Ibon wrote:Or how do you explain Americans accepting as normative the inhuman landscapes formed by suburbia or the quality of their fast foods? These are cultural values. We have dumbed down to a level of complacency where we don't analyze or question the status quo. We have become a fearful complacent electorate. What will change this? Exactly what you hinted at. But it's got to carry a far more potent punch than acid rain. Natural consequences and economic disruptions will be our greatest allies for change going forward. But for the US they will have to come as a series of blows to knock us off our arrogance and ignorance. The danger of course is that each blow from natural consequences also reinforces stupid beliefs like Christian prophecy being fulfilled. There is alot of shit that still needs to be played out here before we climb out of our ignorance and I'm not sure if future events will spark enlightenment or reinforce stupidity. The optimist in me really really really wants to believe the former.
Scactha wrote:This is critical in understanding the driving mechanism of our society. As such it also works contrary to all the doom and gloom scenarios concerning world disasters as PO. We are living in a paradigm that is feeding itself but it is in no way the natural way of life for man (nor is there any one else of course). It´s just a grand experiment which is under a major threat but it´s failure will not by all accounts be the trigger of the end of man. Just the end of man as we know him, and in the historical perspective that´s not to much to fuss about.
Ibon wrote:It is about keeping this non negotiable way of life going where the citizenry doesn't question and doesn't think.
MonteQuest wrote:The covert curriculum 3 R's were rote, repetition, and rapidity.
Ibon wrote: Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn't have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era - marketing[/i]
I don't think many here advocate that, if, by that, you mean isolation.garyp wrote:There are too many of us, too interconnected, for the idea of going off to your retreat in the country
It can only be addressed by unacceptable solutions. You mentioned big business as needing to address the problem (along with governments) but big business is part of the problem. Who is going to willingly go out of business? The bottom line is: growth is unsustainable. That's a pretty big realisation to take on board.garyp wrote:As others have pointed out, chief problems are population levels; oil used in transportation; oil used in food production; lack of self sufficiency in the population and consequent level of resource usage. Each of these COULD be addressed, but it requires imagination to shape a solution that could work.
If you think the collapse of society is a comfort zone, you've got a weird way of looking at the world.garyp wrote:It requires a step outside the comfort zone of the doomers though.
Ludi wrote:Sorry, garyp, I don't think I can understand your point of view, as it is so foreign to my own. I don't see powerdown (as I present it and as I think Monte might [but I'm not completely sure]) as a "surrender" or "throwing up one's hands and saying there's nothing to be done." There's loads to be done (see links below). Surrendering would be just sitting around. Sitting around not powering down, but just continuing business as usual. Or believing in some technofix. Which I don't advocate.
So anyway, yeah, I guess I have to say I don't really know what you're talking about. I think we aren't talking about the same thing at all. I see loads of solutions.
Ibon wrote:AS you say it will be the end of man as we know him, the end of Consumption Man. All well and good, the problem is not so much this end and the transition that will come as much as the RESISTANCE to this transition which will cause the suffering and doom scenarios we sometimes obsess over. There really and truely is a powerful set of forces in our government resisting this and desperate to create wars and suffering and do anything possible to keep Consumption Man alive.
garyp wrote: I think its much more likely that people will seek to maintain their lifestyles by taking from others. When food systems start collapsing I'd expect them to violently lash out. At the same time I'd expect governments to seek to manage the situation the only way they know how, more control and a tighter squeezing of the fist.
To me this scenario, this route, is much more likely than the rational one - and its a scenario in which there are no escapes, no safe bolt holes for those looking for a permaculture/die off lifestyle.
That's part of the reason why I look for ways in which positive actions by 'the general public' on 'acceptable problems' can improve matters - enlightened self interest. I cannot see any way in which I could follow the route you suggest and still survive. If that means 'techno fixes' or forming different messages that actually can have impact on the grand scale of the problem - so be it. The determinate isn't what I would like, its what will work in the real world.
To my view of it, anything else is a surrender and an expectation that you will not survive.
I don't like the sound of that world.
garyp wrote:As I've suggested, every fibre of my being thinks your message, your solution route, is simply one that cannot and will not be accepted by 'the general public'. To point to an example, back in the 70s there was a long running, much loved TV series series here called "The Good Life". The protagonists decided on a going for a self sufficient life in their suburban home. They were shown as likable, happy, not stressed, and living 'the good life', in contrast to their neighbours who were consumerist, stressed and unhappy. Even given this, which was an extended marketing drive for the benefits of a sustainable lifestyle, there was no visible impact on the public or societys' views. People didn't suddenly smack themselves on the head and follow the example - they went instead searching for even more convenience foods, even higher stressed lifestyles.
garyp wrote:I think, by reading your words, that you believe that 'powerdown' is the 'solution' to peak oil, and that you expect it to be widely accepted by the population.
garyp wrote: Not quite sure it you expect the same number of people as currently alive to still be alive in this world, or if like MonteQuest you expect "some die-off (elderly and infirm)".
garyp wrote:Either way, I think where we diverge is in the actions and reactions of what gets called 'the general public'.That's part of the reason why I look for ways in which positive actions by 'the general public' on 'acceptable problems' can improve matters - enlightened self interest. I cannot see any way in which I could follow the route you suggest and still survive. If that means 'techno fixes' or forming different messages that actually can have impact on the grand scale of the problem - so be it. The determinate isn't what I would like, its what will work in the real world.
garyp wrote:To my view of it, anything else is a surrender and an expectation that you will not survive. I don't like the sound of that world.
Ludi wrote:Why is the nonacceptance of a little understood set of ideas by the mass of currently ignorant people (including, I'm assuming, yourself, as I have no idea what "route" you're referring to above - what, enjoying more leisure time, growing one's own food, forming communities....?) MY "surrender"? Like Monte, I try to educate others about these solutions which are currently being implemented by some people. The fact that they are not yet implemented widescale isn't MY "surrender." That's idiotic. We do not have the advertising budget of the consumer culture.
Why are you bitching about other people's solutions? What solutions are YOU offering? What are these "positive actions by the general public" you refer to?
If you don't like our solutions, get off your FAT ASS and implement ones you like. Or stop bitching.
Ludi wrote:Why is the nonacceptance of a little understood set of ideas by the mass of currently ignorant people (including, I'm assuming, yourself, as I have no idea what "route" you're referring to above - what, enjoying more leisure time, growing one's own food, forming communities....?) MY "surrender"? Like Monte, I try to educate others about these solutions which are currently being implemented by some people. The fact that they are not yet implemented widescale isn't MY "surrender." That's idiotic. We do not have the advertising budget of the consumer culture.
Why are you bitching about other people's solutions? What solutions are YOU offering? What are these "positive actions by the general public" you refer to?
If you don't like our solutions, get off your FAT ASS and implement ones you like. Or stop bitching.
Ludi wrote:garyp wrote:To my view of it, anything else is a surrender and an expectation that you will not survive. I don't like the sound of that world.
I don't really understand that sentence. Do you think I don't expect to survive? Or do you expect me not to survive?
Gary, I'm confused. Many of your posts would give an impression of your not wanting to give up on your currrent lifestyle (more or less), of not wanting to accept that a radical shift in society is needed for sustainability. And yet you accuse others of not wanting to give up their cherished ideas.garyp wrote:After all, I'm the one saying that people will not behave rationally and will not give up on cherished ideas when put under pressure.
garyp wrote:And at heart I think you realise that your unrealistic plans will come to naught and that civilisations crashing fall will drag you with it. I'll continue to try and prevent that fall, knowing that as yet there are no other real options I can find.
Many quite rightly say that the threat is real, and that given human nature (eg lying) it's probably much closer than thought. However by not presenting it in a way that has a credible solution that fulfils all of the above three points, those same people make it less likely that action can and will be taken.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests