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.
Sounds like your right, our world views are too different for this to work as a communication mechanism.
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. 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)". Either way, I think where we diverge is in the actions and reactions of what gets called 'the general public'.
I think you suggest that they will rationally accept a world of substanically lower standards of living, no long distance travel and constant physical effort.
I can't.
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.
I cannot see any better acceptance in a world where liquid fuels are limited and systems start to fracture. 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. It might be the mob, it might be the government - but it will impinge, distrupt and eventually destroy such a route.
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.