I feel that recently there has been a real shift on this forum from reasoned, informed debate to something else entirely.
A new machismo. A revelling in the idea of 'die off'. A seeming enjoyment in thinking of all the ways people could hurt others. People who think that Afterlight and Survivors are road maps. Posters who want a more repressive society with fewer liberties.
I'm in no way niave about what could happen, but I miss the more reasoned discussions. I'm not saying that they no longer happen, but it's all gone a bit LATOC round here and I personally don't feel great about that, plus any newbies will think we're a bunch of reactionary tin foil hatted nutters.
Powerswitch shift
Moderator: Peak Moderation
Powerswitch shift
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick Douglass
-
emordnilap
- Posts: 14815
- Joined: 05 Sep 2007, 16:36
- Location: here
I agree. There seems to be a lack of discussion about doing things towards trying to achieve a smooth transition (both with and without a small t), and criticism of people who would rather try to live a peaceful life, rather than die of starvation or in a hail of bullets.
It seems that controversial subjects, doom and gloom are the things that really get some people going on a number of forums. I sometimes have the same problem with the Permaculture forum I run.
I know I join in with some of the discussion that Nexus is concerned about, and sometimes enjoy winding people up, but I'd much rather be discussing trying to achieve positive outcomes.
Maybe there should be a limit on the number of new topics that one person can start, as a very large proportion of the doom and gloom seems to come from one person.
It seems that controversial subjects, doom and gloom are the things that really get some people going on a number of forums. I sometimes have the same problem with the Permaculture forum I run.
I know I join in with some of the discussion that Nexus is concerned about, and sometimes enjoy winding people up, but I'd much rather be discussing trying to achieve positive outcomes.
Maybe there should be a limit on the number of new topics that one person can start, as a very large proportion of the doom and gloom seems to come from one person.
There is less discussion of peak oil as a possibility or its technical aspects. There is a new clutch of posters who are more overtly political and are interested in the real politic of life in the UK as we approach transition to what is seen as a long term, possibly catastrophic decline in BAU.
There is less talk of smooth transition and remodelling of society on what might be considered idealistic lines.
This does fit with the current mood of society. There is retrenchment. Very little interest in the environment. Fear of economic pain is allowing a neo-liberal attack on the welfare state of on unprecedented ferocity, whilst the capitalist elements of society are largely untouched. There is no social democratic opposition to be heard anywhere.
Change and contraction of the state are inevitable. However, the old left has been routed, and the neoliberal right are in the ascendant, even though bough ideologies are fundamentally flawed.
It will not end well.
There is less talk of smooth transition and remodelling of society on what might be considered idealistic lines.
This does fit with the current mood of society. There is retrenchment. Very little interest in the environment. Fear of economic pain is allowing a neo-liberal attack on the welfare state of on unprecedented ferocity, whilst the capitalist elements of society are largely untouched. There is no social democratic opposition to be heard anywhere.
Change and contraction of the state are inevitable. However, the old left has been routed, and the neoliberal right are in the ascendant, even though bough ideologies are fundamentally flawed.
It will not end well.
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
There is a huge difference between wanting a die-off and thinking it may happen - and discussing how to mitigate this potentiality on a personal and community level.
Never discussing this issue is akin to sticking your head in the sand. One of the reasons people discuss these issues (whether to hoard, prepping, to share or not to share etc) are that these ideas are unthinkable in peoples 'real' lifes.
Even among Transitiion folk, discussing the moral and social responces and challanges to shortages of the basics, a loss of governmental control or the spectre of some kind of die-off is very much off-topic.
So there should be a space for these kinds of discussions. If you find them repulsive, you can always ignore them. After all, my interest in climate change discussion is very low, which is why I never contibute to the climate change sub-forum.
I do agree that however grim the doom-and-gloom side if things, it remains in my analysis a low probablity - high impact certainity. In other words, shortages leading to famine/anarchy are very low, but if it did happen we would all be affected profoundly.
The worst this country will face in the coming decade or so in my opinion is a protracted form of stagflation, not the Mad Max nightmares...
My two cents on the issue.
Regarding positivity, I feel that certain members restrict the definition of what is considered potentially a solution to the peak oil problem. For example, any new technology is always dismissed by some as fundamentally wrong, whether its GM food or the potentiality of nano-technology.
Of course, there should be a open debate about these techno-advances, and some may be damaging, but when some members enter into these debates with a Luddite mentality (the only right tech is low-tech) I feel that some threads do not reach their potential in terms of exploring how technology could shape our future. Whether or not you agree with it, a open mind is a advantage.
In case people are wondering that I am hostile to low-tech solutions, far from it, I am a strong fan of low-impact courses and general knowledge, but I have never dismisssed the potential for hi-tech responces to peak oil.
Never discussing this issue is akin to sticking your head in the sand. One of the reasons people discuss these issues (whether to hoard, prepping, to share or not to share etc) are that these ideas are unthinkable in peoples 'real' lifes.
Even among Transitiion folk, discussing the moral and social responces and challanges to shortages of the basics, a loss of governmental control or the spectre of some kind of die-off is very much off-topic.
So there should be a space for these kinds of discussions. If you find them repulsive, you can always ignore them. After all, my interest in climate change discussion is very low, which is why I never contibute to the climate change sub-forum.
I do agree that however grim the doom-and-gloom side if things, it remains in my analysis a low probablity - high impact certainity. In other words, shortages leading to famine/anarchy are very low, but if it did happen we would all be affected profoundly.
The worst this country will face in the coming decade or so in my opinion is a protracted form of stagflation, not the Mad Max nightmares...
My two cents on the issue.
Regarding positivity, I feel that certain members restrict the definition of what is considered potentially a solution to the peak oil problem. For example, any new technology is always dismissed by some as fundamentally wrong, whether its GM food or the potentiality of nano-technology.
Of course, there should be a open debate about these techno-advances, and some may be damaging, but when some members enter into these debates with a Luddite mentality (the only right tech is low-tech) I feel that some threads do not reach their potential in terms of exploring how technology could shape our future. Whether or not you agree with it, a open mind is a advantage.
In case people are wondering that I am hostile to low-tech solutions, far from it, I am a strong fan of low-impact courses and general knowledge, but I have never dismisssed the potential for hi-tech responces to peak oil.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
Regarding the issue of politics and idealogy.
For me, discussing PO and related challenges can come from two directions, and both have their place.
One responce is a idealistic responce (and I mean that in a honourable way), how the economic and political system can be changed to best deal with PO in a way that is equitable, just and fair.
This has to be part of the debate, as unless we aim high, we will never get anywhere!
On the other hand, there must also be a place on how to adapt to PO with a full understanding of the current neoliberal system in place. The likelyhood of the big corporations and finance houses giving up their massive economic clout is close to nothing. The media is ever more concentrated in the hands of billionaires.
The general public are very much in their consumerist trance-reality - with little sign of an interest in alternatives to the status quo. Surely, discussion regarding PO, the likely responces by governments and socieites and PO activists HAS to deal with the realities of power?
How can one make any difference if one ignores where the centres of power are in our society? It may be that lobbying Tesco (in terms of recycling and promoting local food production) may be successful (if framed in terms of saving money and increasing profit for the corporation) than critizing Tesco from the fringes.
These are issues which itself deserve debate... as somebody who is a realist, I instinctively respond to the latter than the former... but I beleive that principled critique of Tesco and neo-liberal system also has a critical place in these discussions.
Of course, within that space, differences in political idealogy will still emerge... some of us are more to the centre-right and others to the centre-left. The principle of tolerance and respect for others surely should be the key to rational debate on the board.
For me, discussing PO and related challenges can come from two directions, and both have their place.
One responce is a idealistic responce (and I mean that in a honourable way), how the economic and political system can be changed to best deal with PO in a way that is equitable, just and fair.
This has to be part of the debate, as unless we aim high, we will never get anywhere!
On the other hand, there must also be a place on how to adapt to PO with a full understanding of the current neoliberal system in place. The likelyhood of the big corporations and finance houses giving up their massive economic clout is close to nothing. The media is ever more concentrated in the hands of billionaires.
The general public are very much in their consumerist trance-reality - with little sign of an interest in alternatives to the status quo. Surely, discussion regarding PO, the likely responces by governments and socieites and PO activists HAS to deal with the realities of power?
How can one make any difference if one ignores where the centres of power are in our society? It may be that lobbying Tesco (in terms of recycling and promoting local food production) may be successful (if framed in terms of saving money and increasing profit for the corporation) than critizing Tesco from the fringes.
These are issues which itself deserve debate... as somebody who is a realist, I instinctively respond to the latter than the former... but I beleive that principled critique of Tesco and neo-liberal system also has a critical place in these discussions.
Of course, within that space, differences in political idealogy will still emerge... some of us are more to the centre-right and others to the centre-left. The principle of tolerance and respect for others surely should be the key to rational debate on the board.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
when I go to transition things generally people look at the floor when they see me 
oh no hes back again why doesn't he go away .....
I can understand this view because I really don't see transition has a chance and I depress them, we both understand the concept of peak oil or resource depletion generally but I think lots of transition people hang what they would like on the hanger of peak oil .
So if your a green and would like the world to be more like the shire or hobbiton
you think hmmm peak oil well its going to be annoying but it will mean no cars and flowers and nirvana .
Now you could say that doomers like the idea of social collapse, in the american case they may see the future like the wild west where they shoot mutant zombie bikers instead of apaches.
For some people this may be true but I think in a large number of cases they're just looking at whats happening and seeing no real change in the masses and that the plan is really just to drive the car of civilization off a cliff.
if you don't see transition on the broad scale working the other thing you could do is try to look for personal survival or small group survival
oh no hes back again why doesn't he go away .....I can understand this view because I really don't see transition has a chance and I depress them, we both understand the concept of peak oil or resource depletion generally but I think lots of transition people hang what they would like on the hanger of peak oil .
So if your a green and would like the world to be more like the shire or hobbiton
you think hmmm peak oil well its going to be annoying but it will mean no cars and flowers and nirvana .Now you could say that doomers like the idea of social collapse, in the american case they may see the future like the wild west where they shoot mutant zombie bikers instead of apaches.
For some people this may be true but I think in a large number of cases they're just looking at whats happening and seeing no real change in the masses and that the plan is really just to drive the car of civilization off a cliff.
if you don't see transition on the broad scale working the other thing you could do is try to look for personal survival or small group survival
"What causes more suffering in the world than the stupidity of the compassionate?"Friedrich Nietzsche
optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
optimism is cowardice oswald spengler
Re: Powerswitch shift
I agree. It has turned into an extreme right-wing survivalist forum of late, and not one I'm that inclined to participate in. What's the point?nexus wrote:I feel that recently there has been a real shift on this forum from reasoned, informed debate to something else entirely.
A new machismo. A revelling in the idea of 'die off'. A seeming enjoyment in thinking of all the ways people could hurt others. People who think that Afterlight and Survivors are road maps. Posters who want a more repressive society with fewer liberties.
I'm in no way niave about what could happen, but I miss the more reasoned discussions. I'm not saying that they no longer happen, but it's all gone a bit LATOC round here and I personally don't feel great about that, plus any newbies will think we're a bunch of reactionary tin foil hatted nutters.
Nowadays I only log in for Aurora's news links.
-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
Jonny2mad - I'm curious why you are still attend transition meetings, if you have no faith in their ability to make a difference?
I would put you down as more of a Green Wizard, trying to learn as many low-tech skills as possible so you have the best chance of surviving the die-off you clearly think is inevitable.
I would put you down as more of a Green Wizard, trying to learn as many low-tech skills as possible so you have the best chance of surviving the die-off you clearly think is inevitable.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Contadino wrote
I like JohnB's idea.
Ralph and Em are saying similar things and I partially agree, however I don't want to see measured, moderate voices drowned out by the more dramatic 'die off' crowd.
Well, they are very good links.Nowadays I only log in for Aurora's news links.
I like JohnB's idea.
Ralph and Em are saying similar things and I partially agree, however I don't want to see measured, moderate voices drowned out by the more dramatic 'die off' crowd.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick Douglass
.-
Lord Beria3
- Posts: 5066
- Joined: 25 Feb 2009, 20:57
- Location: Moscow Russia
- Contact:
The problem with your outlook nexus is that it is subjective.
For some people coming across this forum, advocating for the kind of society you want is itself a form of extremism. For the majority of people, discussing how peak oil can be mitigated through technology (like electric cars) is a moderate position.
Similarly, although I disagree with jonn2mad than the die-off is inevitable, I can see that the issue of population and sustaining 7 bn people without industrialised agrilcuture is a challenge which could lead to the logical conclusion that BAU is doomed and that some form of drastic change is going to occur.
You may label that as extreme, or right wing, but from anather subjective viewpoint, they are only being logical. I find it troubling that you are trying to close down legitimate areas of debate, as I said before, there are many threads which cover topics preferable to you.
I think you must be very careful about labelling whats moderate or not... one of the challenges of PO is that it could lead to sitiations where our values and beliefs are profoundly challenged - a world of decline and scarcity will inevitably pose political and ethical questions which differ from the current world situation.
For some people coming across this forum, advocating for the kind of society you want is itself a form of extremism. For the majority of people, discussing how peak oil can be mitigated through technology (like electric cars) is a moderate position.
Similarly, although I disagree with jonn2mad than the die-off is inevitable, I can see that the issue of population and sustaining 7 bn people without industrialised agrilcuture is a challenge which could lead to the logical conclusion that BAU is doomed and that some form of drastic change is going to occur.
You may label that as extreme, or right wing, but from anather subjective viewpoint, they are only being logical. I find it troubling that you are trying to close down legitimate areas of debate, as I said before, there are many threads which cover topics preferable to you.
I think you must be very careful about labelling whats moderate or not... one of the challenges of PO is that it could lead to sitiations where our values and beliefs are profoundly challenged - a world of decline and scarcity will inevitably pose political and ethical questions which differ from the current world situation.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
I take exception to that, Beria. You have no idea what my outlook or the kind of society I want is. You have made a number of assumptions about my views and many of these are wrong (I don't disagree that population growth is a problem and that BAU is unsustainable).The problem with your outlook nexus is that it is subjective.
For some people coming across this forum, advocating for the kind of society you want is itself a form of extremism.
What I'm objecting to is that the debate on this forum in the past couple of months seems to be skewed towards a more extreme form of doomerism.
In the past ,forum members have regularly discussed what form the future might take and there are plenty of doom-minded people on here (come on down Ludwig!) but there was less glorification of a violent doom laden future than there seems to be now.
For the record I'm not into some Panglossian vision of the future and I have concerns about the 'Transition' view. However I also don't think we are heading full tilt towards an Alex Scarrow/Suvivors style world.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick Douglass
I'm not trying to close down debate- I just find that the ultra doomer outlook has come to dominate pretty much all the main threads recently, due to sheer volume of posts and I wondered if anyone else other than me was finding it off putting?I find it troubling that you are trying to close down legitimate areas of debate, as I said before, there are many threads which cover topics preferable to you.
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Frederick Douglass