Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Stabbing the beast

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Graeme » Mon 30 Dec 2013, 15:26:32

Stabbing the beast

I spent a while last night reading David Holmgren’s latest essay Crash on Demand (read the PDF here). Back in 2007 Holmgren, who is one of the initiators of the concept of Permaculture, wrote a series of possible future scenarios in which he posited a number of different scenarios that could play out with regard to civilisation and the environment. I won’t go into those scenarios here but suffice to say that this latest essay represents an additional one - and a new way of thinking.

The two civilisation destroying situations we face are peak oil and climate change. Holmgren goes into some detail about why his perception of these has changed, concluding that peak oil has not yet turned out to be as bad as expected (for various reasons, notably financial) and climate change is likely to now far exceed our worst expectations, with a 4-6C degree scenario now likely in a BAU scenario.

This change in thinking was the result of an observation of the way energy and economic issues are panning out, plus a deeper consideration of the role of finance courtesy of systems thinker Nicole Foss. The gist of it is this: we are rapidly losing the chance to persuade policy makers to take the risk of global warming seriously, and given that the course we are now on would likely wipe out nearly all of humanity and make life considerably worse for millions of other species over the coming millennia, then the only sensible option for us is to crash the system of global growth-based capitalism.

If that sounds radical that’s because it is. Holmgren points out that the last few decades of environmental protest have failed miserably. The dominant paradigm of ‘economic growth at any cost’ grinds ecocentrist concerns into the dust. A quick survey of the news headlines should convince anyone of the veracity of this. And although we are now living in an age of limits, where the quantity and quality of the fossil energy sources available to us begins to diminish, the system is perpetuated by the financial system which continues to magic credit out of thin air without any basis on a claim in the real world. Witness the shale oil boom in the US, a vastly inefficient and polluting operation that only makes economic sense due to the distorting wizardry of Wall Street financiers.

Furthermore, he rightly observes that the vast majority of people in the industrialised world could not care less about destroying the basis for life on planet Earth. As the global economic bubble deflates - something it has been doing since 2008 - most people in our overdeveloped economies are too busy trying to hold down a job or are too influenced by the growth-perpetuating mantra of politicians and the media to give much thought to the wider world. This is unfortunate, but at least it demonstrates the pointlessness of trying to gain political traction in a system that is rigged against anything other than limitless growth. Any concessions the system makes to preserving the biosphere tend to be largely symbolic, such as increasing bottle recycling rates, or charging a levy on plastic bags, while the real business of exploitation on a planetary scale continues apace.

Furthermore, the plateauing of oil production has not seen the rapid uptake of clean-tech that its proponents suggested would happen as soon as oil prices climbed. Instead it has seen a switch to dirtier and more dangerous to extract fuels, aided and abetted by the fossil fuel sector and its financial backers. So instead of moving into a ‘green tech’ future we are in practice moving into a ‘brown tech’ one. And although the financial instruments used to boost the production of shale oil and gas are by nature Ponzi schemes and cannot last, Holmgren argues that they may indeed last long enough to make a controlled powerdown situation impossible, as well as missing the window to wean ourselves off fossil fuels.


resilience
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby AndyA » Tue 31 Dec 2013, 20:14:52

It's a direction I'm heading in myself. The delicious irony is that it's expensive to be green, local costs more, you pay the premium price compared to a megastore, it's a bit hard to withdraw money from the bank when you owe them money for your land, building a house doesn't come cheap, neither does redoing an old one. Good luck doing anything with a rented property, let alone wasting all your hard earned cash on someone else's stuff.
I'm stepping outside consumer culture as a lifestyle choice, and because I can afford to. I doubt many people can, let alone 10%.
There is no peaceful way to crash the system, despite all the contrary claims, the complex adaptive system we call modern society, is incredibly resilient. Despite all the endless imminent predictions of doom things are still pretty much the same.
If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. -Sen-ts'an
AndyA
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat 10 Aug 2013, 01:26:33

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Pops » Tue 31 Dec 2013, 20:32:34

So what is the point of the article Greame?

"crash the system of global growth-based capitalism." ?

Who exactly is doing the crashing? Holmgren? I'm thinking he makes a pretty penny on "inventing" permaculture - which btw is a registered trademark that he owns, LOL

And what the heck does "global growth-based capitalism" mean anyway? Does crashing it remove human greed for collecting more and bigger and better and shinier things than the neighbors?

Sorry, I'm growing tired of revolutionaries in $100 pre-washed jeans.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Graeme » Tue 31 Dec 2013, 21:33:49

Pops wrote:So what is the point of the article Greame?

"crash the system of global growth-based capitalism." ?

Who exactly is doing the crashing? Holmgren? I'm thinking he makes a pretty penny on "inventing" permaculture - which btw is a registered trademark that he owns, LOL

And what the heck does "global growth-based capitalism" mean anyway? Does crashing it remove human greed for collecting more and bigger and better and shinier things than the neighbors?

Sorry, I'm growing tired of revolutionaries in $100 pre-washed jeans.


Don't think this idea is original but it is one way to change the global financial "system". The author is Heppenstall and his article is published by Resilience, who seems to be endorsing his view. Here is how the author thinks he can crash the system.

Actions could be as simple as withdrawing all your money from the bank and storing it as cash - after all, take £100 out of the bank and you are starving the system of £1000 of credit that it would otherwise use as part of the fractional reserve system. He goes on to advocate turning ones back on corporations, shopping locally, growing your own veg and all of the other things that Permaculturists and Transitioners do as a matter of course. This, he insists, is a positive thing to do that offers the only real hope of making a difference.

Adopting local currencies, bartering, avoiding paying tax and using the copious quantities of materials lying around as leftovers from the current waste-based economy would be ways of hastening the demise of the planet-destroying system, while simultaneously acting as a good model for late adopters, many of whom would want to ‘join up’ as the current system of industrial production begins to falter.


Are you not doing any of this yourself? Can you suggest a better way to alter course? Change is required obviously because we can't use ff for much longer nor can we continue to take from the Earth. It has to be some sort of sustainable system but changing to it is the hard part. It's not happening fast enough. I know you don't like the idea but perhaps revolution of some sort IS required.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby rollin » Tue 31 Dec 2013, 23:33:47

Having more people convert to a low consumption lifestyle and become more independent will have a minor effect on the economy. It will definitely be helpful to the people doing it, at least for a while.

The economy is dramatically resilient against effects from diminishing consumerism. The US now has a huge number of poor/under-employed and yet is still churning out a large GDP. Money just moves to money and the reduced consumerism here is replaced with growing consumerism elsewhere and more spending by the rich.
Look at China, it has a huge number of people who are minimal consumers, yet it is the number one manufacturing country in the world now (US slipped to number two position recently).
India is filled with poor that don't consume much material or energy, yet they have a thriving economy.

Look at Mexico, it used to be considered a poor nation. Now it has a large industrial base and is the 13th largest economy in the world. Their imports equal their exports, but look closely at their imports. They import materials to promote their industries, they export finished products, much to the US.
I am not saying that this has filtered down well to the Mexican citizen, in fact they have a very large under-employed sector. Having all those poor people does not strangle their economy, in fact it may promote it by having a large population of willing employees.

So creating a larger sector of low consumption people does not correspond to a dwindling economy.
Dwindling resources, political changes and legal changes, that can swing an economy.
Once in a while the peasants do win. Of course then they just go and find new rulers, you think they would learn.
rollin
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu 06 Dec 2012, 18:28:24

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Ibon » Wed 01 Jan 2014, 09:32:53

When you have to frame and justify a frugal low consumption lifestyle as a "David" to bring down "Goliath" than you are basically still all so very much in relationship with the Beast. The very act of harvesting a pecan off a tree becomes a noble and revolutionary act. My question is, why does one require the framing of a frugal lifestyle in such a grandiose manner?

A real revolutionary position is to have a low consumption frugal lifestyle stand on its own feet and merit out of context in any way in its relationship with the greater economic system.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 9568
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Pops » Wed 01 Jan 2014, 10:14:53

Graeme wrote:I know you don't like the idea but perhaps revolution of some sort IS required.

LOL, Graeme, I guess I need to post more as that is what I thought I've been talking about here for ten years and 12 thousand posts. :lol:

10 years ago I was making $100k+ in advertising, last year I made <$30, about a third from raising grass fed beef. We raise lots of other food, have no debt and no money - certainly none in any bank and we get along fine - that was the plan.

But we didn't come up with that plan because we thought we were going to stick it to the Man. You've heard of Jeavons who said the more you conserve the more someone else will consume? That is my view of FF energy as well as Chinese Chachkas.

I think Trannies and Permies are great people, just like I thought Dirty F'n Back-to-the-land Hippies were great people and I think they'll have about as much impact long term. There is no stabbing the beast, because the beast is our proclivity to find the easiest and quickest and most efficient way to do and acquire things - it's what got us here, here being all the bad stuff as well as all the good. We (as humans) won't stop trying to find the shortcut, it is our prime adaptation. We can't just start doing things the hard way, it's against our nature.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby AndyA » Wed 01 Jan 2014, 15:10:54

After reading the PDF, Holmgren concludes correctly that we are headed for a "brown tech" future. This is unacceptable to him, as it is akin to shitting in your own nest re. climate change. His solution is to get activists to disengage from the current system (which I thought would be a pre-requisite of being an activist) in the hopes this will lead to a USSR type collapse and subsequent reduction in energy consumption, thereby giving a better chance of a better future.

I doubt it would work, getting us away from our personal energy slaves is going to take something more like the American civil war, which ostensibly was about getting a wealthy minority away from their actual slaves. It's going to take the majority of the population to achieve such an outcome, and given the mindlessness of the masses I think a mass marketing (propaganda) campaign would be far more effective. Actually I think there is no hope, after all we are the beast. Stab yourself. Then go and stab the billions that are chomping at the bit to get a taste of the good life you have had for all of yours.
If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease. -Sen-ts'an
AndyA
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat 10 Aug 2013, 01:26:33

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 01 Jan 2014, 19:26:20

Pops wrote:
Graeme wrote:I know you don't like the idea but perhaps revolution of some sort IS required.

LOL, Graeme, I guess I need to post more as that is what I thought I've been talking about here for ten years and 12 thousand posts. :lol:

10 years ago I was making $100k+ in advertising, last year I made <$30, about a third from raising grass fed beef. We raise lots of other food, have no debt and no money - certainly none in any bank and we get along fine - that was the plan.

But we didn't come up with that plan because we thought we were going to stick it to the Man. You've heard of Jeavons who said the more you conserve the more someone else will consume? That is my view of FF energy as well as Chinese Chachkas.

I think Trannies and Permies are great people, just like I thought Dirty F'n Back-to-the-land Hippies were great people and I think they'll have about as much impact long term. There is no stabbing the beast, because the beast is our proclivity to find the easiest and quickest and most efficient way to do and acquire things - it's what got us here, here being all the bad stuff as well as all the good. We (as humans) won't stop trying to find the shortcut, it is our prime adaptation. We can't just start doing things the hard way, it's against our nature.


Thought you had coz that's why I said "you're not doing any of this yourself". However, I think the revolutionary change that will occur in the US is either going to be a dramatic increase in food (or fuel?) prices (which triggered arab spring, right?), or an unpopular political decision (KXL) [does the US public really care? Dissident doesn't think so!), or yet another natural calamity (nothing happened last time; still BAU). Hard to pick what will wake the majority of US populace.
Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. H. G. Wells.
Fatih Birol's motto: leave oil before it leaves us.
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Pops » Thu 02 Jan 2014, 09:32:48

I'm pretty pessimistic wrt GW but you never know, somebody might appear on the political scene like a Nixon (Clean Air/Water act, EPA) that accidentally makes a difference while pursuing their own political self interest. Or perhaps a "stealth" move like Obama's ban on coal fired generation that he didn't really highlight in the campaign but implements after (although it looks like he whimped out in the end?).

I guess the most radical thing that might happen is a coalition might appear that is agnostic to the unsolvable social issues like abortion, guns, drugs (which was the initial position of the TEAs and OWS and even O to some extent) but strong on other issues, say; structural inequality, civil liberties, and accidentally (because they aren't foaming at the mouth over people's sex habits) reducing GHG.

Although one of the most effective actions taken to forestall both PO and GW must be the new CAFE standards - yeah I know, it was Obama's deal and the radio says if he did it it must be bad. But they will do more to reduce GHG that PO will through higher prices and [url]=http://www.newgeography.com/content/003061-obama-fuel-economy-rules-trump-smart-growthother pressures to reduce driving[/url]:

Image

The beast is our instinct to find an easier way, it's why we decided to plant seeds and store the grain instead of wandering around looking for it and to domesticate animals instead of chasing after them all over the place. Left to our own individual instincts we aren't going to do squat to reduce because a) we have to think about it first and B) to do so means things get harder and that is just not our way. Americans especially have gotten the idea that the individual is paramount, primarily because we are born on third base (a virgin continent just a few hundred years ago where old timber and oil and gold nuggets were just lying around for the taking) and consequently we think we hit a triple - "we built that" really is our national delusion.

We've co-opted the third world as a sweatshop because there is no protection there for labor or the environment and we don't make the connection and say "tsk, tsk" when we read on our iPhones that some little girl jumped off the roof of an Apple factory/internment camp in China.

So I don't know, I guess my opinion is the only way is going to be the socialist/representative democracy path (rather than the direct democracy idea put forth in the OP) because sufficient numbers won't directly vote for a harder way and for curtailing comfort in any fashion. An unpopular and/or self-serving decision made by the executive that his own party hates and rails against but that either serves that politicians' own personal goals like Nixon's EPA, or a stealth move like O's failed EPA action against coal which I don't remember him campaigning on to a large extent (although Romney and all the conservatives did and still do, LOL).
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby phaster » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 01:09:31

Pops wrote:
10 years ago I was making $100k+ in advertising, last year I made <$30, about a third from raising grass fed beef. We raise lots of other food, have no debt and no money - certainly none in any bank and we get along fine - that was the plan.




Good for you!

sadly too many in society worship at the alter of con$umerism, and don't see the inner peace one can find in a simpler life style
truth is,...

www.ThereIsNoPlanet-B.org
User avatar
phaster
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Sun 15 Jul 2007, 03:00:00

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby lasseter » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 09:03:10

Graeme wrote:Stabbing the beast
The two civilisation destroying situations we face are peak oil and climate change. the only sensible option for us is to crash the system of global growth-based capitalism.


My thoughts exactly. Now, if you wanted to crash the system, you would have to set it up for a crash wouldn't you? You would have to create pretty much what we have now. An insane global debt mountain and overpriced asset markets across the board.

You won't crash it with inflation though, that encourages growth. You will need Deflation. A massive deflationary cycle the likes of which will make the Great Depression look like a picnic. Many think that the world's leaders have been asleep at the wheel. They have no doubt known about this a lot longer than us.
Friends, good long lasting friends, these are worth more than gold
User avatar
lasseter
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat 11 Jan 2014, 03:34:30

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 12:42:46

Somehow I get the idea that this thread and Ibon's Overshoot Predator thread are discussing the same issue. Here we are examining one, intentional, vision of what the predator could look like.

I kinda like the idea of crashing the system but I don't know if it possible. I'm pretty sure it will crash of its own accord, so we are merely discussing timing. Sooner the better.

No?
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18510
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 13:06:37

Ibon wrote:A real revolutionary position is to have a low consumption frugal lifestyle stand on its own feet and merit out of context in any way in its relationship with the greater economic system.


Ibon goes to the heart of the matter again in another great post.

People like to imagine that their personal lifestyle is somehow influencing the larger system, but any influence on the bigger sytem from your personal choices is minimal.

Folks would be much better off figuring out what how they want personally want to live and what their personal goals should be --- in a realistic way given the context of peak oil, climate change, and the economics of the real world, of course----and then moving toward their personal goals.

A frugal, simple, green lifestyle has a great deal to recommend it on its own merits, without imagining that it constitutes a radical political act that threatens to bring down the system---because it doesn't. :!:
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26628
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby sparky » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 15:02:58

.
There is a bit of a misunderstanding ,
if one go the self sufficiency way disengaging , to some degree ,from the modern "consumer" society
that's a personal choice , and I totally respect and agree with that .
if one believe it will affect the said society , keep dreaming ...
with more than half the population in large cities , fed with industrial aggro-business
there is no stable alternative .
Global warming is not really a problem , neither is Peak Oil
the problem is 7 billions mouths to feed , have you checked international news recently
there is a fast increasing list of countries with deep problems
User avatar
sparky
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Sydney , OZ

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 16:48:27

Many in my village live a low consumption lifestyle. They always have. Not for any stabbing of the beast, they're just poor and they live from week to week. Having said that they will probably survive while they can garden.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 17:56:35

Quinny wrote:Many in my village live a low consumption lifestyle. They always have. Not for any stabbing of the beast, they're just poor and they live from week to week. Having said that they will probably survive while they can garden.


Don't know where you are Quinny but there is an irony to that if you are correct. The irony being that some of the now least privileged may be some of the best situated to survive. I think that, to a lesser degree, you have a similar situation in the cities. Some of the very poor are use to a harder life and more adaptable to a survival situation.

Of course that assumes that their basic resources have been sufficiently left intact. With luck They will still have water and the population will be manageable. Don't know of too many places like that.

Newfoundland was always very poor, but they fed themselves, sorta. They shipped huge quantities of cod to Europe and got some staples in return. They also grew some of their own food, mostly root vegetables. They survived.

But now the cod and salmon are gone. They have lost that basic food stuff for personal consumption and for barter. They now import something like 95% of their food stuffs.

On the plus side, the population is pretty stable (but older), they have land ( if poor) the weather is improving and they have lots of fresh water. But it would be a VERY difficult transition and over half the population now lives in or near a single city.

I hope your village is in better shape, but I suspect few are.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 18510
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby Quinny » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 19:13:15

Mainly elderly, but younger family seem to be drifting back. Rural unemployment took them away, Urban unemployment drives them back. There's a certain pleasure from cutting your own wood and growing your own food.

If you analyse it from a purely economic POV it still makes more sense to work and buy, but it's nowhere near as rewarding. Physically I feel better than I have for a long while!

I do not disagree with Holgrem's ideas but feel they lack directness.
Live, Love, Learn, Leave Legacy.....oh and have a Laugh while you're doing it!
User avatar
Quinny
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3337
Joined: Thu 03 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Stabbing the beast

Unread postby ralfy » Sun 19 Jan 2014, 22:10:52

I'm not sure, but I think a "low consumption lifestyle" involves earning only around $3 a day on half-a-hectare of commonly owned land. I got the first point from news that most human beings live on only a few dollars a day, and that many of those who farm can't afford to own land.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5603
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Next

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests