Am I being too pessimistic ?

[rs]

The following is from a post on PO.com, I hope the poster doesn't mind me lifting his post but it is something that really bugs me when I think about preparing for PO.

Yes, peak oil would do us in, but it is virtual certainty we will never see a collapse from peak oil, the collapse will probably come quite a few years before real oil deficits ever hit.

Different classes of people behave differently. Downsizing means VOLUNTARILY cutting wealth, for the benefit of the whole? In which decade has this ever happened?

But unfortunately, this lack of co-operation by people themselves kind of puts a crimp in prolonging ourcondition. Basically, people will never tolerate any kind of downsizing at all, it should always come from the other guy and they are usually too happpy to give them theirs.
For example, will you cut your oil use in half and sell your house to move closer to the city so that hate chanting middle easterners screaming for satan's destruction while burning amrikan flags can have some oil to drive their cars? We are all a global community remember? Yah.

I think pigs will fly before then.

Human nature is key to what is about to happen. Most will not be ready because they have been told basically human nature is "good" inside, because that is what they want to believe. We will soon see if this is a right assessment of human nature, because the whole world is about to be put to a rude test.

What do others think about this? Do you think we'll have time to reorganise ourselves in an orderly manner or do you think we'll revert to our animal instincts and just tear each other apart?

It's something I do think about a lot. I try to be optimistic but then I think about 6.5 billion on this planet, all at varying levels of wealth and natural resources. Different religions, cultures, grievances etc. How on earth are we to come together in a combined effort to deal with this?

[clv101]

Downsizing means VOLUNTARILY cutting wealth.

Not sure I agree with that. The solution is quite simple - we need to make it beneficial to the individual to downsize and use fewer resources. Then people can greedily compete with each other to use less since that is where to personal advantage lies. How we do that is not so simple though!

[Ballard]

we need to make it beneficial to the individual to downsize and use fewer resources

How about ever increasing fuel prices, that should do it.

[MacG]

It's something I do think about a lot. I try to be optimistic but then I think about 6.5 billion on this planet, all at varying levels of wealth and natural resources. Different religions, cultures, grievances etc. How on earth are we to come together in a combined effort to deal with this?

I'm also thinking a lot about this. Keep coming up with different takes on it every morning though.

Todays thinking: Our current societies have not been "designed" in any way, they have kind of just "happened". OK, the US was an attempt at design of a constitution, but it is generally ignored today. Also the Soviet Union was an attempt at design, but it rapidly deviated from the original intentions.

Any attempt to "design" a society has rapidly given rise to unintended consequences, often rather nasty ones to that, diverting the society from the original design.

The system in for example the UK, which has been honed and polished by endless power struggles, is probably more resilent than the US system.

Future societies in the wake of PO? I notice that I just get more and more confused, but if history is of any guidance, those who take strong political action will probably be worse off than those who just let it happen. Get me right, SOME political action might prove crucial, but attempts to control every aspect of life trough politics will probably end up just as it always has - with meaningless suffering.

The ONE and only political action which I belive would make all of a difference would be the introduction of an honest monetary system.

[rs]

It is a tough one. Most of the people with the most to lose in terms of wealth are generally those who hold positions of power i.e. government/big business. I would say most of these people would be very keen to hold onto it!

I really believe if we are to have any chance of a future then we have to redistribute this wealth and come up with a society/economy that is not based on money in its current state. Perhaps this is an idealistic view, but is there an alternative that won't take us a down our current path?

Downsizing means VOLUNTARILY cutting wealth.

Not sure I agree with that. The solution is quite simple - we need to make it beneficial to the individual to downsize and use fewer resources. Then people can greedily compete with each other to use less since that is where to personal advantage lies. How we do that is not so simple though!

[snow hope]

I don't think we can cope with it at all within our current contexts. If we just carry on with business as usual (bau) and try to cope with the recession => depression => economic meltdown => die-off, all hell will break loose - ie back to basics - competition of the fittest I am afraid.

To cope with what is before us, I feel our only hope is to design things differently - politically, economically, monetarily, agriculturally, etc. But I can't even begin to think how this could be achieved or how to design it.

I am afraid the former is by far the most likely and the latter would practically take a miracle imo. I suppose that is where I am at - I think a miracle is required.

But miracles can happen......

[rs]

I too think the former is more likely.

I look around me and I don't see people who like to be equal with one another. In business, I see people happy to rip off other people on a daily basis. I see how neighbours try to get one up on one another. Who has the best car, the biggest house. We've been programmed to achieve, to always strive to be the best, have the best things. How on earth do we undo that? How do you say to someone who has a lot of money, a property portfolio, a successful career that sorry, you're going to have to share it and you'll get nothing in return other than knowing that you've done a deed for the greater good of mankind.

Unless there is a way to prevent one person having more than the next, we'll never overcome the ability to control things/events/people. Then we'll be back at square one - those who have and those who have not. Resource wars. I can't see it being anything other than inevitable. A very depressing conclusion I know, but at the end of the day, we are just animals.

[SILVERHARP2]

It will be a very confusing time, PO enspired economic slump may mean oil goes back to $20, Europe and the US may do better then Asia or the middle east. When the full effects are known to everyone then it will either be the market machanism or some kind of tradeable rationing system. imagine getting enough credits every year to drive 2000 miles, heat a 1500sqft house to 18C, and enough air miles to make 1 european trip per year or save them up for a transatlantic flight every 5 years. If you don't use your allowance you can sell them on line. VAT is changed to include carbon content/food miles. A car bigger then 1lt will incur additional taxes. Tax incentives for telecomuting. If the ideas are inspired and have an element of choice then there maybe less resistence to change

[newmac]

My take:
Under current systems (by that I mean state, capitalism, false democracy, corporate world) the former is likely to happen whilst these hold together.

The crux comes when they break down. I am not of the belief that individuals when put under severe hardship turn into selfish creatures. I think that under these systems humans are at their most selfish.

These systems act in such a way as to isolate people, disempower them, fill them with fear, empty ambitions. Hence our consumerist society, our fear of other people, our high crime rates and our increaseing mental health rates.

With the destuction of these systems, manily under their own weaknesses and reliance on cheap energy, people can be free to be human again. It is important to remember that there are a few strands to evolutionary theory, although the capitalists only play on survival of the fittest (and make people think it is about aggression), there is also the concept of mutual aid. It is mutual aid that has been surpressed and that hopefullywill return - it is part of our genetic make up after all.

This doesn't mean things won't be hard - its just that energy will be the problem not people.

[isenhand]

I think that societies are really driven a long by the majority. Most people don?t really look beyond their won front door. I think we do have a chance to reorganise and to build a new society. However, I?m not convinced that everyone will be part of that attempt.

One way that we could build up a new society is by using building blocks of communities that are then network together.

However, MacG has a valid point about designed societies tending to fail for one reason or another. I can?t think of a single successful example. I think that one reason for this is they are never tested before they were implemented. No experimentation not simulation and no attempt to evaluate how it would work.

I think if we were to try (and I am) to build a new society for the future then we would need to really test the ideas out before we tried to implement them.

[AllanH]

One example of a designed society that suceeded (for a time at least) was classical Sparta. They changed their society relatively quickly to a very hard, militarily structured society with none of the art & culture which they had before & which was going on in the rest of Greece. They lasted about 300 years, though their society did deteriorate from their plan as time went on (as all societies do).
However there were considerably less Spartans than there now are Britons & I don't think we would be able to replicate their success in designing a post PO world.

Allan

[grinu]

Civilizations are only able to grow through mutual co-operation, at least of the governing forces.

Nearly all past societies had a shared ethical or religious stance that influenced everything they did from social heirarchies to designing settlements and working the land. In the more sustainable societies, these ethics / religions were based on their observations, over many years, of the land around them, the stars, the seasons etc. etc. all of which informed their way of life. It tended to be those who did not develop this intuitive knowledge, who caused most of the problems (e.g. the Romans, who spread throughout a great amount of europe and then imploded through corruption, greed etc., and had no grounded principles of their own, first adopting their religion from the greeks, and then from christianity).

Nowadays many people, and indeed entire societies, have completely lost their connections with the environment and eachother, which essentially is what dictates the carrying capacity of different areas. Cheap energy has allowed people to become successful without the need to be even slightly aware of how the systems, fundamental to human life, (in the absence of such cheap, high-density energy) actually work e.g. co-operation, mutual sharing and help, communication and community, natural systems etc. etc.

Current culture seems to reward those who seek their own personal gain, with disregard for the wellbeing of others, which probably is creating a more and more inward looking society where people don't co-operate, communicate, share, work together etc. etc.

If human nature means we will all fight each other to the death, then there's now way we can work through a dificult period such as peak oil, as most of the solutions require co-operation etc. I'm convinced that the majority of people, when confronted with the implications of not acting together, will be able to work together to achive things that currently are not possible. The majority of people, in difficult times, do co-operate and help eachother, it has been demonstrated throughout history and is how societies were formed - it is part of our genetic make-up. It is usually only a small number of people that tend to degenerate into the whole'animal intinct' thing.

Just my personal views. As usual, I'm open to discussion on anything.

[snow hope]

I hope you are right grinu. As you say there is going to have to be a whole lot of adjustment for everybody in a very short space of time to get from where we are now, "where people don't co-operate, communicate, share, work together etc. etc." to where we need to get to (the opposite), to cope with the coming changes.

I imagine the outlook is bleak for people who can't make the level of adjustment required..... I suspect many people, countries, societies will be determined to continue with BAU attitudes until they have no alternative. Or maybe people will realise and accept the situation as the couple of hundred members on here have? I don't have confidence in the latter, but maybe I will be proved completely wrong.

[isenhand]

Thinking more about designed societies, you could consider Saudi Arabia and Iran as examples of successful (for now anyway) designed societies. Although the design there is theological.

And yes grinu people are capable of a vast array of actions. What comes to the surface is partly due to the way society is constructed. Change the society and you can change what are the dominate modes of behaviour. That, I think, gives grounds for hope.