E. B.'s survey - under 20's - interesting result

Mitch · Post by **Mitch** » 25 Dec 2009, 19:18

I was most interested to find that such a small minority of "under 20's" were even remotely interested in P.O. Surely this is the age group which will be most affected by it? Is it some natural "defence mechanism" which our brains use? The more more imminent, prominent and acute the danger, the more "advantageous" it is to ignore it? How does this ensure continuation of the species, or is it some sort of natural selection - kill it before it grows scenario - leaving the few who did take notice to generate a "better", more awake crowd next time round?

Do animals behave like this? Any examples?

(My son is "one of the few" - O.K., so he's now 22, but he has been known to e-mail me occassionally with comments regarding some E.B./Oil Drum/P.S. articles)

Won't have anything to do with LATOC though

Mitch · Post by **Mitch** » 25 Dec 2009, 19:39

Just had an alarming thought - perhaps Natures plan is NOT "continuation" of this particular species - perhaps the goal is "reduction" of the species - now THAT would make sense! Sh*t, now I'm scared

johnhemming · Post by **johnhemming** » 25 Dec 2009, 21:04

PO still is an eccentric concept. As a physicist I find that odd. As a politician I am not at all surprised.

welshgreen · Post by **welshgreen** » 25 Dec 2009, 23:54

I was 1 when I came across PO, at first I thought the future wouldnt be so bad and we would get through it, however three years later the future looks is a hell of a lot worse! mind you working at an oil refinery shows just how screwed we are.

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 26 Dec 2009, 00:22

welshgreen wrote:I was 1 when I came across PO, at first I thought the future wouldnt be so bad and we would get through it, however three years later the future looks is a hell of a lot worse! mind you working at an oil refinery shows just how screwed we are.

If there are 4 year olds working in oil refineries we really are screwed. I thought kids had to be older than that to be sent up chimneys in the good old days

.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 26 Dec 2009, 01:04

Mitch wrote:Just had an alarming thought - perhaps Natures plan is NOT "continuation" of this particular species - perhaps the goal is "reduction" of the species - now THAT would make sense! Sh*t, now I'm scared

Nature has no plan. What works for a while, survives for a while.

And anyhow, continuation of our species is not much comfort if nonetheless 99.9% of us are wiped out.

Ludwig · Post by **Ludwig** » 26 Dec 2009, 01:28

Mitch wrote:I was most interested to find that such a small minority of "under 20's" were even remotely interested in P.O. Surely this is the age group which will be most affected by it? Is it some natural "defence mechanism" which our brains use? The more more imminent, prominent and acute the danger, the more "advantageous" it is to ignore it? How does this ensure continuation of the species, or is it some sort of natural selection - kill it before it grows scenario - leaving the few who did take notice to generate a "better", more awake crowd next time round?

Do animals behave like this? Any examples?

I think there are several ways of responding to this question.

Remember that attributes can become widespread in a species that are neither advantages nor disadvantageous. For example, a mutation in a bird's gene might dispose females to prefer males with blue heads rather than red heads. Assuming that neither a blue nor a red head confers any particular survival advantage, you'll end up with a mix of females who prefer different kinds of mate, and a mix of males with blue and red heads.

In the same way, in an artificially bloated species like ours, being an optimist doesn't confer any disadvantages because, at least in recent times, there's been no need to plan for adversity.

Different genes cause some human beings to be optimistic and some pessimistic. Optimism is associated with assertiveness and self-confidence, so it figures that, in general, optimists are more attractive to the opposite sex because in most natural circumstances, straightforward dominance confers advantages.

We all know that sexual attraction is essentially an "animal" characteristic in which reason plays little or no part. So even in our supposedly sophisticated civilisation, the ability to look at things rationally, while it may be considered admirable, is not generally much of a turn-on to the opposite sex.

Also, anxiety inhibits the reproductive urge. It's been shown that when resources are scarce, species generally reproduce less - because there's no "point" in having offspring if you don't have the resources to look after them.

So those individuals predisposed to anxiety will probably not be particularly attractive to the opposite sex, and they might not be as interested in having sex in the first place.

Anyhow this is probably irrelevant. Surely the main reason most people under 20 aren't worried about PO is that nobody's told them about it? I think if you asked them about climate change, the statistics would be very different.

welshgreen · Post by **welshgreen** » 26 Dec 2009, 15:19

JohnB wrote:
welshgreen wrote:I was 1 when I came across PO, at first I thought the future wouldnt be so bad and we would get through it, however three years later the future looks is a hell of a lot worse! mind you working at an oil refinery shows just how screwed we are.
If there are 4 year olds working in oil refineries we really are screwed. I thought kids had to be older than that to be sent up chimneys in the good old days .

woops, I meant 17!

snow hope · Post by **snow hope** » 26 Dec 2009, 23:05

Hey Welsh, how does "working at an oil refinery shows just how screwed we are" ?

Can you expand?

JohnB · Post by **JohnB** » 26 Dec 2009, 23:21

It's a long time ago, and the world is different now, but I didn't become aware of any environmental stuff until I was in my early thirties. I don't think I discovered PO until about 20 years after that, when I met some PowerSwitchers.

UndercoverElephant · Post by **UndercoverElephant** » 27 Dec 2009, 00:52

Mitch wrote:I was most interested to find that such a small minority of "under 20's" were even remotely interested in P.O. Surely this is the age group which will be most affected by it? Is it some natural "defence mechanism" which our brains use?

No, just a generation brought up with very few values, no sense of history, not much connection with any sort of tough reality and lots of consumer goods and crap TV to keep them quiet.

It's not just things like peak oil and climate change that they don't think about. The thing that makes these issues different is their imminence and severity, but if you have little interest in what is really going on in the world, how would come to understand this?

welshgreen · Post by **welshgreen** » 27 Dec 2009, 13:17

snow hope wrote:Hey Welsh, how does "working at an oil refinery shows just how screwed we are" ?

Can you expand?

Well, its the feeling I get from my fellow workers, the sense that it will go on for ever, and even if it does run out we will get by. At the moment the refinery I work at has another three units comissioned to be built. perhaps even they are in denial I dont know. Perhaps I worded it wrong in my original post but its the feeling I get and the attitudes. its kinda hard to explain!

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 27 Dec 2009, 22:46

Yes I saw that too. But it takes time to find out about, and properly process, PO and its implications. The under-30s may simply not have got round to it yet.

Also anyone who doesn't remember the 70s has nothing to compare it with as a reference: for those of us who go that far back, PO "resonnates" with stories from our most impressionable years (power cuts, water rationing, fighting for fish, etc).

madibe · Post by **madibe** » 28 Dec 2009, 02:06

Heres my take ... copied for the thread 'Hypothetical Question' on this board: for those who didnt see it...

Heres tha truth of it. I have informally polled my students (BA hons):

They are all aware of climate change because they have been fed the line throughout school. What they think of it is another matter. Generally attitudes relate to 'demographics'. The students whom I would term from working class backgrounds don't take it too seriously. The middle ground do. And the ones from well to do families couldnt really give a damn. Now this is of course gross generalisation and not based on any proper poll, questionaire or research. This is pure observation. I also see a bit of a north south divide, but thats probably tied up with the background / money thing... make up your own minds as to the reason for these observations. I'm not making any judgements here just telling you what I have noted. I personally think it is to do with life expectations.

Peak Oil is a virtual non starter across all. They just have never heard of it or even considered the subject. I have only spoken to two or three students who have the faintest idea about energy shortages.

Population growth is acknowledged, but not really seen as an issue for us here in the uk. It's most def. someone elses problem.

The thing is that generally students aren't very millitant anymore. You know what.... they quite like the idea of BAU, certainly the ones who had the school run in the SUV. Thats what they see as their future.

SunnyJim · Post by **SunnyJim** » 28 Dec 2009, 10:08

Looks like the national curriculum is having the desired effects then.

Education is the opium of the masses.

PowerSwitch

E. B.'s survey - under 20's - interesting result

E. B.'s survey - under 20's - interesting result

Re: E. B.'s survey - under 20's - interesting result

Re: E. B.'s survey - under 20's - interesting result