Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Is the Deadly Crash of Our Civilization Inevitable?

By Terrence McNally, AlterNet. Posted February 13, 2007.


An interview with author Thomas Homer-Dixon about the social, political, economic and technological crises we face and how long we can sustain the lifestyle that brought them about.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Terrence McNally

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Humankind is doing more things, faster, across a greater space than ever before, producing changes of a size and speed never seen before.

Thomas Homer-Dixon compares our current situation to driving too fast along a country road in a dense fog. Some ignore the fog and keep their foot pressed on the accelerator, but most of us feel like fairly helpless passengers on this wild ride.

In 1870, the average income in the world's richest country was about nine times greater than that in the world's poorest country. By 1990 it was forty-five times greater.

In 2006, the world's 793 billionaires held combined wealth of $2.6 trillion. (If liquidated in 2006), this wealth could have hired the poorest half of the world's workers -- the 1.4 billion workers who earn a few dollars a day -- for almost two years.

Between 1977 and 1996, the weight of the average American cheeseburger grew over 25 percent, and the volume of the average soft drink grew more than 50 percent. About 40 percent of the world's population now lacks sufficient water for basic sanitation and hygiene, and nearly one out of every five people does not have enough to drink.

Between 2000 and the beginning of 2005, China's daily oil imports soared 140 percent. Saudi Arabia, has pumped a total of 46 billion barrels of oil in the past 17 years, without admitting to any decrease in its stated reserve figure of about 260 billion barrels.

Since 1950, industrialized fishing has reduced the total mass of large fish in the world's oceans by 90 percent. The atmosphere's level of carbon dioxide is the highest in 650,000 years.

Is a deadly crash inevitable?

Thomas Homer-Dixon is director of the Trudeau Centre for the Study of Peace and Conflict at the University of Toronto. He is the author of "The Ingenuity Gap" and his newest book "The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization."

Terrence McNally: What are the biggest questions driving you right now?

Thomas Homer-Dixon: I have a 20-month-old son, and I'm concerned about the future for him. I'm trying to figure out what might happen and how we can make it better.

It's unlikely that the future is going to be a linear extrapolation of the present, but I've pretty well arrived at the conclusion that the diversity and power of the stresses that we're encountering are going to cause some major volatility. I expect social, political, economic and technological crises and breakdowns. It's hard to say what they're going to look like, but the probability of some major problems developing is rising.

So how are we going to respond in times of crisis?

In the book I introduce the metaphor of earthquakes. I talk about tectonic stresses building up under the surface of our societies and of global society. Now this is something that Californians are very familiar with. Everybody in the state knows that there are mighty tectonic plates pressing together along the San Andreas Fault, among others. Potential energy builds up, and at some point it's released in earthquakes that can have devastating consequences.

And I think the same is at least metaphorically true for our world. Stresses are building, and at some point I expect there will be a release of pressure because our institutions and our adaptive capability will be overloaded. We just won't be able to cope.

TMN: You point out that it's not linear, and it isn't any one thing that's going to do it. It's the combination and interaction. In his book Collapse, Jared Diamond puts forth five factors that have led to collapse -- human environmental impacts, climate change, the behavior of your enemies, the behavior of your friends and how you respond. What are the converging stresses you see?

THD: Demographic, energy, environmental change, especially scarcity of water, shortages of cropland and forest in poor countries, climate, and then finally widening gaps between rich and poor people around the world.

You touched on something a moment ago that's very important. The real problem is that they're all happening together. We've learned in recent decades that revolution or societal collapse tends to happen when societies are stressed from multiple directions simultaneously.

Any one of the problems we face could be a major challenge for human society, but we have things going in the wrong direction in five different ways at the same time. Millions around the world are in a situation of severe water scarcity. That's already having major economic impacts, causing poverty and dislocation, and undermining institutions. Add climate change and the problem becomes that much worse. The two things will multiply each other. You could have a really catastrophic problem where, say, the precipitation fails and there's already water scarcity.

TMN: And the energy issue impacts everything -- moving water, moving people.

THD: Or drilling deeper into the ground to pull more water out of the ground. Energy is kind of a master resource. If we have enough cheap, high quality energy, we can cope with a lot of our other problems. But once energy becomes a lot more expensive, then the combination of climate change and water scarcity will be that much harder to deal with.

TMN: I recall Buckminster Fuller made the basic point that truly accurate economic value is related to energy.

THD: In fact there's a whole way of approaching economics that uses thermodynamics. Herman Daly in particular has pioneered this. Energy is a currency that is fundamental and physical, and it gets you away from prices, which are often distractions. The price of something -- a barrel of oil, a bushel of grain -- includes so many other factors that may not have anything to do with underlying abundance or scarcity of these things.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: author, book, future, interview, crisis, excess

Interviewer Terrence McNally hosts Free Forum on KPFK 90.7FM, Los Angeles (streaming at kpfk.org).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Nonsense!
Posted by: Temporary on Feb 13, 2007 12:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If there ever comes problems or disagreements about economic or political issues, we'll just solve them the good old way, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Nonsense! Posted by: ISlamIslam
» RE: This country has fomented many wars... Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: Nonsense! Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Here is what is ripping the world to pieces
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 13, 2007 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over-population, cultural relativism and the Millennium Develoment Goals. These three things have created a perfect storm of total chaos in the world. Since the early 1990s (and accelerated under Kofi Annan post 1997) the project to make everyone in the world equal has gone into over-drive. But this has had an opposite effect. It is has instead made things more unequal, destroyed the standard of living and quality of life in the west, and brought on war without end.

We need to instead hold fast on our values, have strict border controls, be self-reliant, and end this project on trying to make everyone in the world equal. Countries and cultures should be left alone to evolve at their own pace. We should instead protect our societies and freedoms. This can be best exemplified by the twin pressures of Mexican illegal migration and muslim fundamentalism: two destabilising forces.

Flacky ideas like a people's wiki and open source dmocracy will only bring more waffle and prevarication. The intellectual's country of origin - Canada - is the home to waffle and weak policy. I would not follow their example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I agree with you bcgirl125 Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: I agree with you bcgirl125 Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» RE: I agree with you bcgirl125 Posted by: leafsong1
» RE: I agree with you bcgirl125 Posted by: ISlamIslam
Here is what is ripping the world to pieces
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 13, 2007 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over-population, cultural relativism and the Millennium Develoment Goals. These three things have created a perfect storm of total chaos in the world. Since the early 1990s (and accelerated under Kofi Annan post 1997) the project to make everyone in the world equal has gone into over-drive. But this has had an opposite effect. It is has instead made things more unequal, destroyed the standard of living and quality of life in the west, and brought on war without end.

We need to instead hold fast on our values, have strict border controls, be self-reliant, and end this project on trying to make everyone in the world equal. Countries and cultures should be left alone to evolve at their own pace. We should instead protect our societies and freedoms. This can be best exemplified by the twin pressures of Mexican illegal migration and muslim fundamentalism: two destabilising forces.

Flacky ideas like a people's wiki and open source dmocracy will only bring more waffle and prevarication. The intellectual's country of origin - Canada - is the home to waffle and weak policy. I would not follow their example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Actually... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Here is what is ripping the world to pieces
Posted by: Bobsays on Feb 13, 2007 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over-population, cultural relativism and the Millennium Develoment Goals. These three things have created a perfect storm of total chaos in the world. Since the early 1990s (and accelerated under Kofi Annan post 1997) the project to make everyone in the world equal has gone into over-drive. But this has had an opposite effect. It is has instead made things more unequal, destroyed the standard of living and quality of life in the west, and brought on war without end.

We need to instead hold fast on our values, have strict border controls, be self-reliant, and end this project on trying to make everyone in the world equal. Countries and cultures should be left alone to evolve at their own pace. We should instead protect our societies and freedoms. This can be best exemplified by the twin pressures of Mexican illegal migration and muslim fundamentalism: two destabilising forces.

Flacky ideas like a people's wiki and open source dmocracy will only bring more waffle and prevarication. The intellectual's country of origin - Canada - is the home to waffle and weak policy. I would not follow their example.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Archaeology shows plenty of examples
Posted by: Ian MacLeod on Feb 13, 2007 4:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
of civilizations that died out because they refused to alter the way they did things; anthropology adds more, even if suppositional (though most likely correct). Well, we're still the same creature, and the same "types" still end up in power. I have no trouble seeing us still arguing about it when everything comes crashing down.

Ian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well, lets not disregard.. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
RE: Here is what is ripping the world to pieces
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Feb 13, 2007 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
do you repeat yourself when upset? :-)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"seed communities" were established long ago ...
Posted by: Shakti on Feb 13, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... in the 1970's there was some discussion of establishing communities that could serve as sources of stability and hope should the larger society break down.

JG Bennet's Needs of the New Age Community (published in the 1970's) specifically uses the metaphor of planting the seeds of a new kind of society and letting them grow in obscurity (seeds begin sprouting in the dark, underground), so that by the time the dominant culture experiences serious disruption, these seeds will have grown into small trees that bear fruit.

Bennet writes that the mammals did not go head to head with the dinosaurs, and defeat them for dominance, but rather were just there, small and scurrying. When the dinosaurs fell, the mammals were able to flourish in the now empty ecological niches.

Similarly, these seed communities are now somewhat obscure, not on most people's radar, but they are there. There is actually a network of intentional communities, cohousing groups, organic farms, CSA's, alternative small economies, etc. that form a gossamer matrix within the rigid "steel beam" structure of dominant culture. If/when the steel beams implode, these folks will still be there, living, working, eating etc. differently and modeling a new way of being for the rest of us.

So, take heart! For more on this kind of thing, see the Directory of Intentional Communities (you will be surprised at how many there are!) or go to http://www.ic.org/.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ecovillage, Expensive? Posted by: Leadbyexample
» Easier said than done... Posted by: buffeliscious
» Homesteaders lived in sod houses! Posted by: Leadbyexample
» Sod houses would be ILLEGAL now Posted by: prairiedog
» i want hot water... Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: i want hot water... Posted by: Krain61
» RE: i want hot water... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: i want hot water... Posted by: mjabele
» RE: i want hot water... Posted by: djnoll
STOP SPAMMING!!!!!! nm
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 13, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nm

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: STOP SPAMMING!!!!!! nm Posted by: Krain61
How Bad, and When?
Posted by: Frish on Feb 13, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe the author fails to describe how bad it is going to be, either in isolated locations (wars over water) or worldwide (pandemic due to overpopulation, or pandemic destroying one or more staple crops (maize or rice for example).

I firmly believe it will be far worse than the author does...and perhaps sooner than later...

I agree wholeheartedly that the "collapse" is a chaotic situation, that is, it is not a gradual downward slide, but some critical component or stabilizing factor will disintegrate, cascading a gigantic systems wide failure.

Take a peek at Save the Biosphere. We are a radical bunch, who believe we understand the underlying problem, WAY too many people. We represent the moral choice, to minimize human suffering (and maximize the chance that LIFE on the planet will survive people's ignorance and unsustainable ways) the answer is to NOT reproduce.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Exactly Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: xactly Posted by: buffeliscious
» RE: xactly Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: How Bad, and When? Posted by: pdxstudent
» good luck Posted by: Iconoclast421
» A look at History Posted by: Krain61
» RE: A look at History Posted by: Blade
Authors of Self Destruction & Delusion
Posted by: NoPCZone on Feb 13, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to sound like an alarmist, but JH Kunstler's term "The Long Emergency" fits very well. So many have fallen into the trap of trying to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic by trying to cling to the outmoded economic structure defined by cars, trucks and cheap energy.

'Expand your view beyond the question of how we will run all the cars by means other than gasoline. This obsession with keeping the cars running at all costs could really prove fatal. It is especially unhelpful that so many self-proclaimed "greens" and political "progressives" are hung up on this monomaniacal theme. Get this: the cars are not part of the solution (whether they run on fossil fuels, vodka, used frymax™ oil, or cow shit). They are at the heart of the problem. And trying to salvage the entire Happy Motoring system by shifting it from gasoline to other fuels will only make things much worse. The bottom line of this is: start thinking beyond the car.' JHK in a recent AlterNet Post.

Thomas Homer-Dixon falls into this class, underestimating the scope & depth of what Peak Oil means to every segment of our economy. Only Gasoline/AvGas and Diesel fuel have shown themselves capable of supporting the economic matrix we have erected throughout the developed world and they don't come from coal, hydro, wind or nuclear.

Hydrogen and batteries are only means of storing energy and are not practical for flight or personal transport. The production of gasoline from coal, shale or tar sands is energy inefficient and environmentally expensive. Natural Gas will quickly prove to be far too valuable as a source for chemicals & fertilizers to be used for mere heating.

Changing things is going to be highly disruptive and very expensive- don't let anyone sell you on a quick fix. The sooner we start the less expensive and the less disruptive the transition will be. The later we wait, the harsher the transition and the more expensive in people and money terms. Factor in a nation crushed in debt and it gets even uglier.

Even more than global warming, how we address this issue will largely determine the future course of our nation. Oil depletion will force even the most headstrong and greedy to turn away from fossil fuels. How nations and societies answer the bell on this one will cast the die for a very long time. It is a fork in the road.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Thinking Beyond The Car"! Posted by: Douglas
» RE: American Audience Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: American Audience Posted by: themotie
ah ha ha ha ha ha....
Posted by: JoshuaLudd on Feb 13, 2007 7:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally Alternet is starting to take a more serious look at some very real posibilities.

www.greenanarchy.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Evolution sure is a kick in the pants.
Posted by: craigandrew on Feb 13, 2007 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Civilizations come and civilizations go, but if you look from far enough away you just might see that civilization is not the goal. It is only a step in the developmental process. Imagine people who live in peace with one anther who did not have to try to live in peace with one anther. It is not a question of our understanding and application of "civilization", but our individual evolution away from animalistic, fear driven, reactionary behavior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalist Has Laws of Motion...Sheep People Please Learn and Appreciate!
Posted by: felixcommi on Feb 13, 2007 8:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Capitalism is based on competition... Suppose we have two logging companies... Company A decides to reduce their output and they reserve a large portion of forest under their lease for the environments benefit....Company B decides to haul ass through the woods cutting down everything in sight...

Company B has more timber and can sell at lower prices in the market, they can outprice and outcompete Company A...Now company A facing lower revenues must cut wages, benefits, jobs, and either cut down more trees and exploit labour more ruthlessly or risk compromising their economic viability in the competitive market....

Now Sheep people...this is a basic feature of competitive markets, you must always be extracting more natural resources to remain competitive, you must always be reducing labour costs (and emptying workers fridges), you must always be moving forward to grown and grow and grow under these imperatives....

Apply these core capitalist principles to every sector of the economy, we get inexorable class exploitation, environmental degradation, and infinite growth in a finite world....how "efficient" is the maximization of commodities (...look around you right now and ask do i need all of this shit?!!!)

This is capitalism and it is the problem...We need democratic public institutions to shape our energy future, that do not run on the imperatives of profit but human need....it must be anti-capitalist because infinite growth is not impossible...we must have input in what we need....

Anyone who thinks America's, Canada's, or Western Europe's global ambitions are benevolent and their forms of capitalism are good for this planet give your head a shake...its childish non-sense...

I am a law student who is going to benefit greatly from Capitalism, but i am not ignorant of the fact that it is a system with inherent law sof motion that contradict the basic functiuoning of healthy communities and environments....It is unsustainable whether you liek it or not....it is futile to pretend it can last forever and that is why we must be looking for radical solutions....to those who think infinite growth and exploitation in a finite world is possible, please recognize your logical fault....at the end of the day the competitive market will run its course and the imperatives of surplus extraction and keeping companies going will destroy our life supprt systems both environmental and social...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I agree - but... Posted by: sln70
» Company B Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Company B Posted by: themotie
We have the abillity to change but
Posted by: Krain61 on Feb 13, 2007 8:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we in general do not have the desire to give up anything for that change. We as a whole stick our heads in the sand and we keep buying and buying. How many of your friends still can food or grow a garden? How many play board games verses watching TV or jumping online? How many play with there kids verses sitting them in front of that baby sitter called TV or vidio games? Or still cook food the old fashion way and not with the microwave or taking there kids out to micky d's or some other poison food franchies? For the last year I have lived without Electric and all the things I use to take for granted. I've found that there is some adjustments but life seems eaiser and I don't miss micky d's either..
I seen where someone from Canada was talking about health care! If we eat right and and lived right we could do with out health care except for actual needs like taking a kidney out or fixing a broken bone. Our world is causing our sickness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A People's Future
Posted by: xgroverx on Feb 13, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the reference to FDR, it seems Homer-Dixon and the interviewer are suggesting the need for a strong leader (either individual or institution) to bring us back up after a collapse. I would contend, however, that it will be a mass movement which will define the values of a new society. If we look at history, we find that it has been the struggles of mass movements, not the actions of leaders, that have shaped the world (to paraphrase Howard Zinn) Today, we are seeing an emerging resistance culture, spurred on by the increasing availability of information and opportunities for communication on the internet and a resurgence of politically and socially conscious music, film, and art. This is a culture that includes those like us who seek out independent news sites or communities. There is a strong anti-authoritarian tendency among this emerging culture, a culture which values participative decision making as opposed to the currently prevailing paradigm of 'representative' government. I feel that when economic, ecological, social, and political collapse occurs, the pillars that have held up the old guard will crumble and a rapidly growing culture, steeped in the ideals of peace, unity, love, respect, and human dignity and autonomy, will rise up from the ashes. I know this sounds overly optimistic, but without hope, what do we have?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A People's Future Posted by: Grampop
» RE: A People's Future Posted by: djnoll
» RE: A People's Future Posted by: tiellis
OPTIMISM IS A MORAL IMPERATIVE
Posted by: drricklippin on Feb 13, 2007 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even despite objective evidence to the contrary human optimism is a moral imperative. The moment we accept cultural or global collapse we contribute to it.

Human intentional thought alone can bring about the triumph of Eros over Thanatos

The great struggle of our age is "does man WANT to live?"

Thanatophilia=love of death seems to be promoted by organized religion.

Comments welcome

Dr. Rick Lippin

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Agreed Posted by: Grampop
We must put our own house in order.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Feb 13, 2007 9:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"There will be times of frustration and fear and anger on the part of many people when fundamental verities and patterns of life are suddenly challenged. They'll be scared. And in those moments, extremists can take advantage of the situation and push our societies in directions that are very bad."

This is precisely what happened with 9/11, and what our own government, the Bush administration, did to us after 9/11 – and it has been anything but productive: we are more vulnerable now than before that tragedy.

This is the same govenment that also has resisted all efforts to become more environmentally responsible; a sort of "twofer" of evil. As a consequence, we are dragging far behind many other regions, especially Europe, in conservation and alternative energy commercialization.

A government in the mold of what we have now will most certainly hasten our demise. The voting public needs to understand this. Whatever we do as individuals or private small businesses (and we MUST do whatever we can), government, with its size, authority and pervasiveness, must be on board. That's why the neocon and culture-of-greed scourges in control of Washington D.C. must be vanquished. The future – of America and, thanks to our influence, possibly the world – quite literally is at stake.

(Thank you Al Gore for "An Inconvenient Truth;" if you run for president, you've got my vote.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To Know and Still Change
Posted by: pdxstudent on Feb 13, 2007 9:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article, and the book on which it centers, shows the interesting tension we have in a late-capitalist society between the apocalyptic vision of an "end of the world," and the moderate though obviously un-nerving thought of changing the way the world works. It could provide a stepping stone away from the power consolidating fear that everything is going to shit, and put it in the hands of people increasingly aware that, no, things are just changing dramatically. I like it especially because the author acknowledges the fact that none of this is going to feel good, but that we got to go through with it anyway.

Part of relieving that uneasiness is the development of and opportunities for open criticism, especially of the values that so often underpin our reasons for doing what we do. Zizek points out that ideology is not an illusory view of things as much as a way of behaving despite what is obvious. It's a matter of changing the way we behave that will underpin any successful social movement to cope with the unraveling of an oil-dependent society.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Capitalism
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on Feb 13, 2007 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Felixcommi's comment at 8:06 was right on. Capitalism is intrinsically competitive, anti-earth and anti-women and children. A few powerful patriarchical families have an agenda of world domination, using primaily the banking system. Capitalism is their divide and conquer strategy now. They use any system that suits them. Capitalism is becoming the worst kind of communism and fascism with a small group of macho-minds at the top. The solution is for more of us as individuals to acquire deep understanding of what is happening. This includes a spiritual intentionality and beingness as alluded to in one of the above posts. The ideal government is a system of legal checks and balances that protects the individual against "systems" like Capitalism, and the new Roman Imperialists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Capitalism Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Well... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I have an idea Posted by: AdamG
» In defense of capitalism Posted by: AdamG
» RE: In defense of capitalism Posted by: JoshuaLudd
RE: Here is what is ripping the world to pieces
Posted by: harinama on Feb 13, 2007 11:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like you drank the neocon coolaid and are trying to shove it down our throats like Rush Limbaugh.

For those of us who think for ourselves, and are not blinded by ethnocentricity, nationalism and selfishness, it's easy to see the effects of the USA's attempts at ironfisted economic and social control of the world.

Our economy depends on the valuation of the dollar, which is no longer based on a commodity outright (ie. gold), but instead maintains its intrinsic value based on being the primary currency of oil. The neocons presently will do anything to keep oil being traded in dollars, including "pre-emptive" wars of aggression on states that openly proclaim switching to euros (ie. Iraq prior to invasion, and now Iran).

America is a PLURALISTIC heterogenious society, built on the backs of two centuries of good, hardworking immigrants who bring their own values, culture and world view. This is the BEST of what America is, namely tolerant, embracing and productive. Your rant seems to try to negate their positive influence, which begs the question...WHEN DID YOUR ANCESTORS COME TO THIS COUNTRY?

Illegal immigration and Muslim Fundamentalism are NO THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY, and are largely manufactured issues by the extreme right wing corporatist (read fascist) interests that wear their politics on their sleeve and push their values on the rest of us(Murdock has admitted he does this through his media outlets).

Get your head out of your ass and think for yourself for once. And maybe, just maybe read a book or two and get your news from a NON NETWORK source. You just might get an appreciation for the citizens of the world who do not want to become our colonies.

America's time of world domination is near end, and idiots like you will be the ones who fall hardest. Open up your worldview before it comes crashing in on you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Here is what is ripping the world to pieces
Posted by: leafsong1 on Feb 13, 2007 11:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What planet have you been living on? There has been no significant effort on an international level to stop the increasing disparity between the world's rich and poor. There have been extreme, radical, and reckless initiatives by the world's rich and powerful to do the exact opposite, and their success is what you have been witnessing. Illegal immigration, the trade deficit, and world overpopulation are all problems that have been exacerbated or created by the rich/poor gap. And yet, the sources of this gap, tolerance for oppressive regimes in places like China, artificially depressed fuel prices, mass privatization of essential resources and services, tax cuts for the rich, and the obsession with the mythical benefits of free trade have all been in triumph for the last quarter century. One would have to be dim-witted indeed to think that any of these problems could be laid at the feet of the relatively powerless Kofi Anan. The culprits are Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and their army of gullibles led by professional liars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hijacking of terms by corporate (chemical) agriculture is one example.
Posted by: Leadbyexample on Feb 13, 2007 11:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To know where you are going you have to find out where you have been. Agriculture in the U.S. early on was sustainable as there was nothing available but horse power for cultivation and farm duties. Soil fertility came by the way of crop rotation, plowdown crops and the spreading of manure on fields, much of the native vegetation was left in place for hay and grazing puposes. Sustainable and organic farming is now called "alternative agriculture", how did this happen? We must take back the language, start raising food in a sustainable fashion and speak out about the disaster that is chemical agriculture if we are to survive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

leaf
Posted by: jimbobuddy on Feb 13, 2007 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
well said, "leaf".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Lead By Example
Posted by: Overburdened Planet on Feb 13, 2007 1:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excerpt from near the end of the article: “…how can we create what I would call an "open source democracy," an environment in which we can have some of those really deep discussions about values that we can't within our current religious institutions.”

Thomas Homer-Dixon, states he is: “…concerned about the future…(of his)…20-month-old son” but his part in its conception occurred roughly 2.5 years ago, so wasn’t he aware of all the studies he cites, that the trend was only getting worse?

Isn’t his son going to be one more person that will consume more resources as an individual growing up in Toronto (or America) than any developing nation THD speaks of?

Yes, democracy, but when religions want us to keep populating, shouldn’t we consider articles about the demise of our planet important enough to include living by example? How can people keep having kids when there’s so many to adopt?

I’m sure there will be angry posts that follow, and granted, my post is short or simplistic, but please tell me why having more kids is part of the solution, or, why it isn’t part of the problem?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Lead By Example Posted by: Grampop
» RE: Lead By Example Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: Lead By Example Posted by: Overburdened Planet
a question few ask is...
Posted by: DeAnander on Feb 13, 2007 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... can the crash of our civilisation possibly be more "deadly" than its continuance?

Ran Prieur and Derrick Jensen have both asked this question and come to the conclusion that the whole thing needs to come down and the sooner the better. I can't fault their premises and am still struggling with their conclusions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: a question few ask is... Posted by: Grampop
» RE: a question few ask is... Posted by: talkville
bamboozled
Posted by: chomsky on Feb 13, 2007 11:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sky is falling!! The sky is falling!!

Wake up people. You're being sold a lot of fairy tales about the "inevitable" crash. Peak oil, global warming, inexplicable viruses etc. etc. You're being conned into accepting your own extermination.

Ask the "experts" what the answer to all these intractable problems would be. Population reduction will probably be the answer. Somewhere along the lines of say 80 to 90%. Maybe even closer to a 95% reduction.

It's the only "humane" solution they'll tell you. Hahaha, who wants to go first? I wonder if the 5% that gets to stay will be the same 5% that already controls 90% of the earth's resources. Do you think they'll keep the "experts" who peddle this crap?

signed,
Paranoid

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: bamboozled Posted by: talkville
» agreed. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: agreed. Posted by: talkville
Discussion improved dramatically...
Posted by: Blade on Feb 13, 2007 11:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I just read through all comments on this article. They started off, at least the way listed, as pretty lame and jingoistic. But, after you folks got Bobsays to pipe down, there was some good discussion. I think I learned a lot. Thanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RE: Religion--Author Please Note!
Posted by: bluezephyr on Feb 14, 2007 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Our religious institutions are supposedly the places where we think about these larger values issues. But when we go in the door of our church or our mosque or our synagogue, we're given a creed, we're told what to think. We're not given a space in which to have a conversation about these things."
This may be true in the most widely known religions. However, Unitarian Universalists are NOT given a creed nor told what to think. This religion is challenging, in that members must develop their own theology, based on a free and responsible search for meaning. Through reading, sermons, religious education classes, and small group discussions, we are building our own theology on an on-going basis. The word religion comes from a Latin word meaning "to bind together." UUs are held together through a set of seven principles that serve as operational values. One of these principles is respect for the interdependent web of all existence, of which we are a part. (Humans are not necessarily at the the center of the web.) UUs also promote 'being the change you want to see in the world." UUs are engaged in efforts related to peace, global warming, and social justice. Concern for the poorest and least powerful of our fellow humans drives many of us. I feel all of these qualities refute your comments about current religions not being the place for deep discussions about values. Learn more about Unitarian Universalism! You'll thank me!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Then, of course.. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Localism is a Useful Start
Posted by: StuartH on Feb 14, 2007 9:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In his book, "The Long Emergency," Kunstler describes a scenario in which large scale systems dependent on cheap fuel give way to small scale, local systems, especially for the distribution of food.

Given everything we can know at this point, it seems logical that oil will begin at some point to dramatically increase in price. The current reduction back to the neighborhood of $2.00 a gallon should not be taken as evidence that the Peak Oil phenomenon will not happen, but only that there is a connection between price strategies and political interests.

The media system is unfortunately dependent on advertising revenue,