Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Newfie wrote:End of year rant.


I talked myself into this conclusion.....the world is run by fanatics, think:
...Wall Street types who don't give a rats ass about Nature
...religious nuts who are stuck in their fantasy land
...other assorted fruits and nuts who are out to take over some part of the world


We are on the cusp of eliminating one of our nearest biological relatives. Do we really give a shit? How many poachers is the last of a species worth?

It's a real and honest question.

And we worry about climate change. And while endangered species are being wiped out we rescue dogs and cats from being euthanized. And we want to feed 7 billion plus.

Strip away all the motivated reasoning, strip away all the rationalizations and hypocrisy.

We are filth on the planet. We are a parasite. We are The Kudzu Ape.

Each and every sentient one of us with all those sensitive feelings with our sense of entitlement are walking through life with such deep deep apathy and mediocrity we do not choose to see the rape and pillage, we choose not to have outrage.

We are exactly in the same place the german citizens were during the height of Nazi Germany as millions of jews and gypsies and mentally ill were slaughtered. We are quietly complicit like good obedient germans as the gestapo rounded up the jews and opened the gas valves.

We are morally in the same exact position.... at least the germans had a valid fear of nazi reprisals. What is our excuse?

I think every human being on this planet should read your post Ibon, it is about self-condemnation. Only way to move forward is to acknowledge the monstrosity and abomination of the Earth circa 20th century and into the 21st century. Yet as long as any of us exist we can find redemption though we may not be as culpable as others. I hope if not in this existence in some future one, I can witness this REDEMPTION on Earth, as humans live via our best virtues rather then our worse vices!

I would settle for enlightened selfishness over a few generations.

@ Ibon

Capitalism combines the logic of Reason with the irrational of earlier more arbitrary systems. This accounts for why on the one hand we can go to extreme lengths to save a child in Iraq whilst reducing the country to rubble. We may well go through the contrition of regretting our actions over this planet but the system compels us to go on conducting BAU despite this.

AD, in the end any system is run by us, people. So I cannot quite accept the system compels us. In the end the cumulative decisions and actions of people albeit mostly those at the top of the decision making pyramid are responsible for the world as we know it now. Our economics, politics and religious structures and institutions are all man made.

onlooker wrote:AD, in the end any system is run by us, people. So I cannot quite accept the system compels us. In the end the cumulative decisions and actions of people albeit mostly those at the top of the decision making pyramid are responsible for the world as we know it now. Our economics, politics and religious structures and institutions are all man made.

The system is a objective dynamic and a function of material conditions. Within that, we act subjectively, living through our senses but in the finality, always circumscribed within its objective bounds and the relations it throws forth. To step beyond its limits calls for an equal measure of objectivity in order that we may establish the relations that dovetail with these objective forces. That in itself is quite an enterprise as that also requires an objective subjectivity (or the balance of objective dialecticism with its subjective expression.)

That was a mouthful.

Too many people decide to feel outraged over one thing, and not outraged over another, seemingly equal injustice. The classic case would be Israel vs. Palestine. It's fashionable to tar and feather Israel and rationalize nail-bombs in Sbarros, probably because we kind of like to root for the underdog. I don't buy that logic. Either you value human life or you don't. You don't get to choose whose lives you'll grieve and whose you'll celebrate.

There's just no universal measuring-stick with morality. There just isn't. You've got Derrick Jensen who goes touring around colleges encouraging people to blow up dams and cell-phone towers and publishes a children's book on eco-terrorism, and I know by evoking his name there are some here who look up to the guy. But you can't deny that his way of looking at things will never, ever, become universally acceptable, as it's just kind of unabomber-lite extremism.

It's so easy, especially on the internet, to evoke rage, even over pretty petty issues. It's easy to say "shoot all poachers on sight". It's a lot harder to do things in a more nurturing, constructive, non-violent way.

When you step back you'll see that the same capacity for violence, both offensive AND defensive, that is at work here. It's literally a two-edged sword. The second you start to label people "good" and "evil" you're well on your way to dehumanizing them to the point where you can kill without remorse. At that point are you really any better than the bad guy?

@ennui

Which is why I stress objectivity when trying to understand systems and their dynamics. If we are ever to resolve the human condition, it will require a huge dose of objective logic.

vtsnowedin wrote:ISIS would be a likely candidate if they get the means. Imagine them getting the upper hand in Israel.

You should look into how hundreds of thousands of Palestinians happened to "voluntarily" leave their homes and land in 1948. It is quite similar to what ISIS is doing today. Jewish State, Islamic State.

ennui2 wrote:
It's so easy, especially on the internet, to evoke rage, even over pretty petty issues. It's easy to say "shoot all poachers on sight". It's a lot harder to do things in a more nurturing, constructive, non-violent way.

Yeah, we could apprehend poachers and bring them in for intervention, show them nature videos on how elephants weep over their dead, teach them the sanctity of all life, have them attend yoga classes. You know Ennui, it's so easy on the internet to evoke compassion and non-violent solutions. It's a lot harder to do things that are really effective. So here is my proposal.


We send in the military to go after the poachers. All 32 teeth of each poacher killed are removed with a pair of pliers. All large bones as well including the skull. The teeth and bones are then sent to artisans and made into small figurines. These are set in rings, earrings, necklaces and bracelets and sold by World Wildlife Fund for
$ 25,000 each and celebrities around the world would buy them as a status symbol of their commitment to save wildlife. 100% of the profits would go to financing the military operation until all poaching is stopped.

I would be proud to wear such a ring or necklace, knowing that my purchase enabled an effective action to stop poaching.

I should write to the Gates Foundation and tell them to stop thwarting the Overshoot Predator fighting Malaria in Africa and spend their money instead on helping initiate this proposal.

Keith_McClary wrote:

vtsnowedin wrote:ISIS would be a likely candidate if they get the means. Imagine them getting the upper hand in Israel.

You should look into how hundreds of thousands of Palestinians happened to "voluntarily" leave their homes and land in 1948. It is quite similar to what ISIS is doing today. Jewish State, Islamic State.

I'm aware of the history there. The powder keg may very well explode there early on in the coming genocidal wars. As usual both sides absurdly think that they will be the ultimate victors by divine right.

Grim Ibon, but something of merit there.

Ennui, I "get" where you are coming from, it is where our Western soul lies.

However the hard truth is that when push comes to shove it is force that is ultimately effective, if only for the survivors.

During WWII we firebombed cities into oblivion, for no apparent reason other then to "educate" or "demoralize" the population. Behaviour modification through death, gruesome business.

Gobbles was much better at evoking people's emotions towards a grand plan than was Chamberlin. Chamberlin wanted "peace our times", Churchill wanted Hitlers head. Roosevelt wanted to stay in office, while making back door deals. Truman wanted every "Jap" dead, pure and simple.

Dead is dead, poacher or elephant.

We DO decide who dies, right now we are choosing the elephants.

Which comes right back to the point of this whole thread, why IS over population taboo?

.................
Ennui, you are right it is easy to make emotional statements, and mine was. It was a self proclaimed RANT!

Why is it forbidden to be passionate about protecting the Others?

What rule of Nature are we breaking by advocating balance in Eath's population?

Ibon, without belaboring the point, I recognize that in human history your type of "solution" was much more widely employed.

How's Wilson doing? By now I need to reread both that and Diamonds latest.

Newfie wrote:Ibon, without belaboring the point, I recognize that in human history your type of "solution" was much more widely employed.

Democracy and freedom become compromised with overpopulation. And compassion and altruism contracts down to your own tribe as brutality increases toward those groups you are competing with, whether for food or ideology.

How's Wilson doing? By now I need to reread both that and Diamonds latest.

E.O. Wilson's, The Social Conquest of Earth. I finished the book. Highly recommended. This would be the 2nd book I would suggest for folks who want to better understand the biological origins of human social evolution.

The other book is Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are from Franz de Waal.

Both of these books would merit a thread of their own. My only hesitation for starting this is that the majority of posters here at po.com lack the real intellectual curiosity to go in depth, mostly following sadly the status quo of dumbing down most topics to binary positions of blame and tired polarized positions. So many wonderful topics that are raised here that could go along way down a pathway of inquiry and collaboration of ideas are so often sadly derailed over petty stupidity. I find myself withdrawing when that happens.

Are we not just a microcosm of the dumbed down masses anyway? What more can one expect.

Yeah, I am a bit of elitist in some ways at the same time that I admit I have so much to learn and I miss the intellectual rigor that is sometimes sorely lacking here. On the other hand this site is so much better than most and you have to wade through the crap sometimes to find the pearls.

Newfie, check out the review on Amazon.com of Wilson's book. Here is the link.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R37D84WG3P ... tore=books

This guy Paul J Watson from the Department of Biology of the
University of New Mexico really takes issue with Wilson and his position is interesting. There is a thread of comments there to his critique of Wilson's book that are worth reading. That by the way is the kind of in depth analysis that would nice to see more here at po.com.

I think Wilson group selection theory for altruism has ruffled quite a few feathers of the established theory of kin selection *inclusive fitness theory" that this guy Watson is defending. You can imagine he has his doctorate on this topic and his comments are typical of these academic turf wars. The difference however with scientific debate is that ones arguments still have to be based on science so these "political" turf wars stay within the intellectual boundaries of peer reviewed science.

When you think that 98% of our species history evolved with tribal groups competing with each other you cant help but suspect that natural selection for altruism was working on the group level as much as per kinship theory that says that altruism evolved on the individual level directly proportional to the percentage of genes shared among family members etc.

For me the dynamics that happen when tribes are out there in their environments foraging and hunting and competing with other groups offers much more selection pressure toward cooperation and altruism than related individuals within a tribe.

The real issue worth debating though is to what degree humans, unique among mammals with a eusocial arrangement, have proven to be such a dominating force on the planet. And is this social arrangement a rarity that contains vulnerabilities likely to lead to our extinction or attributes that could increase our resiliency.

Wilson mentions that humans can do better at understanding their world than what religions offer, which he says is an irrational byproduct of this group selection that all cultures exhibit. This is where I might somewhat disagree. Religions may be irrational but they show the group plasticity that is possible and this is the very thing that gives me hope in a way. It wont be the nerdy scientists that in the end will reign in our maladaptive social behaviors that have led to over consumption and destruction of the commons. It will more likely come from taboos originating in religious type spiritual movements due to consequences that will eventually lead us toward self regulation.
Sustainability grounded in unscientific spirituality or religion that achieves the goal of maintaining our species within carrying capacity would be in my opinion a very good thing. There can always be a subset of our culture that stays grounded in atheistic science while large segments require a spiritual framework with taboos to feel that tribal group sense of cohesion. They do not have to fight against each other as we see in the secular / religious divide today which really is another one of those false binaries since science and religion function on separate levels and can be synergistic to one another just as they are antagonistic today.

Many folks would embrace a more "relevant" religious spirituality that after severe consequences grounded itself in sustainability especially if this religiosity functioned as Wilson says as a kind of tribal cohesion. Rallying against other groups with less altruism and cohesion. You may dislike religions but nobody argues that they are excellent at forming tight tribal cohesion and strengthening taboos through commandments etc. This will come in very handy if a future militant Adam Smith type eco Mormon religion hits the streets and grounds its mythology on environmental sustainability. Any skeptics should just read the bible or the origins of Mormonism to see to what degree irrational absurdity can be embraced by humans. Just imagine if natural consequences of overshoot started to work on that irrational side of humans and molding taboos within a religious framework. Pork was forbidden because it actually did carry disease in bibilical times. Excessive consumption becomes forbidden because it did actually cause systemic failures during the industrial revolution. What will move the masses, news of 500ppm of carbon or the wrath of god flooding your town. If the wrath of god mirrors external consequences then there is at least the possibility that taboos will be formed toward self regulation.

Up thread a ways I posed a question nobody wanted to entertain. I will repeat it here a little bit modified which is really an attempt to touch on those taboos and what would have to happen for sustainable taboos to re-emerge, since some native cultures did historically have them.

Ibon wrote: we should really stay focused on the taboos themselves and if these taboos that were historically present in past sustainable cultures are compatible in anyway with the current dominate taker culture of treating our ecosystems and natural resources as commodities.

And if not what is the deficit in our current culture and what is needed to change this?
Who cares to offer a rebuttal on the cynic of my previous post.

Or....look at cultures that had no such taboos.

For a gruesome review check here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide

While it appears exhaustive on the surface, just rolling through it I only slight mention of Polynesia . So it would seem there is more beyond this.

Googling "infanticide taboo" brings one to here.

http://bigthink.com/against-the-new-tab ... n-be-moral

It would seem there is a lot to discuss within the context stated by Ibon.

A wonderful erudite analysis Ibon, my viewpoint is that whatever taboo that must arise in the wake of our irresponsible and reckless decimation of the commons must by necessity be universal. Now if it is to be a Taboo of Paramount importance it must be adhered to by all. It seems to me the only way for that to happen is for humans to be as little divided in any manner as possible. Whatever future society may look like, it must have an unprecedented level of cohesion and unity. We have heard of a One World Government, well something like this must arise. If we are to avoid repeating the same mistakes we must eliminate divisions and realize the potential to live as one family the human family. If not whatever social strictures and precepts we adopt would govern only a percentage of people and we cannot afford to do that ever again.

One World Government seems to run contrary to a population of 500 to 1,000 million.

Much more likely we will revert to our pattern of grouping and trying to kill anyone who doesn't come from your group.

That's not a taboo, but can be effective.

onlooker wrote:We have heard of a One World Government, well something like this must arise.

It's funny how people come at that idea from two totally opposite angles. One side views it as a dystopia, the other a utopia. If you associate division as a healthy thing, a place where people can choose to go to group with people of a like-mind (let's say a state where gay marriage is legal) then OWG might seem oppressive because no single set of laws will please everyone. On the other hand, isn't it John Lennon who sang "Imagine there's no countries?" Was he some secret member of the Bilderberger group or was he saying (reasonably so) that regionalism and nationalism breeds war?

I don't think they were saying it would be utopia, but necessary to control a rebound in population growth.

I believe there will be a crash in population after the age of oil...like Michael Ruppert said, ""all of these people exist on this planet ONLY because of oil. That's it. So it is axiomatic if you take the oil away the population must also go away.""

Only those who prepared beforehand with the right preparations will be able to survive the collapse of mankind where the population is reduced down to 2 billion or fewer people. There are 7 billion people on this planet. At least 5 billion of these people wouldn't exist on this planet if it wasn't for oil and natural gas. If you take away the oil and natural gas, you take away the food. And if you take away the food, the population goes away.

According to David Pimental, the USA's population would have to be reduced by as much as 1/3 or even 1/2 if it is to be sustainable in a post-oil world. That's because for every calorie of food produced in the industrialized world required 10 calories of fossil fuel energy to create and distribute. You take the fossil fuel away, and the food production will go DOWN. And if the food production goes down, the population also goes down.