[Ibon]

This question has been raised in a few threads but I think it merits it's own discussion because we might be soon entering into a time when we move from denial to that next stage in the Kubler Ross stages of grief. The Anger stage. When it comes to something like accepting loss or death, you work through these stages of grief knowing that in the end there is loss. In the case of confronting climate change or peak oil or any other aspect of human overshoot, these stages don't exactly play out since the end game isn't loss or death but trying to fix or repair or re engineer many aspects of modern civilization.

Getting past denial for this reason has been a huge task because once you acknowledge what is dysfunctional you then have to stare in the face the daunting task of actually executing mitigation. And as we have all discussed many times this leads us to many unsolvable issues.

If we had easy solutions we could harness the Anger stage and rally the troops so to speak in finding consensus and taking action around major issues we discuss. The risk though is that this Anger stage can last even longer than the Denial stage has lasted simply because solutions are inherently complex when it comes to trying to self regulate our global civilization around energy use, climate change, consumption, population, etc.

So what exactly happens after Denial is Over?

[davep]

For info, the five stages of grief according to Kubler-Ross are:

Denial — The first reaction is denial. In this stage individuals believe the diagnosis is somehow mistaken, and cling to a false, preferable reality.
Anger — When the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue, it becomes frustrated, especially at proximate individuals. Certain psychological responses of a person undergoing this phase would be: "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; '"Who is to blame?"; "Why would this happen?".
Bargaining — The third stage involves the hope that the individual can avoid a cause of grief. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. People facing less serious trauma can bargain or seek compromise.
Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die soon so what's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the individual becomes saddened by the mathematical probability of death. In this state, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time mournful and sullen.
Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."; "Nothing is impossible."
In this last stage, individuals embrace mortality or inevitable future, or that of a loved one, or other tragic event. People dying may precede the survivors in this state, which typically comes with a calm, retrospective view for the individual, and a stable condition of emotions.

[Tanada]

This question has been raised in a few threads but I think it merits it's own discussion because we might be soon entering into a time when we move from denial to that next stage in the Kubler Ross stages of grief. The Anger stage. When it comes to something like accepting loss or death, you work through these stages of grief knowing that in the end there is loss. In the case of confronting climate change or peak oil or any other aspect of human overshoot, these stages don't exactly play out since the end game isn't loss or death but trying to fix or repair or re engineer many aspects of modern civilization.

Getting past denial for this reason has been a huge task because once you acknowledge what is dysfunctional you then have to stare in the face the daunting task of actually executing mitigation. And as we have all discussed many times this leads us to many unsolvable issues.

If we had easy solutions we could harness the Anger stage and rally the troops so to speak in finding consensus and taking action around major issues we discuss. The risk though is that this Anger stage can last even longer than the Denial stage has lasted simply because solutions are inherently complex when it comes to trying to self regulate our global civilization around energy use, climate change, consumption, population, etc.

So what exactly happens after Denial is Over?

I think the Anger stage will burn hot but fast because staying angry does not last long for most people. In my experience Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance are all much longer lasting than Anger. Anger can only be maintained with constant stimulation, like an actual war where danger is ever present and impossible to ignore.

Bargaining IMO will quickly come to the foreground when Denial ends and people will look at and possibly implement all sorts of schemes. Could be coal to oil, massive increases in Ethanol production, a boom in Nuclear and Wind power construction or massive spending on Solar farms. The problem is none of those solutions can solve Peak Oil in the short term, which after some period of time leads to Depression. The hopelessness of Depression can cause all sorts of problems, if enough people stop caring the economy can fall apart especially if it is already severely strained by Peak Oil. By the time Acceptance takes hold it will all be over.

Something else to keep in mind is the stages do not have a fixed length and you can backslide to any prior stage at any time. Depression can swap back to Denial, Anger can flash forward to Depression when Bargaining doesn't work instantly.

[ROCKMAN]

With regards to energy haven't we gone thru various levels of some stages for decades? Does no one but the Rockman remember the extreme denial/anger expressed by the public over gasoline prices about 35 years ago? How about just 7 years ago in '08 when gasoline prices peaked? How about the anger expressed by folks up north that couldn't get enough NG through the distribution system during those nasty cold snaps that winter? Of course how many stages someone passed thru depended on the individual. There was probably even a small portion of the population that reached acceptance during those harsh periods.

Why would there be any expectation of a change in human nature regarding fossil fuels then what we've witnessed for many decades?

[hvacman]

Good question, but I think Kubler-Ross' model totally breaks down in very-long-term-dynamic change scenarios, especially as it applies to whole civilizations as opposed to individuals. It does offer a great area of psychology to study...a study that could take 100's or 1000's of years to complete...

Shades of Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy!

[davep]

Good question, but I think Kubler-Ross' model totally breaks down in very-long-term-dynamic change scenarios, especially as it applies to whole civilizations as opposed to individuals. It does offer a great area of psychology to study...a study that could take 100's or 1000's of years to complete...

Shades of Asimov's "Foundation" trilogy!

Quite. The five stages are reactions to sudden traumatic events.

[onlooker]

What I find very interesting is how entrenched denial is throughout societies and countries. Denial is understandable considering the nature of what we collectively would have to admit. However, it is not just about denial it is also ignorance not enough people around the world truly understand the bind we are in. This is partly due to world-wide media and public persons in power not being forthright about the true situation. I am totally agnostic about what comes after denial if in fact that involves a clear understanding world-wide of the true dimensions of our predicament. I do believe people will deal with the "reality" in different ways commensurate with their personality types. As for the TPTB well who knows. One other thing strong proactive leadership would be very beneficial.

[Ibon]

I think the Anger stage will burn hot but fast because staying angry does not last long for most people. In my experience Denial, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance are all much longer lasting than Anger. Anger can only be maintained with constant stimulation, like an actual war where danger is ever present and impossible to ignore.

Hvacman up thread points out how these stages differ for a civilization when compared to an individual and I tend to agree. My concern in this case is that anger can manifest
in an extended period of resource conflicts, this can seriously weaken globalization, result in economic contraction and a geopolitical scenario that is more conflict and less cooperation. More adversarial. But it might go the other way similar like nuclear detente. If it is understood that resource wars among global powers can't really be won.

Rockmann points out the early 70's and the anger over long gas lines. I was just turning 16 back then and learning to drive. Angry citizens in all consuming countries will be a huge management problem. Think of China and recent entries into the middle class and the loss of credibility the central government will suffer which today is only being held together by continued economic prosperity. Remove that prosperity and the Chinese will take to the streets and relieving this pressure may increase China's elite and government toward hawkish elements moving them toward more of a global imperialism. Not from imperial desires as much as maintaining domestic security.

Bargaining IMO will quickly come to the foreground when Denial ends and people will look at and possibly implement all sorts of schemes. Could be coal to oil, massive increases in Ethanol production, a boom in Nuclear and Wind power construction or massive spending on Solar farms. The problem is none of those solutions can solve Peak Oil in the short term, which after some period of time leads to Depression. The hopelessness of Depression can cause all sorts of problems, if enough people stop caring the economy can fall apart especially if it is already severely strained by Peak Oil. By the time Acceptance takes hold it will all be over.

Bargaining when you are dealing with loss or death is short lived, but bargaining with a society's standard of living or consumption habits is something all together different. In bargaining we may truly move toward cultural adaptation that could last a long time. Since fossil fuels cannot be replaced at the scale that we currently use them whatever production we achieve with a combination of expensive fossil fuels, coal, nuclear and alternative energies will create a new base line. That base line means less airline travel, less personal transportation, etc. You bargain to travel less and spend more time locally. You bargain to own less luxuries but share more. You bargain to withhold that expensive medical procedure to leave your children more of your net worth.

Something else to keep in mind is the stages do not have a fixed length and you can backslide to any prior stage at any time. Depression can swap back to Denial, Anger can flash forward to Depression when Bargaining doesn't work instantly.

You know how with supply constraints in fossil fuels we are witnessing more volatile swings in pricing. With more carbon in our atmosphere we are witnessing more volatile and extreme weather events. Well, once we get passed denial our global civilization will reflect this volatility as well. More conflicts, but maybe more consensus. Less globalization and power with multi national corporations, maybe, and perhaps more empowered local regionalism. I also predict that compassion will be focused on the immediate community and we will be less morally and ethically compelled to "save" highly volatile regions. The ME comes to mind and perhaps also parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America that fail to take effective actions. More closed borders and less compassion outward but perhaps more pulling together nationally or community wise.

Very volatile times will be the new norm it seems to me.

[Ibon]

One other thing strong proactive leadership would be very beneficial.

Citizens may interpret proactive leadership as one that goes out and fights for dwindling resources. Or citizens will see strong proactive leadership as those that lead the way in belt tightening and conservation. I can't help but see both extremes expressing themselves.

[onlooker]

One other thing strong proactive leadership would be very beneficial.

Citizens may interpret proactive leadership as one that goes out and fights for dwindling resources. Or citizens will see strong proactive leadership as those that lead the way in belt tightening and conservation. I can't help but see both extremes expressing themselves.

Well that actually makes the point by strong not just in actions but in the forcefulness of the ideas being emitted. In the end nothing about the future will be easy but it is up to everyone to make decision and judgements about what can and should be done or not and if wise and effective ideas are communicated hopefully everyone will heed and respond positively to these ideas.

[Ibon]

One other thing strong proactive leadership would be very beneficial.

Citizens may interpret proactive leadership as one that goes out and fights for dwindling resources. Or citizens will see strong proactive leadership as those that lead the way in belt tightening and conservation. I can't help but see both extremes expressing themselves.

Well that actually makes the point by strong not just in actions but in the forcefulness of the ideas being emitted. In the end nothing about the future will be easy but it is up to everyone to make decision and judgements about what can and should be done or not and if wise and effective ideas are communicated hopefully everyone will heed and respond positively to these ideas.

A related point. When denial is over do we become more individualistic or will we be more prone to "Tow the line".

I do believe that when denial is over we will become more socialized to sacrifice for the greater good, however populism defines it. It might mean sacrificing as a soldier in a resource war or sacrificing to equitably share resources.

Individuality is a hallmark of affluence and we will see a big trend toward self sacrifice for the greater good once denial is over. Does that ring true or is it delusional?


Raises another question. How tolerant will society be of alternative life styles if we move toward communal consensus?

[onlooker]

Raises another question. How tolerant will society be of alternative life styles if we move toward communal consensus?

This is probably the trickiest question of them all other than the logistics of a powerdown. We do not wish to create a dictatorship or tyranny as we have been down that road before and it seems it would not be wise to repeat this type of governing structure. On the other hand, if people deviate from the communal consensus how shall we deal with them. I do believe that the power of ideas are ultimately borne from their effectiveness or lack thereof. Once enough people realize certain communities or groups are thriving or at least holding their own it could attract others to join them. If others believe as I do that cooperation is better than competition then we will seek to absorb willingly and voluntarily those who wish to be part of such a cooperative community rather then force someone to comply.

[Ibon]

Once enough people realize certain communities or groups are thriving or at least holding their own it could attract others to join them. If others believe as I do that cooperation is better than competition then we will seek to absorb willingly and voluntarily those who wish to be part of such a cooperative community rather then force someone to comply.

This is called cultural natural selection. It has less to do with ones personal values and more to do with what works. Communal choice is not always coercion but might be desired. There is always the flipside, the tyranny of the group that strengthens in times of consensus that puts more pressure on conformity, towing the line.

Another question, will the internet serve as a big enabler of consensus and conformity when we are forced to pull together. Has it already begun to act this way?

[Cog]

Since crash and doom isn't going to happen within our lifetimes, then the question is mute. Our children and grandchildren will deal with the world as they inherit it from us.

[SeaGypsy]

How many millions are being placed permanently on SSRI anti depressant meds? What a fucked society, pissweak, completely expectant of okayness.

[onlooker]

Actually that crystallizes a thought for me Ibon about the Internet. I have often thought that the Internet has served as a way to unite people of different races, cultures, backgrounds etc. I think people have awaken to a large degree in terms of realizing the corruption and ineptitude of governing structures and also the continuous assault upon the Earth. I really feel every day people are logging on and being presented with data and anecdotes relative to the overshoot circumstances we find ourselves in. Now they may or may not relate it all together and understand how overshoot is the overarching dysfunction that is producing these problems, but they certainly realize something is very wrong. They know and are learning that people around the world are sharing common concerns and problems. So with respect to your inquiry of internet consensus building most assuredly YES. I do believe people around the world want change in many ways. This desire for real change can serve as a basis for unification of the masses under the banner of change. In doing so pave the way to confront the worst of the consequences so humans can confront these consequences united rather than separated.

[davep]

Since crash and doom isn't going to happen within our lifetimes, then the question is mute. Our children and grandchildren will deal with the world as they inherit it from us.

Moot, not mute. And abdicating our collective responsibility to future generations seems a somewhat selfish outlook.

[Ibon]

Since crash and doom isn't going to happen within our lifetimes, then the question is mute. Our children and grandchildren will deal with the world as they inherit it from us.

Moot, not mute. And abdicating our collective responsibility to future generations seems a somewhat selfish outlook.

Consequences and cultural natural selection will take care of this on its own. As time passes these sentiments will sound more shrill and desperate. Cog, We plant and reforest some tropical hardwood trees here at Mount Totumas whose beauty and full size will not be appreciated until I am long gone. I do confess that this is not 100% selfless as I enjoy the thought that in a hundred years some just may wonder who it was that had the foresight to plant these I already do vicariously enjoy today the imagination of this future pondering by my descendants....one of those little tricks I play with my mortality..... granted it be futile but you know what? It feels good!!

I recommend it.

[Newfie]

Ibon,

Suppose we never do get over denial?

First we blame things on TPTB.

Then on other countries and go to war with them.

Etc.

What does "end of denial" even entail? What realization? That humanity is a greedy, short sighted species? That we can't control our urges to procreate? That we can't not fight for growth?

[onlooker]

The gods envy us. They envy us because we’re mortal, because any moment may be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.”