[Timo]

"Attempting to maintain any semblance of fairness and equality and universal human rights during times of overshoot is counter productive."

Absolutely, 100% correct! The only way around the human tendency to sympathize with those less fortunate is to declare them your enemy for Reason X, and declare war upon them, and justify your wrath as doing the work of God to smite them. ISIS is doing just that. Religious Freedom laws are less violent ways of doing just that. Religious freedom justifies anything, and we're all headed down that path, gaining momentum to make it an avalanche of religious intolerance.

Ebola was a prime example of Mother Nature trying to maintain a balance, yet humans refused to succumb to reality. Actually, not just ebola, but any disease serves that purpose to thin the herd. Humans will not conceed our dominance over everything until Mother Nature squashes us like a fly. Our moral empathies prevent us from turning our backs on suffering. That is good human nature that will ultimately come back to bite us in the ass. There is also bad human nature that actually seeks to cause that suffering, and expedite the work that Mother Nature has been prevented from doing on her own.

Round and round and round she goes. Where it stops..................

Mommy! Are we there yet?

[Lore]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately as well. While we are all caught up in the present news cycle here in the US of cops vs civil liberties to minority communities, it made me wonder where such consideration will be given in the future. The minute things start to fray at the edges a lot of the old social divisive nature of mankind will come creeping back in.

Things can and will get ugly again as major threats arise and once more we see a breakdown of order and civility along racial and ethnic lines. How different the news will be in ten to twenty years.

[dohboi]

Ibon, on the other hand, in earlier times, when a crisis was recognized as threatening all, people tended to come together, cooperate, engage in more or less self sacrifice for the greater good...

These are also parts of the human response.

Certainly, in the last stages of collapse, there are examples of humans devolving to what some would consider sub-human activity (yes, we have now fulfilled whatever the law is called that says that all discussions of resource limits eventually end up discussing cannibalism ).

But depending on how people perceive the threat and what ideologies are rattling around in their heads, there are plenty of examples of more positive (though never of course totally utopian) responses than those you suggest.

In fact, once the illusion of limitless growth and the myth that anyone can become a millionaire is dispelled, people are likely going to be less accepting of wide income gaps. And once society has achieved something closer to rough equality in income (at least differences of only about one order of magnitude rather than two or three), that is once people see that there is some measure of fairness restored in society, they are more likely to be willing to make sacrifices for it and cooperate to salvage something of whats left.

(Uh oh, I'm starting to sound like my revolutionary relatives! Time to read more doomer porn! )

[onlooker]

I for one am glad that this conversation of current and future consequences is directing itself to humans interactions with other humans. Do we not have countless examples of situations made worse or better via some measure of altruism or uncivilized and nasty behavior. So we may attain deep wisdom in regards to our role in maintaining ecological balance but it would no good if we continue to not have some measure of harmony among ourselves. I also do not think that will occur at this time as we are too immersed in aggressive competitive modes to truly understand the benefit of working together. As for the elites viewpoint of us as liabilities that may be, but the masses will also see the elites as liabilities in so much as their mandates will not offer any real solutions or allow humanity to best weather the storm to come.

[Timo]

Ibon, on the other hand, in earlier times, when a crisis was recognized as threatening all, people tended to come together, cooperate, engage in more or less self sacrifice for the greater good...

These are also parts of the human response.

Dohboi, you are correct in your referrence to previous times when people banded together to collectively address an external threat. The difference this time is that there is no external threat. There is no outward threat on which we can focus our cooperations. The threat we face now is entirely internal. If we are to come together, we must first collectively admit that WE are our own threat to ourselves. We must accuse ourselves of living in excess, thereby destroying our planet's life systems, AND accept the collective, self-imposed punishment for that crime by collectively living below our means.

Humans aren't so great in admitting to faults within ourselves. We're perfect in God's own image. It's the planet's fault for not living up to our godly expectations.

[Lore]

They banded together in bands to fight one another. Sort of like in Syria today.

UN warns of Syria food shortage due to looming drought
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26943503

[dohboi]

Yes, Timo. The perception of the nature of the threat is crucial. But that has been true in other cases. Governments prepare their people for the rigors that major wars will require of them with intense, incessant information/propaganda campaigns. We need something similar here, but nothing in this case needs to be fabricated--only recognizing the true nature of the threats coming at us.

Syria can actually be seen as a good example of a severely dysfunctional response to climate change (though as always there are many other elements involved).

I agree that as likely as not that this kind of total violence will be the result as things unwind more and more deeply in more and more places.

More on that later.

[KaiserJeep]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately as well. While we are all caught up in the present news cycle here in the US of cops vs civil liberties to minority communities, it made me wonder where such consideration will be given in the future. The minute things start to fray at the edges a lot of the old social divisive nature of mankind will come creeping back in.

Things can and will get ugly again as major threats arise and once more we see a breakdown of order and civility along racial and ethnic lines. How different the news will be in ten to twenty years.

The FBI statistics take the steam out of your rant. For the last 30 years, the shooting of minority suspects by white cops is down 70%.

What is new is the MSM's agenda of "poor oppressed minorities", while ignoring the rampant crimes, including murder, hard drugs, gangs, and prostitution, in minority neighborhoods. Or perhaps, "ignoring" is not the same thing as blaming the racial groups who do not live in those areas for the behaviors of those people that do live there.

[Lore]

I've been thinking a lot about this lately as well. While we are all caught up in the present news cycle here in the US of cops vs civil liberties to minority communities, it made me wonder where such consideration will be given in the future. The minute things start to fray at the edges a lot of the old social divisive nature of mankind will come creeping back in.

Things can and will get ugly again as major threats arise and once more we see a breakdown of order and civility along racial and ethnic lines. How different the news will be in ten to twenty years.

The FBI statistics take the steam out of your rant. For the last 30 years, the shooting of minority suspects by white cops is down 70%.

What is new is the MSM's agenda of "poor oppressed minorities", while ignoring the rampant crimes, including murder, hard drugs, gangs, and prostitution, in minority neighborhoods. Or perhaps, "ignoring" is not the same thing as blaming the racial groups who do not live in those areas for the behaviors of those people that do live there.

My "rant", as you call it wasn't about that. You missed the point completely.

[KaiserJeep]

-snip-

My "rant", as you call it wasn't about that. You missed the point completely.

Oh, I understood what you were saying. My point was that in the USA racial relations have improved more than ever before and faster than ever before - at the same time that real poverty is on the increase.

The Liberal narrative says that poverty causes crime. I say it is ethnic culture. Minority neighborhoods in the USA are far more crime-ridden than the wealthier suburbs. But they are miles safer than the neighborhoods inhabited by those same ethnic groups in their country of origin, or their ancestors country of origin. Harlem, Watts, Oakland, South Philly, Detroit, etc. may have worse crime statistics than the rest of the USA, but when compared to Mexico City, Guatemala City, Port Moresby, Benghazi, Caracas, or darn near anywhere in South Africa or the Middle East, these cities are much safer.

I see no reason that there should be any change, when energy gets expensive. But then I do not subscribe to the Liberal narrative that says that poverty increases crime. Certainly the US standard of living has been falling ever since the 1970's, but so have the crime statistics.

The US standard of living stats represent a few very rich people who are much better off, and many many lower and middle class people who are relatively worse off than their parents and grandparents. In spite of this, crime in general and violent crimes are down, as are interracial crime rates.

I believe the FBI crime stats, not the Liberal narrative that says White oppression causes crime. I never oppressed anybody. I don't think that worsening economics will increase any form of crime. If you look at the Great Depression in particular as the greatest economic conniption before peak oil, the prior experience says that Americans come together and help one another in a crisis. It is the basis of American culture that the welfare of fellow US citizens regardless of racial or ethnic or social identity is second only to family.

[KaiserJeep]

I acknowledge that a black man is 21X as likely to be shot by a white police officer than a white man - and NOT the 2X you claimed. He's also far more likely to be wanted for an outstanding warrant, be it for a crime or - like Scott - for nonpayment of alimony or child support. Personally I think the reason Scott was stopped is "driving Mercedes while black", and the broken tail light was an excuse - unfortunately for him, a valid excuse for a traffic stop. But Scott then chose to run because he knew that the officer would discover his outstanding warrant and take him into custody. He paid for this misjudgement with his life - and the cop appears to have committed 2nd degree murder.

Non of which changes what I said before. The Liberal narrative is BS.

[Ibon]

Ibon, on the other hand, in earlier times, when a crisis was recognized as threatening all, people tended to come together, cooperate, engage in more or less self sacrifice for the greater good...

These are also parts of the human response.

My rather dark post above drew from the "primitive shed" and recognizing it as part of the solution. Many of my other posts are more hopeful and come from the "enlightened shed", like the cultural traits starting to emerge in the millennial generation or also recognizing as you say the possibility of sub cultures really pulling together.

We need to see how the interplay between these primitive and enlightened forces will act in synergy and be mutually reinforcing each other.

That is related to the cultural "natural selection" that can emerge. If you look at Cid's post above about Sweden, if some of these more enlightened sub cultures are watching from a safe distance as more primitive die off solutions happen in other regions, how does this affect the convictions of the more enlightened?

How much would cultural self regulation become reinforced if the cultures that practice this look across a geographic barrier like an ocean and see the results of cultures that fail.

Cultural volatility, a mix of the primitive and enlightened and the interplay between them will result in a cultural natural selection process that could see the emergence of self regulation becoming embedded culturally.

This is another example of why it might be different this time around, compared to the uni dimensional nature of singular cultures like the Mayans or Romans or Easter islanders who collapsed isolated with no audience.

[Timo]

That is related to the cultural "natural selection" that can emerge. If you look at Cid's post above about Sweden, if some of these more enlightened sub cultures are watching from a safe distance as more primitive die off solutions happen in other regions, how does this affect the convictions of the more enlightened?

How much would cultural self regulation become reinforced if the cultures that practice this look across a geographic barrier like an ocean and see the results of cultures that fail.

So in other words, the meek shall inherit the earth? Observe the calamity from a safe distance, and stay out of harm's way, but learn from other's mistakes to plan a sustainable course for your own future.

That's not a bad plan, actually. Sweden should be relatively safe from the problems caused by AGW.

[Ibon]

The industrial revolution represents an inflection point as significant as when humans started agriculture. In the 10,000 years more or less since agriculture has been here we have had isolated civilizations that have experienced collapse due to locally exceeding their carrying capacity but humans afterward did not abandon agriculture.

What agriculture did for food production the industrial revolution did for a suite of other human needs; sanitation, managing disease, shelter, transportation, and of course industrial agriculture.

Our current global civilization is in overshoot not because of these basic needs that the industrial revolution provided humans. We are in overshoot primarily because of overpopulation and the non essential discretionary and wasteful usage of energy. If you pull back our population to under a billion and you remove wasteful energy use we can exist within carrying capacity with our planet and maintain many of the essential benefits of the industrial revolution.

We didn't abandon agriculture when past civilizations collapsed and we aren't going to abandon the benefits of the industrial revolution when our current civilization goes into decline.

Once we let the agriculture cat out of the bag there was no going back to HG living arrangements. Once we let the industrial revolution cat out of the bag there is no going back to pre-industrial revolution technologies.

Technologies going forward are going to work within energy constraints and within the degraded environment. That means applied technology toward sustainability. This will be a combination of pragmatic reality driven adaptation that will influence ideology and culture.

This trajectory will happen, but it will not be well planned or logically implemented. It will happen taking equally from the primitive dark shed as from enlightened and reasoned adaptation.

We are entering a punctuated unstable time due to human overshoot and physical consequences which will challenge a set of beliefs that are no longer sustainable. There is a long and rocky road between today and the plateau of sustainability when humans implement the required self regulation to maintain a resilient population.
We will get there in a very clumsy manner.

I have been given this message from a hummingbird that whispered this in my ear this morning.

[dohboi]

A minor quibble for now on terminology. I like Timo's 'meek' (biblical though it may be ) over Ibon's "enlightened" vs "primitive"--I realize that Ibon is using his terms in slightly different senses than is normal, but that kind of invites confusion, imvho.

It was the inheritors of "The Enlightenment" that area primarily responsible for our current multiple predicaments, while cultures that are generally considered 'primitive' had essentially no part in creating this mess. Again, I know Ibon is using these in somewhat nuanced ways, but most people reading this out of context will just likely assume the more traditional meanings.

[Timo]

In response to both Ibon and Dohboi, I suggest both paths for the future of humanity are quite likely, perhaps even within the same domain. Ibon's hummingbird is correct. Both agriculture and industrial society will continue during and after the bottleneck. This will sound counterintuitive, but that's humanity's damnation and its salvation. Both of these practices sustained us during the drive to ruin, but at the same time, these practices will be what enable us to survive the afterworld of our ruin. We are smart, and it's our basic human instinct to use our intelligence in order to survive, and humans will survive. Fewer, yes, but once we get through the bottleneck, the survivors will look back and realize that they are the remnants of a world that just recently lost 6 billion people. That is (will be) some really heavy shit! That will change the outlook for the entire species, and BAU will no longer exist.

That said, the survivors will be those who use their survival instinct AND their intelligence NOW by staying out of resource wars, staying out of political conflict, staying out of the competition for the dwindling supplies that everyone is now starting to kill for. For most of the western world, oil is more valuable than blood. There are some exceptions to that paradigm, however. There are pockets of the western world who are currently willing to make due with less, and to use their intelligence to develop alternative means to maintain their ag and industrial systems, just with a lower impact, thus more sustainable to continue. These pockets of humanity are now going through their population declines in order to place fewer demands on their available resources, and using their intelligence to maintain most human comforts. They are laying low and waiting for the rest of the world to explode, and they'll be left mostly intact to carry on the future of humanity.

The coming bottleneck will be a very hard time for 99% of humanity. The bottleneck will be based on resource wars, religion, and wars for water and land are also not too far off. As shores start to disappear, mass human relocation will start in full to inland locations, placing further demands on outdated infrastructures, and this migration will cause more wars. Wars for water will be extremely intense, and will likely cause unimaginable instances of genocide. These wars are not too far off in our future, either. We will live to see them.

Anyway, doom and gloom is a matter of degrees, and of the current age of the doomer. All is not lost. The world will not come to an end, but the world will end for billions of people. What will be left will be unrecognizable to humans today. AGW + billions fewer people in a relatively short timeframe will, I hope, cause what Ibon is also hopeful for, that being an entirely new MO for humanity, based on living with the planet, instead of against it. Only time will tell.

[Ibon]

A minor quibble for now on terminology. I like Timo's 'meek' (biblical though it may be ) over Ibon's "enlightened" vs "primitive"--I realize that Ibon is using his terms in slightly different senses than is normal, but that kind of invites confusion, imvho.

It was the inheritors of "The Enlightenment" that area primarily responsible for our current multiple predicaments, while cultures that are generally considered 'primitive' had essentially no part in creating this mess. Again, I know Ibon is using these in somewhat nuanced ways, but most people reading this out of context will just likely assume the more traditional meanings.

Yes, there might be better terms to avoid this confusion. By enlightened I mean actions or solutions that come from intelligence, altruism,ecological knowledge, By primitive I mean actions or solutions that come from destruction, war, greed. I don't know what better terms to use, in a metaphorical sense one could say light and dark forces of human nature.

What got me going down this line of inquiry was contemplating how humans are going to react to the consequences of overshoot and the dynamic interplay between these light and dark forces.

And counter intuitively , the important role these darker forces play in correcting imbalances. Something our morals and ethics can't quite acknowledge.

As we move into decline and the consequences of overshoot manifest in our environments, the desperate attempts at holding on to a dying paradigm are going to stand in stark contrast to societies and cultures that start to practice wise stewardship. In this sense the meek will be strong using Timo's terms. What defines that strength is seeing the failure of those cultures that are observed holding on to BAU as they fight over diminishing and degrading resources.

This interplay has the possibility to embed sustainability on the cultural level where they start to merge with our morals and ethics.

Dark forces like war and conflict do also accelerate the dismantling of this vast juggernaut of breeding and consuming humans under the current flawed orientation modern Kudzu Apes have with their planet. This is also part of the "solution" of transition, not one we would all have hoped for 40 years ago but it is the corner we have chosen to back ourselves into.

[onlooker]

I think this thread is leading to the consideration of not just how many people will make it to through the bottleneck but where they will be mostly concentrated. Also, the future prospects of the remaining people. I tend to agree that the Western Hemisphere will offer better opportunities because of the relatively manageable population size relative to resources. Especially the Northern areas. Assuming a warming trend , the Northern areas could become even more important for agriculture. North American and Canada still retain large fresh water reserves. Also, the US will not be the target militarily of anyone because of how potent their military is. Also, we have smart people studying as we speak the feasibility of different modes of living, Permaculture, renewable energy etc. Certainly Asia seems vastly overpopulated. Middle East is a ticking time bomb. Africa is helpless. Europe is overpopulated relative to resources and may be somewhat vulnerable to violent engagement. Though the Scandinavian countries seem well positioned. Latin America is mostly in hot humid environments which will have to deal with global warming. They themselves may enter into conflict. So that is a rough pithy summary of possible future locations of remaining people Certainly global warming will be a major factor going forward.

[Ibon]

Anyway, doom and gloom is a matter of degrees, and of the current age of the doomer. All is not lost. The world will not come to an end, but the world will end for billions of people. What will be left will be unrecognizable to humans today. AGW + billions fewer people in a relatively short timeframe will, I hope, cause what Ibon is also hopeful for, that being an entirely new MO for humanity, based on living with the planet, instead of against it. Only time will tell.

Yes. The only realistic way to look into the face of the upcoming calamities facing our species and maintain any semblance of optimism is to reach beyond the potential suffering and hardship that billions will suffer as consequences manifest and hold on to that thread of how this experience will transform culturally the survivors. Not to do this just for hopes sake, or as a foolish optimist, but actually looking at the forces, both dark and light, and seeing plausible ways to an end game that is sustainable and resilient.

Each generation emerging during the age of consequences is going to use their inherent youthful optimism to understand these forces and look for a place to hang their ideological hopes. Some will follow zealous populist leaders into resource wars. Others will be drawn toward stewardship.

The meek that might inherit the earth will not win in direct conflict with dark forces that go plundering after crumbs. They will be in bio regions and pockets of the planet that reject this plundering mind set and truly start building on a foundation of stewardship.

It is the failure of a plundering mind set that may eventually truly embed that self regulating stewardship in a surviving "meek" culture.