brick walls have a lot to teach people who refuse to acknowledge their existence, and they are very patient with students who need to repeat the lesson. I am sure that the lesson will sink in eventually, but I wonder how many more full-gallop runs at the wall it will take before everyone is convinced.

mostly work

11. His models mostly work

One person I would like to have a close encounter with the brick wall is this fellow, Myron Scholes, the Nobel Prise-winning co-author of the Black-Scholes method of pricing derivatives, the man behind the crash of Long Term Capital Management. He is the inspiration behind much of the current financial debacle. Recently, he has been quoted as saying the following: “Most of the time, your risk management works. With a systemic event such as the recent shocks following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, obviously the risk-management system of any one bank appears, after the fact, to be incomplete.” Now, imagine a structural engineer saying something along those lines: “Most of the time our structural analysis works, but if there is a strong gust of wind, then, for any given structure, it is incomplete.” Or a nuclear engineer: “Our calculations of the strength of nuclear reactor containment vessels work quite well much of the time. Of course, if there is an earthquake, then any given containment vessel might fail.” In these other disciplines, if you just don't know the answer, then you just don't bother showing up for work, because what would be the point?

love their lies

12. We love their lies

The point certainly wouldn't be to reassure people, to promote public confidence in bridges, buildings, and nuclear reactors. But economics and finance are different. Economics is not directly lethal, and economists never get sent to jail for criminal negligence or gross incompetence even when their theories do fail. Finance is about the promises we make to each other, and to ourselves. And if the promises turn out to be unrealistic, then economics and finance turn out to be about the lies we tell each other. We want to continue believing these lies, because there is a certain loss of face if we don't, and the economists are there to help us. We continue to listen to economists because we love their lies. Yes, of course, the economy will recover later this year, maybe the next. Yes, as soon as the economy recovers, all these toxic assets will be valuable again. Yes, this is just a financial problem; we just need to shore up the financial system by injecting taxpayer funds. These are all lies, but they make us feel all right. They are lying, and we are buying every word of it.

fastest way to lose money

13. Fastest way to lose all your money

Let's face it, these are difficult times for those of us who have a lot of money. Was können wir tun? We can entrust it to a financial institution. That tends to turn out badly. Many people in the United States have entrusted their retirement savings to financial institutions. And now they are being told that they cannot withdraw their money. All they can do is open a letter once a month, to watch their savings dwindle.

We can also invest it in some part of the global economy. I know some automotive factories you could buy. They are quite affordable right now. A lot of retired auto workers have put all of their retirement savings into General Motors stock. Maybe they know something that we don't? (Actually, that's part of a fraudulent scheme perpetrated by the Obama administration, to pay off their banker friends ahead of GM's other creditors.)

Well then, how about a nice gold brick or two? A bag of diamonds? Some classic cars? Then you could start your own personal museum of transportation. How about a beautifully restored classic luxury yacht? Then you could use the gold bricks to weigh you down if you ever decide to end it all by jumping overboard.

Here's another brilliant idea: buy green products. Whatever green thing the marketers and advertisers throw at you, buy it, toss it, and buy another one straight away. Repeat until they are out of product, you are out of money, and the landfills are full of green rubbish. That should stimulate the economy. Market research shows that there is a great reservoir of pent-up eco-guilt out there for marketers and advertisers to exploit. Industrial products that help the environment are a bit of an oxymoron. It's a bit like trying to bail out the Titanic using plastic teaspoons.

Another great marketing opportunity for our time is in survival goods. There are some web sites that push all sorts of supplies to put in your private bunker. It's a clever bit of manipulation, actually. Users log in, see that the stock market is down, oil is up, shotgun shells are on sale, so are hunting knives, and if you add a paperback on “surviving financial armageddon” to your shopping cart you qualify for free shipping. Oh and don't forget to add a large tin of dehydrated beans. Fear is a great motivator, and getting people to buy survival goods is almost a matter of operant conditioning: a marketer's dream.

If you want to help save the environment and prepare yourself for a life without access to consumer goods, then doing so by buying consumer goods doesn't seem like such a great plan. A much better thing to do is to BUY NOTHING. But that is not something you can do with money. But there are useful things to do with money, for the time being, if we hurry.

how to lose all your money

14. How to lose all your money (but have something to show for it)

Most of the wealth is in very few private hands right now. Governments and the vast majority of the people only have debt. It is important to convince people who control all this wealth that they really have two choices. They can trust their investment advisers, maintain their current portfolios, and eventually lose everything. Or they can use their wealth to reengage with people and the land in new ways, in which case they stand a chance of saving something for themselves and their children. They can build and launch lifeboats, recruit crew, and set them sailing.

Those who own a lot of industrial assets can divest before these assets lose value and invest in land resources, with the goal of preserving them, improving them over time, and using them in a sustainable manner. Since it will become difficult to get what you want by simply paying for it, it is a good idea to establish alternatives ahead of time, by making resources, such as farmland, available to those who can put them to good use, for their own benefit as well as for yours. It also makes sense to establish stockpiles of non-perishable materials that will preserve their usefulness far into the future. My favourite example is bronze nails. They last a over a hundred years in salt water, and so they are perfect for building boats. The manufacturing of bronze nails is actually a good use of the remaining fossil fuels – better than most. They are compact and easy to store.

Lastly, it makes sense to work towards orchestrating a controlled demolition of the global economy. This calls for a new financial skill set: that of a disinvestment adviser. The first step is a sort of triage; certain parts of the economy can be marked “do not resuscitate” and resources reallocated to a better task. A good example of an industry not worth resuscitating is the auto industry; we simply will not need any more cars. The ones that we already have will do nicely for as long as we'll need them. A good example of a sector definitely worth resuscitating is public health, especially prevention and infectious disease control. In all these measures, it is important to pull money out of geographically distant locations and invest it locally. This may be inefficient from a financial standpoint, but it is quite efficient from the point of view of personal and social self-preservation.

beyond finance

15. Beyond finance: controlling other kinds of risk

Coming back for a moment to the poor bankers and economists, it seems rather disingenuous for us to treat economics and finance as a special case of people who generate a lot of unmitigated risk. Do we have any examples of risks we understood properly and acted on in time? Are there any really serious systemic problems that we have been able to solve?… The best we seem to be able to do is buy time. In fact, that seems to be what we are good at – postponing the inevitable through diligence and hard work. None of us wants to act precipitously based on what we understand will happen eventually, because it may not happen for a while yet. And why would we want to rock the boat in the meantime? The one risk that we do seem to know how to mitigate against is the risk of not fitting in to our economic, social and cultural milieu. And what happens to us if our entire milieu finally goes over the edge? Well, the way we plan for that is by not thinking about that.

the biggest risk

16. The biggest risk of all

The biggest risk of all, as I see it, is that the industrial economy will blunder in for a few more years, perhaps even a decade or more, leaving environmental and social devastation in its wake. Once it finally gives up the ghost, hardly anything will be left with which to start over. To mitigate against this risk, we have to create alternatives, on a small scale, that do not perpetuate this system and that can function without it.

The idea of perpetuating the status quo through alternative means is all-pervasive, because so many people in positions of power and authority wish to preserve their positions. And so just about every proposal we see involves avoiding collapse instead of focusing on what comes after it. A prime example is the push to develop alternative energy. Many of these alternatives turn out to be fossil fuel amplifiers rather than self-sufficient resources: they require fossil fuel energy as an essential input. Also, many of them require an intact industrial base, which runs on fossil fuels. There is a pervasive idea that these alternatives haven't been developed before for nefarious reasons: malfeasance on the part of the greedy oil companies and so on. The truth of the matter is that these alternatives are not as potent, physically or economically, as fossil fuels. And here is the real point worth pondering: If we can no longer afford the oil or the natural gas, what makes us think that we can afford the less potent and more expensive alternatives? And here is a follow-up question: If we can't afford to make the necessary investments to get at the remaining oil and natural gas, what makes us think that we will find the money to develop the less cost-effective alternatives?

how long

17. How long do we have?

It would be excellent if more people had these realisations, and started making progress toward making their lives a bit more sustainable. But social inertia is quite great, and the process of adaptation takes time. And the question is, is there enough time for significant numbers of people to have these realisations and to adapt, or will they have to endure quite a lot of discomfort?

I believe that people who start the process now stand a fairly good chance of making the transition in time. But I don't think that it is too wise to wait and try to grab a few more years of comfortable living. Not only would that be a waste of time on a personal level, but we'd be squandering the resources we need to make the transition.

I concede that the choice is a difficult one: either we wait for circumstances to force our hand, at which point it is too late for us to do anything to prepare, or we bring it upon ourselves ahead of time. If we ask the question, How many people are likely to do that? – then we are asking the wrong question. A more relevant question is, Would we be doing this all alone? And I think the answer is, probably not, because there are quite a few other people who are thinking along these same lines.

social inertia

18. It's always personal

I think it is very important to understand social inertia for the awesome force that it is. I have found that many people are almost genetically predisposed to not want to understand what I have been saying, and many others understand it on some level but refuse to act on it. When they are touched by collapse, they take it personally or see it as a matter of luck. They see those who prepare for collapse as eccentrics; some may even consider them to be dangerous subversives. This is especially likely to be the case for people in positions of power and authority, because they are not exactly cheered by the prospect of a future that has no place for them.

There is a certain range of personalities that are most likely to survive collapse unscathed, physically or psychologically, and adapt to the new circumstances. I have been able to spot certain common traits while researching reports of survivors of shipwrecks and other similar calamities. A certain amount of indifference or detachment is definitely helpful, including indifference to suffering. Possibly the most important characteristic of a survivor, more important than skills or preparation or even luck, is the will to survive. Next is self-reliance: the ability to persevere in spite of loneliness lack of support from anyone else. Last on the list is unreasonableness: the sheer stubborn inability to surrender in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds, opposing opinions from one's comrades, or even force.

Those who feel the need to be inclusive, accommodating, to compromise and to seek consensus, need to understand the awesome force of social inertia. It is an immovable, crushing weight. “We must take into account the interests of society as a whole.” Translated, that means “We must allow ourselves to remain thwarted by people's unwillingness or inability to make drastic but necessary changes; to change who they are.” Must we, really?

There are two components to human nature, the social and the solitary. The solitary is definitely the more highly evolved, and humanity has surged forward through the efforts of brilliant loners and eccentrics. Their names live on forever precisely because society was unable to extinguish their brilliance or to thwart their initiative. Our social instincts are atavistic and result far too reliably in mediocrity and conformism. We are evolved to live in small groups of a few families, and our recent experiments that have gone beyond that seem to have relied on herd instincts that may not even be specifically human. When confronted with the unfamiliar, we have a tendency to panic and stampede, and on such occasions people regularly get trampled and crushed underfoot: a pinnacle of evolution indeed! And so, in fashioning a survivable future, where do we put our emphasis: on individuals and small groups, or on larger entities – regions, nations, humanity as a whole? I believe the answer to that is obvious.

collapse or transition

19. “Collapse” or “Transition”

It's rather difficult for most people to take any significant steps, even individually. It is even more difficult to do so as a couple. I know a lot of cases whether one person understands the picture and is prepared to make major changes in the living arrangement, but the partner or spouse is non-receptive. If they have children, then the constraints multiply, because things that may be necessary adaptations post-collapse look like substandard living conditions to a pre-collapse mindset. For instance, in many places in the United States, bringing up a child in a place that lacks electricity, central heating, or indoor plumbing may be equated with child abuse, and authorities rush in and confiscate the children. If there are grandparents involved, then misunderstandings multiply. There may be some promise to intentional communities: groups that decide to make a go of it in rural setting.

When it comes to larger groups: towns, for instance any meaningful discussion of collapse is off the table. The topics under discussion centre around finding ways to perpetuate the current system through alternative means: renewable energy, organic agriculture, starting or supporting local businesses, bicycling instead of driving, and so on. These certainly aren't bad things to talk about it, or to do, but what of the radical social simplification that will be required? And is there a reason to think that it is possible to achieve this radical simplification in a series of controlled steps? Isn't that a bit like asking a demolition crew to demolish a building brick by brick instead of what it normally does. Which is, mine it, blow it up, and bulldoze and haul away the debris?

bureaucracy

20. Better living through bureaucracy

There are still many believers in the goodness of the system and the magic powers of policy. They believe that a really good plan can be made acceptable to all – the entire unsustainably complex international organisational pyramid, that is. They believe that they can take all these international bureaucrats by the hand, lead them to the edge of the abyss that marks the end of their bureaucratic careers, and politely ask them to jump. Now, don't get me wrong, I am not trying to stop them. Let them proceed with their brilliant schemes, by all means.

simpler

21. Simpler approaches: investment

There are far simpler approaches that are likely to be more effective. Since most wealth is in private hands, it is actually up to individuals to make very important decisions. Unlike various bureaucratic and civic bodies, which are both short of funds and mired in social inertia, they can act decisively and unilaterally. The problem is, what to do with financial assets before they lose value. The answer is to invest in things that will retain value even after all financial assets are worthless: land, ecosystems, and personal relationships. The land need not be in pristine or natural condition. After a couple of decades, any patch of land reverts to a wilderness, and unlike an urban or an industrial desert, a wilderness can sustain life, human and otherwise. It can support a population of plants an animals, wild and domesticated, and even a few humans.

The human relationships that are the most conducive to preserving ecosystems are ones that are in turn tied to a direct, permanent relationship with the land. They can be enshrined in permanent, heritable leases payable in sustainably harvested natural products. They can also be enshrined as deeded easements that provide the community with traditional hunting, gathering and fishing rights, provided human rights are not allowed to supersede those of other species. I think the lifeboat metaphor is apt here, because the moral guidance it offers is so clear. What has to happen in an overloaded lifeboat at sea when a storm blows up and it becomes necessary to lighten the load? Everyone draws lots. Such practises have been upheld by the courts, provided no-one is exempt – not the captain, not the crew, not the owner of the shipping company. If anyone is exempt, the charge becomes murder. Sustainability, which is necessary for group survival, may have to have its price in human life, but humanity has survived many such incidents before without descending into barbarism.

gift giving

22. Gift-giving as an organising principle

Many people have been so brainwashed by commercial propaganda that they have trouble imagining that anything can be made to work without recourse to money, markets, the profit motive, and other capitalist props. And so it may be helpful to present some examples of very important victories that have been achieved without any of these.

In particular, Open Source software, which used to be somewhat derisively referred to as “free software” or “shareware”, is a huge victory of the gift economy over the commercial economy. “Free software” is not an accurate label; nor is “free prime numbers” or “free vocabulary words”. Nobody pays for these things, but some people are silly enough to pay for software. It's their loss; the “free” stuff is generally better, and if you don't like it, you can fix it. Für frei.

General science works on similar principles. Nobody directly profits from formulating a theory or testing a hypothesis or publishing the results. It all works in terms mutuality and prestige – same as with software.

On the other hand, wherever the pecuniary motivation rises to the top, the result is mediocre at best. And so we have expensive software that fails constantly. (I understand that the British Navy is planning to use a Microsoft operating system on their nuclear submarines; that is a frightening piece of news.) We also have oceans full of plastic trash – developing all those “products” floating in the ocean would surely have been impossible without the profit motive. Und so weiter.

In all, the profit motive fails to motive altruistic behaviour, because it is not reciprocal. And it is altruistic behaviour that increases the social capital of society. Within a gift-giving system, we can all be in everyone's debt, but going into debt makes us all richer, not poorer.

barter

23. Barter as an organizing principle

Gifts are wonderful, of course, but sometimes we would like something rather specific, and are willing to work with others to get it, without recourse to money, of course. This is where arrangements made on the basis of barter. In general, you barter something over which you have less choice (one of the many things you can offer) for something over which you have more choice (something you actually want).

Economists will tell you that barter is inefficient, because it requires “coincidence of wants”: if A wants to barter X for Y, then he or she must find B who wants to barter Y for X. Actually, most everyone I've ever run across doesn't want to barter either X for Y, or Y for X. Rather, they want to barter whatever the can offer for any of a number of the things they want.

In the current economic scheme, we are forced to barter our freedom, in the form of the compulsory work-week, for something we don't particularly want, which is money. We have limited options for what to do with that money: pay taxes, bills, buy shoddy consumer goods, and, perhaps, a few weeks of “freedom” as tourists. But other options do exist.

One option is to organise as communities to produce certain goods that the entire community wants: food, clothing, shelter, security and entertainment. Everyone makes their contribution, in exchange for the end product, which everyone gets to share. It is also possible to organise to produce goods that can be used in trade with other communities: trade goods. Trade goods are a much better way to store wealth than money, which is, let's face it, an essentially useless substance.

do we need currency?


24. Local/alternative currencies

There is a lot of discussion of ways to change the way money works, so that it can serve local needs instead of being one of the main tools for extracting wealth from local economies. But there is no discussion of why it is that money is generally necessary. That is simply assumed. There are communities that have little or no money, where there may be a pot of coin buried in the yard somewhere, for special occasions, but no money in daily use.

Lack of money makes certain things very difficult. Examples include gambling, loan sharking, extortion, bribery and fraud. It also makes it more difficult to hoard wealth, or to extract it out of a community and ship it somewhere else in a conveniently compact form. When we use money, we cede power to those who create money (by creating debt) and who destroy money (by cancelling debt). We also empower the ranks of people whose area of expertise is in the manipulation of arbitrary rules and arithmetic abstractions rather than in engaging directly with the physical world. This veil of metaphor allows them to mask appalling levels of violence, representing it symbolically as a mere paper-shuffling exercise. People, animals, entire ecosystems become mere numbers on a piece of paper. On the other hand, this ability to represent dissimilar objects using identical symbols causes a great deal of confusion. For instance, I have heard rather intelligent people declare that government funds, which have been allocated to making failed financial institutions look solvent, could be so much better spent feeding widows and orphans. There is no understanding that astronomical quantities of digits willed into existence and transferred between two computers (one at a central bank, another at a private bank) cannot be used to directly nourish anyone, because food cannot be willed into existence by a central banker or anyone else.

technology will not solve this

25. Belief in science and technology

One accusation I often hear is that I fail to grasp the power of technological innovation and the free market system. If I did, apparently I would have more faith in a technologically advanced future where all of our current dilemmas are swept away by a new wave of eco-friendly sustainability. My problem is that I am not an economist or a businessman: I am an engineer with a background in science. The fact that I've worked for several technology start-up companies doesn't help either.

I know roughly how long it takes to innovate: come up with the idea, convince people that it is worth trying, try it, fail a few times, eventually succeed, and then phase it in to real use. It takes decades. We do not have decades. We have already failed to innovate our way out of this.

Not only that, but in many ways technological innovation has done us a tremendous disservice. A good example is innovation in agriculture. The so-called “green revolution” has boosted crop yields using fossil fuel inputs, creating generations of agro-addicts dependent on just one or two crops. In North America, human hair samples have been used to determine that fully 69% of all the carbon came from just one plant: maize. So, what piece of technological innovation do we imagine will enable this maize-dependent population to diversify their food sources and learn to feed themselves without the use of fossil fuel inputs?

I think that what makes us likely to think that technology will save us is that we are addled by it. Efforts at creating intelligent machines have failed, because computers are far too difficult to program, but humans turn out to be easy for computers to program. Everywhere I go I see people poking away at their little mental support units. Many of them can no longer function without them: they wouldn't know where to go, who to talk to, or even where to get lunch without a little electronic box telling what to do.

These are all big successes for maize plants and for iPhones, but are they successes for humanity? Somehow I doubt it. Do we really want to eat nothing but maize and look at nothing but pixels, or should there be more to life? There are people who believe in the emergent intelligence of the networked realm – a sort of artificial intelligence utopia, where networked machines become hyperintelligent and solve all of our problems. And so our best hope is that in our hour of need machines will be nice to us and show us kindness? If that's the case, what reason would they find to respect us? Why wouldn't they just kill us instead? Or enslave us. Oh, wait, maybe they already have!

need to evolve

26. The need to evolve

Now, supposing all goes well, and we have a swift and decisive collapse, what should follow is an equally swift rebirth of viable localised communities and ecosystems. One concern is that the effort will be short of qualified staff.

It is an unfortunate fact that the recent centuries of settled life, and especially the last century or so of easy living based on the industrial model, has made many people too soft to endure the hardships and privations that self-sufficient living often involves. It seems quite likely that those groups that are currently marginalised, would do better, especially the ones that are found in economically underdeveloped areas and have never lost contact with nature.

And so I would not be surprised to see these marginalised groups stage a come-back. Almost every rural place has its population of people who know how to use the local resources. They are the human component of the local ecosystems, and, as such, they deserve much more respect than they have received. A lot of them can't be bothered about fine manners or about speaking English. Those who are used to thinking of them as primitive, ignorant and uneducated will be shocked to discover how much they must learn from them.

beyond planning

27. Beyond planning

So what are we to do in the meantime, while we wait for collapse, followed by good things? It's no use wasting your energy, running yourself ragged and ageing prematurely, so get plenty of rest, and try to live a slow and measured life. One of the ways industrial society dominates us is through the use of the factory whistle: few of us work in factories, but we are still expected to work a shift. If you can avoid doing that, you will be ahead. Maintain your freedom to decide what to do at each moment, so that you can do each thing at the most opportune time. Specifically try to give yourself as many options as you can, so that if any one thing doesn't seem to be working out, you can switch to another. The future is unpredictable, so try to plan so as to be able to change your plans at any time. Learn to ignore all the people who earn their money by telling you lies. Thanks to them, the world is full of very bad ideas that are accepted as conventional wisdom, so watch out for them and come to your own conclusions. Lastly, people who lack a sense of humour are going to be in for a very hard time, and can drag down those around them. Plus, they are just not that funny. So avoid people who aren't funny, and look for those who can laugh at the world no matter what happens.

Anteil

Local Living Economies – Protecting What We Love

Anteil

edible city

Anteil
Best Photoshop Programs Update To Windows Xp Microsoft Office 2007 Full Version Download Buy Windows 7 Update Windows 7 Oem Or Retail Microsoft Word 2010 Download Free Download Office 2010 Gratis Adobe Photoshop Cs5 Download Win 7 Ultimate Adobe Camera Raw Best Photoshop Software Lightroom 3 Price Microsoft Professional Upgrade Windows Home To Professional Word Microsoft 2007 Acrobat Pro Windows 7 Microsoft Office Word 2009 Acrobat Adobe Adobe Acrobat Reader 9.0 Professional Windows Xp Professional Sp3 Oem Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition Price Windows Office 2003 Microsoft Office Book Windows Live Pdf Viewer Download Adobe Acrobat Professional Buy How To Download Adobe Reader Software Windows Xp Pro Acrobat Pro Price Alphabetical Order Word 2007 Adobe Professional Trial Adobe Acrobat 3d Cheap Desks Macromedia Suite Photoshop 4 Extended Adobe Cs5 Beta Windows 7 Upgrade Xp Cheap Windows 7 Home Premium Office Word Microsoft Windows Vista Upgrade To Windows 7 How To Repair Windows Xp Home Edition Trial Autocad 2010 Microsoft Windows 7 Professional Full Version Autodesk Hardware Acrobat Reader 9 Download Adobe Framemaker Lightroom Adobe How Much Is Windows 7 Adobe Pricing Windows 7 Ultimate Sale Windows 2000 Server Edition Adobe Plug In Requirements For Windows 7 Ultimate Autocad Light Microsoft Office Standard Edition Microsoft Word 2010 Discounts Best Photo Management Software Windows 7 Ultimate Steal Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 Sale Adobe Acrobat Professional Full Photoshop Cs2 Tricks Word Software Windows 7 Themes Free Download Free Microsoft Word Adobe Online Store Discount Microsoft Office 2007 Windows Xp Home Edition Sp3 Download Activate Autocad 2011 Word 2003 Download Lightroom 3 Adobe Free Adobe Acrobat 9 Ms Word Xp Lightroom Adobe Microsoft Office Demo Download Adobe Reader 8.0 Free Download Adobe Acrobat Professional 9.0 Cad 09 Free Downloads Of Photoshop Softmaker Office 2008 Demo Autocad