Peak Oil News and Message Boards

The transition from an economy focused on domestic production to an economy focused on global exploitation takes plenty of time. In the case of the United States, it took a hundred years, from the first wave of American imperial expansion in 1898 to the temporary triumph of globalization in the 1980s. The transition the other way, though, happens a good deal more quickly, as a faltering hegemon generally gets shoved aside by rising powers rather than being allowed to decay slowly in peace. The aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse is a good working model here: once the Soviet system imploded, Russia suddenly had to do without the large subsidies it received from the rest of the Eastern bloc, and most of a decade of raw economic chaos followed as the Russian economy struggled to adapt to the task of meeting its own needs domestically. Soviet Russia, it bears noting, was much less dependent on overseas imports for goods and services than today’s America, so the post-Soviet experience should be considered a lower bound for what we’re in for.

The other pillar has similar implications. An economy based on the breakneck consumption of natural resources tends to concentrate influence in the hands of those who control resource flows directly or indirectly, and in today’s America, once again, these tend to be disproportionately members of the salary class. An economy based on the conservation of natural resources tends to concentrate influence instead in the hands of those who own sustainable resources such as land, or those who work directly with those resources; again, the conflict between owners and laborers determines the distribution of wealth and privilege in such societies. Transitioning from a conserver economy to a consumer economy takes plenty of time—in the case of the United States, the better part of two hundred years—while the transition the other way tends, once more, to be much more rapid once the resources run short.

GHung wrote:It took me a while to figure out that this isn't quite what Greer is trying to teach, even though a certain way to get his ire up is to say "this time is different". Much as Tainter posited in Collapse of Complex Societies, Greer follows the line that, even though details and technologies may have changed, human societies tend to follow the same general patterns with predictable results. Our collective behaviors haven't changed much in the last few thousand years, at least the behaviors that matter much.

Subjectivist wrote:The aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse is a good working model here: once the Soviet system imploded, Russia suddenly had to do without the large subsidies it received from the rest of the Eastern bloc, and most of a decade of raw economic chaos followed as the Russian economy struggled to adapt to the task of meeting its own needs domestically.

Ibon wrote:Mount Totumas !

I follow Greer's writings. I don't always agree but I recognize that he is quite brilliant.

I am also one of those who does think it is potentially different this time in that we may back ourselves so deep into a corner that we actually start addressing self regulation.

Paulo1 wrote:Yeah Hawk, I am not as pessimistic, either. Why? I never discount the ability of people to adapt or surprise. While many on this blog will disagree with this statement, not everything that is human is bad and/or is a threat to the world. We can do better in most ways, but in many cases it comes down to having either a half full, or half empty viewpoint. I will continue to look for inspiration rather than assume doom is full on and inevitable.

Greer told me to pick up and move as my home is about 25-30 feet above sea level. (We live close to an estuary on the west coast). Hmmmm, I am 60. How fast will sea level rise? Meanwhile, every fall I have an unlimited supply of bright silver salmon swimming to my dock. It's a no-brainer as far as I can see. We are 6 km upstream from the ocean. There are only two houses below us and they are way out of sight.

Waterworld, here we come!!

GHung wrote:.... on the other hand, I've always have a hard time with arm-chair quarterbacks or commentators who've never played the game. It's not that there have never been great thinkers who've been nowhere; done nothin', but I tend to trust experience over observation. Nothing like a little PTSD to change one's perspective. Seems too many academics these days deal in absolutes about things they've only studied from afar or read about. Does distancing one's self from these things improve objectivity or hinder it? I personally tend to dismiss the opinions of people who tell me how the world works, but have never immersed themselves in it in any real way. I could be wrong.....

ennui2 wrote:As for Greer's brilliant prose, he's much too verbose. One of his blog posts could easily compress down to 1/10th its size if he were to just stop teasing and beating around the bush. I always find it a chore to read through rather than skim his blog because it just drones on and on and on without really adding anything new to his argument.

regardingpo wrote:

ennui2 wrote:As for Greer's brilliant prose, he's much too verbose. One of his blog posts could easily compress down to 1/10th its size if he were to just stop teasing and beating around the bush. I always find it a chore to read through rather than skim his blog because it just drones on and on and on without really adding anything new to his argument.

My thoughts exactly. Plus I can't help but laugh at this whole "druid" thing.

"Big Dan Teague: You don't say much my friend, but when you do it's to the point, and I salute you for it."
from O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

ennui2 wrote:Gr
As for Greer's brilliant prose, he's much too verbose. One of his blog posts could easily compress down to 1/10th its size if he were to just stop teasing and beating around the bush. I always find it a chore to read through rather than skim his blog because it just drones on and on and on without really adding anything new to his argument.