If We Open The Seacocks, Is The Ship Unseaworthy?
I sometimes wonder that a good part of this is that the millennialists aren't all that interested in doing the numbers, unless of course you count the number of dead. One recent Malthusian to try yet again to model the grim equasions of death is Russell Hopfenberg at Duke University, as quoted in (and hosted by) Anthropik. This latter blog is a self-described primitivist, of the same stripe I wrote about in January. Interestingly enough, he does make an attempt to comprehend why the Malthusians have lost debate after debate. Ceding the point that humans are capable of rational thought,
Humans are different from other animals. We can think. We can rationally observe the situation, and decide for ourselves how many children to have. While this is certainly true of individuals, groups are governed by much more deterministic criteria. For every individual who decides to be responsible and only have 2.1 children, another will take advantage of the space that individual has opened by having seven.Which, of course, explains the fact that the average family size in the US is declining. Ah, but wait, he's got an argument to deal with that, too:
If population is a function of food supply, why is the most significant growth taking place in those areas producing the least food?But as usual, the author (unidentified from several contributors) doesn't bother asking the really primo, bonus question for $64,000 that needs asking: why are women procreating less? Looking at a national birthrate map, it's plainly clear: living in rich countries causes declines in birthrates; living in poor countries causes increases in birthrates. Now, I note exceptions for countries like China that have taken draconian steps to reduce birthrates, or Russia, where other factors have led to birthrate declines, but in the main, food supply has nothing to do with population. Once again, it comes down to technology. Conveniently enough, he gets himself out of this obvious jam with this choice bit of circular reasoning:The answer, I think, lies in globalization. How much of what you ate today came from your own bioregion? Unless you do a significant amount of your grocery shopping at Farmers' Markets or eat only USDA-certified organic food, probably not a lot. Interestingly, those same countries which produce so much food but don't see it translate into their population, are also the heaviest exporters, and the impoverished countries with significantly rising growth rates are often the recipients.
My thesis is that the "population problem," as conventionally conceived, is a member of this class [of insoluable problems]. How it is conventionally conceived needs some comment. It is fair to say that most people who anguish over the population problem are trying to find a way to avoid the evils of overpopulation without relinquishing any of the privileges they now enjoy. They think that farming the seas or developing new strains of wheat will solve the problem -- technologically. I try to show here that the solution they seek cannot be found. The population problem cannot be solved in a technical way, any more than can the problem of winning the game of tick-tack-toe.In other words, get on the cart, you, a morbid and Procrustean solution if ever there were one. Do advances in migrating cyanobacteria to live in sugarcane not count? Or practical trials of cyanobacteria-innoculated wheat? As one poster on a recent thread on The Ergosphere cried in exasperation,
... a lot of these Peak Oil types seem similarly misanthropic, gleefully rubbing their hands together at the thought of the coming apocalypse. They are at the bow of the Titanic and not only see the danger but are cheering on the iceberg.What's worse, they're cheering on the iceberg just so they can say they were right at last. At this point I repeat my offer for any millennialists so inclined, knowing they're unlikely to take me up on it.
posted by Rob at 12:13 AM/permalink
12 Comments:
It seems to me you are casting anyone who considers declining oil to be a problem for population in these terms:
full paranoia
(not) interested in doing the numbers
Malthusians have lost debate after debate
Peak Oil types seem similarly misanthropic
cheering on the iceberg
I think you overdo it, and cast peak oil people pretty simplisticly. I'm worried about the future, but I'm not a primitivist and I think there are ways to mitigate the problems. There is at the same time the possibility for a die-off simply due to the impending peak and the lack of preparation.
If you want a debate, make a blog and add me as a team member - I'll debate you.
You fail to consider that there are alternatives. Yes, large scale death is a possibility, and while I don't think it's an impossibility, the author of this piece -- and presumably, you -- believe that nothing can be done, therefore we will face such a fate.
I call bullshit.
I also call bullshit when it comes to the relocalization movement, which is really just another way of demanding a dieoff. As an example of this, I point to Resource Insights, which demands such a thing, yet simultaneously decries the effects of globalization on manufacturing. What does he want? An agrarian society? Sorry, we can't live that way, not any more.
But this is all aside. There's good reason to think we can overcome these problems; I go over them every day, almost. I furthermore stand by my comments. Savinar is a paranoiac, the Malthusians assume the trail down to the right hand side and no human intervention can change it, &c, &c, &c. If you wish to answer my questions, do so. Else, buzz off.
It has occured to me for a while that Bush and his oil buddies aren't actually unaware of the peak oil issue, and that they belong to that group who foresee die off and cataclysm. They seem to be dividing the U.S. ever further into a land of rich and poor - the rich to survive such a scenario and the poor to be sacrificed. I hope I'm wrong but it seems like a possibility!
One could anticipate such a scenario. Bush is certainly the most secretive presidency since Nixon, and they would have reason to know a few things about oil depletion. The question would be in that circumstance -- how could they get away with it? I'm having a hard time squaring the fact that they'd need complicity of the majority of the military to pull off such a stunt. I have a feeling that wouldn't go over too easily with the noncoms and a goodly number of officers.
Rob, wtf. What questions? Your offer, which you "repeated" is apparently - "come out shooting, now, the better to get the killing over with early" ... Do you really think this is what the bulk of Peak Oilies believe?
I'll just repeat my offer - Make a "Peak Oil Debate" blog. Add me as a team member. And I will answer any questions you have, even if you disagree.
First off, two things:
1) I'm not interested in a shared blog debate. Too many problems with ajudication.
2) I apologize for the lack of clarity in my earlier comments; I was in a hurry at the time. Essentially: yes, I do think that oil production peaking is a problem. Do I think it's an insurmountable one? No. Do I agree with your solution? That depends on a definition of terms.
Earlier, you said your answer is global trade in agriculture with local, organic food where petroleum inputs are carefully eliminated. Well, all right; what does that mean? The end of food exports for the US, protracted famine and bestial war in large parts of the third world, and a big fat question mark as to whether the US could even feed itself.
So we agree on first principles. But here's where I differ from your solution: I'm not sure it's necessary. Say methane clathrates turn out to be economically feasible. (I already ran one article earlier in the week about this.) Boom, nitrogen fertilizer problems solved. And even if not, as I mentioned here, there are some promising developments in the field of introducing cyanobacteria into the wheat phylum.
As to what the majority of Peak Oilers believe -- yes, I think a whole heck of a lot of them think we're all gonna die, and that there's nothing we can do about it. It's all over peakoil.com, it's all over dieoff.com, it's on Savinar's site, it's on Clusterfuck Nation (now there's a pleasant name), it's on a lot of places. Moreover, what I see is an absolute disregard for the welfare of other people -- just like the ASPO piece, which shows its author to be little beyond the level of the animals.
In short, it's possible to believe that a global petroleum production peak is coming (if not here already) without necessarily believing that billions have to die. Moreover, I'm not willing to put up with the creation of a dictatorship of the green proletariat in order to get to any conceivable future; that's the recipe for even worse catastrophes. Dictatorships tend to be extremely fragile, where pluralistic societies are much more flexible, a trait we'll need in the coming months and years. But you didn't need me to tell you this here. You could have read the first post on this blog to get that message.
Final word of warning: it's hard to take seriously anyone who thinks oil is a monkey trap. Are you really arguing that oil hasn't brought us any benefits? That's not a monkey trap, it's a problem to be wrestled with. Reverting to agrarian ruralism is a non-starter as a "solution". It might be forced on us, but I for one hope to go down fighting.
Alright. I'm not going to be a troll and insult you on your blog, so I'll stick to positive comments if any in the future.
But, just to finish things off for me, I'm gonna "jujitsu" your arguments, so you can get a sense how you are coming across. The "monkey trap" bit is a great way to do it...as the "trap" is global warming. I don't deny that oil has brought us benefits.
---
There are enough methane clathrates in the ocean to start runaway global warming. Burning or releasing them through production would represent an absolute disregard for the welfare of other people.
As to what the majority of corporations believe - they will burn every scrap of hydrocarbon fuel they can get their hands on, and there is nothing we can do about it.
etc etc.
---
We don't need to agree to disagree; we can simply disagree.
I don't want an agrarian lifestyle any more than you. I think it is the best approach for saving lives, along with conservation, until a bona fide replacement comes along.
If we become agrarians, it will guarantee no solution will come about. That's the real problem.
Actually, Rob, "the author" has made no secret of his, well, my identity. I'm Jason Godesky, as you might've picked up from the Anthropik Network. Your critique inspired me to write another piece, "On Optimism." To synopsize, it's not uncommon that things that seem superficially "good" are, in fact, horrific, and things we blench at morally at first, are in fact the right thing to do. My own journey down that dark road of relinquishing the hubris that I know good and evil began with Daniel Quinn's Ishmael, and realizing that feeding starving people in the third world was far more cruel than watching them die.
Likewise with Peak Oil, global warming, and all the other threats mounting against our civilization. I'm sure you won't agree with me on that, and naturally spelling out such a case in detail takes time, so for now I can only point you to an outline, or recommend the works of Daniel Quinn, Derrick Jensen, John Zerzan or any of a number of other primitivist authors.
Accepting the inevitable, however, is a far cry from the actual commission of murder. There are people dying all the time. Right now. Again. There's another one. Why aren't you doing anything about it, Rob? Why aren't you even trying to save the dozens of people who have died, just since you began reading this comment? Because you've accepted that it is inevitable and unavoidable; you focus on that which you can do, and have the wisdom to leave alone those things you can't. And if you're not trying to save every individual dying this very moment, why don't you just take an AK-47 into the nearest crowded urban center and begin mowing people down? Could it be that when presented with it, you recognize that there is a difference between the commission of murder, and simply accepting the inevitable?
Regarding other points in your critique....
"Looking at a national birthrate map, it's plainly clear: living in rich countries causes declines in birthrates; living in poor countries causes increases in birthrates."
I thought this was a little too blindingly obvious to mention, but I suppose not. You don't seriously think this is an answer, do you? Why is birth rate higher in poorer countries? That is "the really primo, bonus question for $64,000 that needs asking," and precisely the question I undertook. (In case you missed that chapter, "ecological footprint" is basically a more holistic approach to wealth and resource consumption.)
Your final "rebuttal" about migrating cyanobacteria living in sugarcane and practical trials of cyanobacteria-innoculated wheat makes me wonder if you even read the article before commenting on it, as my main point was that food supply determines population, so Malthus' concerns are totally unfounded. I'm not concerned about being able to feed so many people; if we couldn't feed them, we wouldn't have them. Being able to grow more food just means we'll have more people consuming an even larger percentage of the earth's resources (we're already at 40%), driving foward the ecological devastation of the earth's seventh mass extinction (with almost 200 species going extinct every day). We do rely on biodiversity to survive, like any other animal, and with so many people locked into the Malthusian mindset of "how to feed so many people," we're merely driving the Food Race forward, cutting the ground out beneath our feet, and doing our damndedest to ensure the extinction of our species.
Your description of peak oil as an inevitable condition requiring the death millions is why I have such contempt for those arguments -- and macabre ghouls like you, sir. "Accepting the inevitable, however, is a far cry from the actual commission of murder"? Bullshit! The tort law calls this same willful negligence. Quite frankly, people such as yourself plead they only hope to explain the inevitability of that future, when what they actually hope to do is to disengage the real possibility of saving lives -- thus proving themselves right ("Being able to grow more food just means we'll have more people consuming an even larger percentage of the earth's resources"). What I said about cheering on the iceberg just to prove your own correctness still applies. If you can't see it, too bad on you. My offer still stands; you think we're all gonna die? Come out shooting, motherfucker, and we'll see just who wins that engagement.
My "cheering on the iceberg" has nothing to do with anything so petty as "being right," it has to do with ending the 10,000 years of madness and despair that began with the Neolithic.
As far as your infantile rhetorical flourish goes, your admonition to "[c]ome out shooting, motherfucker, and we'll see just who wins that engagement," is certainly telling. What, pray, do you think your victory by force of arms will prove? It certainly proves that an exponentially growing population held under a monopoly of force can field significant armed forces, but most children beyond the age of three can already grasp that concept.
And if I am a murderer for accepting the inevitable and finding some good in it, then so are you, and everyone else who has ever lived. States are illusory, and laws and torts are an expediency that compromises truth and justice to reach a decision more quickly--hardly the golden standard of morality I'll consent to have my worth judged by. Certainly not by one with pretensions of godhood to know good from evil, nor such a moral coward that would visit such horrors upon all, because they can't stomach what must come next.
My, but we're full of self-righteous bullshit. Closing down this thread for further comment. If you want to continue the discussion, do so on your own morbid little blog.
<< Home