http://homerdixon.com/forum/index.php Thu, 17 May 2012 01:27:56 -0400 Phorum 5.2.7 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1032,1184#msg-1184 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1032,1184#msg-1184
One has a finite amount of time, and much of it is used to avoid pain. Forget about having your genes live on, because that is of very little consequence.]]> Lisa49 General Discussion Wed, 02 May 2012 15:34:40 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1077,1166#msg-1166 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1077,1166#msg-1166 Wojt General Discussion Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:19:27 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,859,1165#msg-1165 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,859,1165#msg-1165
"The End of Growth" is a fascinating work, book that should be mandatory for leaders of the world. I am reading it right now. Not that so far I have not encountered anything quite new to me, but the way author presents it..oh boy!

Selfishly, considering my age, I figure out that recent mantra of constant growth and taking debt will continue more or less for another 20 to 30 years. After that..I truly feel sorry for the next generations. The end of growth is inevitable - question how fast it happens and how well we can adjust to it. Kicking the can down the road blindly is not the way.]]> Wojt General Discussion Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:10:31 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1155#msg-1155 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1155#msg-1155 Jacobgoblin General Discussion Wed, 28 Dec 2011 07:22:58 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1154#msg-1154 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1154#msg-1154 Thumbs up and thanks.
Online GED Programs]]> bryanmaviss General Discussion Wed, 28 Dec 2011 06:07:19 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1123,1152#msg-1152 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1123,1152#msg-1152 www.calameo.com] was unable to find either an agent or a publisher, although it was partially serialized in an on-line magazine. It examines many of the problems included in this insightful piece and some have commented it borders on science-fiction, but as I look around at the current break-up of the Eurozone, the Gong-Show that is the U.S. Republican nomination contest, I fear my book was far too optimistic.

The tragedy is that rational discussion of our problems is almost impossible. The idea of any potential political party being formed to bring about the changes needed to rescue us from our own stupidity are remote indeed. I'm afraid the scenario will have to play out in reaction and over-reaction to events as they unfold. I only wish I could live long enough to see how it will all turn out.]]> Watercolourlover26 General Discussion Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:27:38 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,859,1137#msg-1137 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,859,1137#msg-1137
Mr. Stewart raised the question something like this, "What is to be done with the losers then? It's ridiculous to think that the winners are wholly responsible for their successes or the losers their misfortunes. It's not that a market inevitably produces winners and losers, it's how the winners decide to spend their spoils." He finished on a funny note, stating, "For a group that doesn't believe in evolution (Republicans), that sounds awfully Darwinian."

I think this goes to the point of one of the central themes of your text. It's not just a change in strategy that is required, it's a fundamental change in culture, in the character of our societies. The growth initiative pushes us to focus on the material aspects of our lives and prevents us from examining our humanity, or recent departure there from. Reading your book in Oct. 2011 was in many ways a much more powerful experience with the understanding of all that's happened since its publication. I suppose your next book will be titled, "I told you so." Any thought on further reading? I came to your book via Bill McKibbens (Earth) and Richard Heinberg (The End of Growth). Comments on either of these two authors, their books? I feel that in the past two months since reading these books I've had a paradigm shift in my understanding of reality and my plans for the future. It's not been a comfortable experience, but it is something I don't really feel I can take back. Gestalt is about the best explanation I can think of. I turned thirty-seven last Sunday and I feel like I'm starting from scratch with a wife of twelve years, four-year-old twins, and a three-year-old. In some sense, it's strangely exhilarating. More than anything right now though, I just want to learn as much as I can about this monumental issue, crisis, which no one (except the US DOD) wants to acknowledge even exists.]]> greezthewheel General Discussion Sun, 30 Oct 2011 02:52:25 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1123,1123#msg-1123 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1123,1123#msg-1123
I want to start of by saying kudos to you, Mr. Homer-Dixon, for providing this forum as a place where readers of your book can gather and explore together any potential upsides and mitigation strategies to combat the inevitable future breakdown of techno-financial complexity that the world faces in the years ahead. Having read many hundreds of books over the years, you’re the first author that I can recall who has taken the time to be available for a dialogue with readers. For a non-university-educated autodidact like me, the opportunities to engage with a distinguished member of the Academy on the most momentous issues of the day are exceedingly rare. So once again, thanks for making this possible.

I’ve noticed that the number of posts on this discussion board has died down quite a lot from when it was first opened, which is understandable, considering that The Upside of Down was first published 5 or 6 years ago. I wish I had read Mr. Homer-Dixon’s wonderful book much sooner, but unfortunately I didn’t get my hands on a copy until very recently. Through its discussion of five mutually deleterious tectonic stresses – population growth, energy depletion and declining energy return on energy invested, environmental degradation, climate change, and financial instability due, ultimately, to excessive amounts of leverage – and through its exploration of how these tectonic stresses are combining in innumerable and often unpredictable ways to bring about future societal breakdown and a likely permanent end to the West’s globalist project, the book covers many of the topics that I’ve been keenly following for almost a decade now, so it’s really odd that I hadn’t picked up a copy sooner. Anyway, hopefully my idea below on how we Canadians can attempt to temporarily mitigate – not solve! – the converging catastrophes associated with the five tectonic stresses will be read by someone and, better yet, garner a response or two.

So what’s this idea of mine? Well, to be blunt, my idea is the creation of a new Canadian political party with a platform and worldview centred on the precepts of materialism. This new political party, however, would not run in elections until after a major discontinuity has struck. The new political party would refrain from fielding candidates in pre-discontinuity elections for the simple reason that its platform would be radical enough to spark a discontinuity in Canada if it were ever to win an election, an outcome we can reasonably assume the Canadian electorate is not going to vote for. Because it would be unelectable under current conditions, the new political party wouldn’t waste time, money and effort trying to get elected now. It’s practically impossible to effectively challenge the prevailing status quo anyhow, as the vested interests that uphold politics-as-usual with vast and continuous infusions of money have no desire to see their legitimacy undermined by the successful emergence of a political movement that challenges the concepts of progress and universalism (i.e., globalization). Since these two concepts are integral to the rationalization, and therefore perpetuation, of the current status quo, it can be reasonably assumed that any political movement that attempts to question their validity will be promptly marginalized. Heck, in today’s political environment even socialists are marginalized, and they share with the market-oriented establishment a fervent faith in the verity of progress and universalism. It should therefore be expected that if the political party I’m proposing ever gets formed, it will receive a short shrift from academia, the media, the business community, and the political establishment.

But a discontinuity, as innumerable people have pointed out before me, instantaneously changes the political landscape by discrediting, and therefore ultimately forcing out of power, the upholders and benefactors of the former status quo. Thus the old verities that undergirded the former status quo can suddenly be confronted and critiqued with relative ease in the public forum, as many if not most of the vested interests that put limits on acceptable popular discourse before the discontinuity are either bankrupted or forced to drastically cut expenses in a desperate attempt to stay solvent. The onset of a discontinuity, then, would provide the ideal milieu for the new political party to spring into action, as it would enable an opening in national politics to reexamine the first principles on which we rest the foundation of our society. By constructing a set of policies and reforms before the discontinuity strikes that stand a realistic chance of working for, one would hope, at least a few decades, the new political party would find itself in an advantageous position to gain influence and maybe, with more than a little luck, win electoral victory.

The post-discontinuity political landscape is almost certainly going to be perilous. While the current political establishment will likely find itself incapacitated from the shock of the status quo that sustains it being abruptly vaporized into nothingness, a horde of messianic demagogues will no doubt come crawling out of the woodwork looking to fill the void in leadership, spewing out a populist type of politics based on fear and hatred, and attempting to win over the allegiance of the freshly pauperized masses by placing the blame for their downfall on a demonized minority. It is important to recognize, therefore, that the new political party’s triumph after a discontinuity would be far from automatic. Victory, should it be achieved at all, will not likely arise till after a long, tough slog in the political arena.

From my perspective, the two most likely candidates to trigger the next discontinuity are energy descent, caused by the peaking and decline of the oil, gas, coal and uranium deposits that make up the lion’s share (approximately 95 per cent) of the world’s “progress” fuelling energy supply, and financial collapse, caused by the inevitable defaulting on countless trillions of dollars of unpayable debts amassed during the historically unprecedented worldwide hyper-credit expansion of the past three decades. With respect to financial collapse, moreover, the eventual blowing up of hundreds of trillions of dollars of derivatives linked directly or indirectly to those aforementioned unpayable debts also has to be factored in.

In the race between energy descent and financial collapse for triggering the next discontinuity, I believe the latter has moved into the lead, albeit it is only a slight one. While it is true that since the 2008 crash global markets have stabilized, this stabilization has primarily occurred because of, I believe, two factors: 1) the nearly universal legalization of accounting fraud in an attempt to hide bank losses; and 2) the transformation of a global bank solvency crisis into a global sovereign debt crisis through the enactment of bailouts and stimulus programs by many of the world’s governments, resulting in the creation of massive and chronic fiscal deficits in these countries that show no signs of abating any time soon. But governments that run perpetually large fiscal deficits put themselves at the mercy of the international bond market, which will not tolerate such a state of affairs ad infinitum. In a showdown between an insistently spendthrift government and the international bond market, the international bond market will always win – unless, that is, the offending government is willing to bypass the international bond market entirely and go “nuclear” by printing all the money it needs instead of borrowing it, and by doing so ushering in an era of domestic hyperinflation.

At the moment, the Eurozone appears to be teetering on a precipice, as the bond market vigilantes have moved from the Eurozone periphery to its core by attacking Italy, a country that, by having the third largest sovereign debt in the world, is at once both too big to fail and too big to bailout. The European Central Bank has been purchasing Italian bonds of late, but it did the same earlier with Greek, Irish and Portuguese bonds, an action which didn’t prevent Greece, Ireland and Portugal from having to be bailed out when push came to shove. I’m unaware of a single historical instance in which bond market vigilantes have backed off from forcing a resolution on a country’s debt that they have put in their crosshairs. If this is accurate, it bodes ill for Italy and the Eurozone, as it means an Italian default, and therefore another credit event on par with that of the fall of 2008, is imminent. How imminent is hard to say precisely, as there seems to be a certain ebb and flow of risk on / risk off in the way the bond market vigilantes work, but suffice to say it’s coming soon enough.

After the Eurozone bites the dust, perhaps the bond market vigilantes will jump to the other side of the Atlantic and start targeting the United States, a country that’s every bit as much a fiscal basket case as the worst of Europe’s fiscal gluttons. Then again, perhaps the bond market vigilantes will never get a chance to put the United States into their telescopic sights. I say this because perhaps an Italian default, all on its own, will trigger a credit event cataclysmic enough to irrevocably destroy the superstructure of the global economy, along with both the systemic fraud and the monstrous levels of overleveraging it has become dependent on. Back in 2008, immediately after Lehman Brothers had been allowed to go belly-up, there was a period of panic where the global economy was arguably just a few hours away from total disintegration. If I remember correctly, it was rumours of the creation of a bank bailout package by American governmental authorities – what ultimately became TARP – that managed to pull global markets back from the abyss. But with the explosion of sovereign debt since 2008 to crisis levels, another round of bank bailouts (or, for that matter, stimulus packages) seems not to be in the cards. While exposure to Eurozone debt outside of Europe is minimal, exposure to its debt and economy via derivatives, especially credit default swaps, is widely believed to be immense. So if a cascade of Eurozone sovereign defaults and bank failures were to happen, it’s pretty much guaranteed to instantaneously spark a worldwide financial conflagration of epic proportions.

The idea that the global economy’s superstructure could suddenly collapse is not as farfetched a scenario as some people might think. It’s happened before, on two separate occasions. The first of these occasions was throughout the duration of World War One, and the second was when, after a brief period in the mid-to-late 1920s when the global economy had been patched back together, the Great Depression began wreaking its worldwide havoc. The non-existence of a global economy persisted from the early years of the Great Depression till the creation of the Bretton Woods system at the end of World War Two.

To be sure, trade between states did not completely dry up during these two periods of a non-functioning global economy. But the relative free flow of goods and capital that had been the norm before the commencement of these two periods did cease to exist. This was due to a combination of factors unique to each period. Some of these factors included the formation of blockades and trade embargoes, a popular desire for autarchy, the widespread enactment of capital controls, and the adoption of beggar-thy-neighbour trade policies by numerous states via the intentional depreciation of national currencies and the erection of protective tariffs.

It is important to point out that the existence of a truly global economy is a modern phenomenon. Its origins arguably began with the world system created in early Victorian Britain. This British-centric world system rested on two pillars: 1) the City of London’s success at internationalizing the gold standard and at becoming the epicentre of an international bond, insurance and commodity market; and 2) the great acceleration in the speed and volume of communication, travel and trade wrought by the technological changes made possible by the Industrial Revolution – a revolution which Britain, by being the first place where an energy dense fossil fuel (coal) was used to power automated machinery (the steam engine), was at the very forefront of pioneering. But by the end of World War Two, Britain, after being essentially bankrupted by its heavy and protracted participation in that ghastly and immensely destructive war, was forced to concede world leadership to its cousin state across the Atlantic, the United States. Likewise, with the creation of the Bretton Woods system, the centre of world financial power officially moved from the City of London to Wall Street, where it has remained ever since.

But the future prospects of the Pax Americana that has maintained the relative world peace and flourishing global trade since the end of World War Two is on increasingly shaky ground, as America’s global commercial empire seems to be hanging together at this point by only a few threads. Assuming that a cascade of sovereign defaults and bank failures in the Eurozone doesn’t completely destroy the global economy, the United States will in the short term benefit from the Eurozone’s demise. This is because global investors will flock in a knee-jerk reaction to the United States because of its long-established reputation as a safe haven, resulting in an increase in the dollar’s value and the lowering of U.S. Treasury bond yields. But this massive flight to safety will only be feeding off the last remaining residues of America’s former economic greatness. With the Eurozone in a shambles, the bond market vigilantes will then be free to start targeting America’s fiscal largesse, forcing Congress to either rapidly enact draconian levels of austerity or to default on the U.S. national debt. The ultimate consequence of either one of these measures being implemented would be an end to the American-centric global economic order that has existed throughout the world since the end of World War Two. Most importantly, the dissolution of America’s global commercial empire would mean an end to the U.S. dollar’s international reserve currency status, leaving the world without an internationally recognized unit of exchange in which to denominate commodities.

With an end to American unipolar dominance, and after a likely (and hopefully brief) period of apolar chaos, the global geopolitical landscape will revert back to the historical norm of a multipolar world due to the non-existence of a rival power capable of taking over America’s role as the defender of a liberal world order. It will become physically impossible this century, anyhow, for another nation to replicate the economic success and longevity of the globe-spanning Anglo-American commercial empires of the past two centuries. This is because the 21st century is set to witness an ever-increasing number of electric generators and combustion engines falling permanently silent due to fuel shortages from declining oil, gas, coal, and uranium extraction rates and due to diminishing rates of energy returned on energy invested. This, in turn, will result in a great de-acceleration in the global volume of communication, travel, manufacturing and trade. Entropy will start to visibly reign supreme, moreover, as endemic energy shortages, governmental bankruptcies, a loss of social cohesion, and the destruction of properly functioning credit markets combine together in a positive feedback loop to cause infrastructures to collapse. The upshot of all this will be to transform the 21st century into a century of irreversible declines, which, needless to say, bodes ill for the future of the West’s ongoing globalization project and the emergence of any new commercial empire that would seek to perpetuate its existence.

The gradual dissolution of the industrial epoch will give rise to the possibility of the 21st century being transformed into the human race’s most violent and tragic century. With industrial societies no longer able to rely on an international open market for the purchase and timely delivery of essential raw materials, such as fossil fuels, foodstuffs and mineral ores, it is far from unthinkable that at least some will succumb to the temptation, like they did during World War Two, of carving out an empire in a desperate attempt to secure access to their raw material needs. Such a scenario has the potential to create what the world hasn’t seen since the end of World War Two: the outbreak of warfare between two or more industrial powers – this time, however, in a nuclear age.

I’d now like to clarify what I meant by proposing that the new political party be based on the precepts of materialism. My categorization of what materialism encompasses is probably much narrower than most people's. Only the earth sciences, in my opinion, are based on materialism, with the earth sciences being made up of the foundational troika of physics, chemistry and biology, plus this foundational troika’s innumerable sub-disciplines, such as biochemistry, physiology, geology and so on. Every other branch of learning that purports to be materialistic I consider to be metaphysical, since, as far as I can tell, they’re all based on human-made constructs – i.e., abstractions – that don’t exist in nature.

I fully understand that the knowledge accumulated within the various earth science disciplines is by no means perfect. Innumerable scientific theories that were widely upheld as being accurate in the past have subsequently fallen out of favour, and there’s no reason to think that some scientific theories at the present time will not meet a similar fate in the future. Because of the intrinsic way the scientific method works, scientific theories can never be thought of as absolute, immutable truths, but only as provisional truths. Nevertheless, I maintain that a new political party grounded on the precepts of materialism (which is to say, the earth sciences) has a better chance than any other political party’s worldview at both identifying the real causes of our future crises and at proposing humane responses to help mitigate their most dire effects.

While mainstream economics is widely regarded to be based on materialism, on closer inspection it appears to be a virulently anti-materialistic academic discipline. This is because the doctrines that mainstream economics are based on have entirely rejected any acknowledgement of biophysical laws and any acceptance of the inherent physical limits these laws impose on the human race’s earthly ambitions. Being mired in a miasma of abstraction, mainstream economics has become something like the ethereal scholastic philosophy of medieval times, however with the novel addition of some funky mathematics that give it a glossy veneer of scientific credibility. It is ironic that the first school of economics, Physiocracy, is the closest the economics profession has ever gotten to a materialistically acceptable explanation for the origins of wealth. Given that mainstream economics provides the rationalization of the current status quo – that is, the fervent (and entirely groundless) belief in the non-existence of limits to growth because of the human race’s heroic technological conquest of nature over the past couple of centuries - it’s probably impossible to avoid a scenario in which the economics profession doesn’t become the bête noire of the new political party – assuming, of course, that the new political party ever gets formed.

To expand on the defects of mainstream economics a little further, another problem is that when its doctrines are stretched to their logical conclusion, they bequeath to humans a god-like capacity to create infinite amounts of wealth. But from a strictly materialistic point of view this idea is demonstrably false, since the 1st law of thermodynamics makes it impossible for humans to create anything. Instead, humans can merely transform finite amounts of energy stocks and flows and finite amounts of matter into abstractions that we popularly call wealth. It is thanks to the physiology and mental faculties of humans that we are able to be by far and away the most transformative species on Earth, but like other animals we possess no unique powers to make something from nothing. In other words each human is not, as mainstream economists would have it, a replica of God at the time of Genesis. Thus neither technology, nor entrepreneurialism, nor human ingenuity, nor enlightened self-interest, nor any of the other abstractions that are widely championed by mainstream economists today as a means to surmount physical limits, stand any chance whatsoever of preventing the primarily fossil fuel-powered industrial epoch, along with the highly consumptive, centralized, mobile and urbanized patterns of living it has engendered, from being anything other than an evanescent period in human societal development.

Indeed, the only thing that can keep industrialism chugging along well into the future is the appearance of a major new energy source that can replace fossil fuels. The prospects of this happening, however, are not very good. With all the technological innovations made throughout the past century only one significant new source of energy was discovered, uranium, which today makes up a relatively paltry 4 to 6 per cent of the world’s energy supply. All the other energy sources and technologies that are widely touted as our future salvation from depleting and polluting fossil fuels are either not actually sources of energy but forms of energy carriage (e.g., electricity and hydrogen), not yet in existence (e.g., nuclear fusion), or not able to be adequately scaled up (e.g., biomass, wind and solar, with the latter two also suffering from their inherent intermittency and the inability to store large quantities of electricity).

Besides its rejection of materialism, another problem with mainstream economics is the particular variant of economic thought that has come to dominate the profession over the past several decades. I’m talking about, of course, the ascendancy of neoliberal market fundamentalism, which, with the breakdown of Bretton Woods and the appearance of stagflation in the 1970s, came to replace the discredited Keynesian consensus of the immediate post-war era. Unlike Keynes and his acolytes, the neoliberals truly believe that markets, when shielded from any type of governmental interference, are perfectly efficient, rational and stable wealth creation and distribution systems. By cleansing society of all market imperfections, furthermore, the neoliberals foresee a new dawn for humankind, in which the eminently rational and scientifically sound theories contained in their economic textbooks – such as efficient markets, perfect information, perfect competition, rational expectations, rational utility maximization, and rational choice – will be finally accepted by society at large, creating an ever-lasting age of universal peace and prosperity.

Alas, the neoliberals have failed to create their earthly paradise thus far. They’d probably argue that that’s because they haven’t been successful at removing all the market imperfections imbedded in the global economy yet, which is true – except, that is, for one hugely important area where they’ve had astonishing success at fostering a state of laissez-faire anarchy: finance. The liberalization of the global financial system over the past few decades is without a doubt the crowning achievement of the neoliberal revolution. It is also the root cause of the current unstable, roiling global markets. The removal of capital controls, the chronic lowering of interest rates by central banks, the deregulation of the global banking sector, and the decision not to regulate derivatives has not led to an international economic renaissance of nearly risk-free prosperity, but instead to a worldwide rediscovery of leverage, which has produced an era of credit-fuelled pseudo-prosperity that is now on bond market-financed life support in many of the most economically important parts of the world.

Mainstream economic textbooks, whether of the neoliberal persuasion or not, contain theories that at best only vaguely resemble how economies actually work. This is not only because of their omission of any references to biophysical laws and the physical limits they impose, or because of their inability to grasp that there are inherent limits to how much debt an economy can absorb, but also because of their failure to come to grips with the vital role that central planning plays in making modern economies work. Before I go any further, it is important to point out that my use of the phrase ‘central planning’ is not meant to invoke the extreme centralized control over economies witnessed in the Soviet Union and other Marxist states. The central planning I’m talking about is the more mild, dirigiste kind that exists in all capitalist economies, in which central authorities, often at the behest of powerful moneyed interests, pre-determine certain economic objectives and then utilize various means of state intervention in the marketplace to bring about their fruition. A good example of central planning at work is the suburban sprawl economy that currently exists in both Canada and the United States:

With the hollowing out of their once mighty manufacturing bases over the past few decades as manufacturers moved their operations overseas to take advantage of cheaper labour markets, the financing, constructing, furnishing and servicing of suburban sprawl has become the primary economic activity in both Canada and the United States. But the existence of this suburban sprawl economy, at least to anything like the extent it exists today, is due to massive amounts of centrally planned market intervention. For instance, the typical 25 and 30 year amortized mortgage with a low (or no) downpayment is not a product of the spontaneous workings of the free market, but instead of mortgage market manipulation on a colossal scale by federally chartered institutions, such as the FHA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the United States, and the CMHC in Canada. In the United States, moreover, the interest on mortgages is tax deductible, giving an added economic incentive for Americans to choose homeownership over renting. Two other areas where central planning props up the North American suburban sprawl economy are (1) the existence of zoning laws that either inhibit or outlaw the construction of dual purpose – i.e., both residential and commercial – buildings and neighbourhoods, and (2) the 100 per cent public funding of roads and freeways.

Unless the true believers in a purified free market are willing to go “market bolshie”, so to speak, by violently seizing power in a coup d'état and then implementing their wildly fantastical laissez-faire doctrines in a chiliastic fury of repression and terror, and in so doing causing an amount of death and environmental devastation that is certain to rival that caused by the Soviet Union, it can be safely assumed that the future, like the past, belongs to central planning. I propose, therefore, that the new political party should enthusiastically embrace the reality and necessity of central planning. But unlike the current goals of central planning, which are to promote an ever-increasing rate of complexity and consumption, interdependence and centralization, the new political party would seek to utilize central planning to accomplish the opposite of these goals. If you’re familiar with American history, think of it as the use of Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends.

And now for some good news – I’m almost done! But before I wrap up with a conclusion, I’m going to briefly define and discuss the two concepts that I had earlier proposed that the new political party would be in opposition to: progress and universalism. Once that’s finished, I’ll then briefly suggest some policies that the new political party could adopt that, I believe, would help Canadians lessen the overall suffering they are certain to face in the years ahead as the tectonic stresses begin wreaking their worldwide havoc.

Progress can be defined as the idea that humankind, through its use of scientific rationalism and technology, is advancing in a definite and desirable direction. The idea of progress is a purely modern concept. Indeed, without a belief in progress, the popular notion that we’re living in a modern age would become utterly incoherent. The birth of the idea of progress occurred solely in the West, and can be traced back no further than to the rationalistic philosophy of the Enlightenment. Before that time, there’s no evidence of the idea of progress in either European or non-European traditions of thought.

It has been said that the idea of progress is a secularization of Christian eschatological hopes. There’s no doubt a lot of truth to this, as it would be more or less impossible for non-monotheistic thinkers who hold a cyclical view of history, in which nothing new ever happens under the Sun, to come up with the idea that history is a process of meaningful forward movement. There are some subtle differences, however, between the progressive and Christian teleological views of history. For starters, Christians tend to view history’s advancement as being caused not by the willpower of humans but by the providential workings of God. For believers in progress, on the other hand, the exact opposite is true; it is through the willpower of humans alone, via their use of Enlightenment rationalism to solve everyday problems, that history progresses towards universal betterment. Another difference is that while Christians ultimately foresee a great culmination to history in the form of God’s eventual establishment of a millenarian heaven on earth, believers in progress tend to be melioristic in their outlook, seeing human betterment as gradual and entirely reversible if visceral and anachronistic ways of interpreting the world should ever triumph over rational modes of thought. But there are a number of progressive ideologies, such as Marxism, that share Christianity’s deterministic view of history as a story that must end, after a brief pang of redemptive warfare against the forces of iniquity and injustice, in the universal salvation of humankind.

From a materialistic perspective, the idea of progress poses two problems. The first of these problems is that according to the theory of evolution, human life, like that of all other life forms, is without design or purpose. Thus beyond an innate desire to survive and reproduce that is shared with all other living organisms, human life is meaningless. Humankind in its entirety, furthermore, is going nowhere in particular, with its various hubristic attempts at trying to impose meaning on its existence producing nothing more than yawns of cosmic indifference. Finally, from a strictly evolutionary point of view, one would have to deduce that had humans remained hunter-gatherers until their time is up on this planet, having never developed civilization and the sciences, it wouldn’t have made one iota of difference in the grand scheme of things.

The second problem a materialistic worldview poses for the idea of progress is something I’ve already spent a fair amount of time talking about: namely, the seemingly ephemeral nature of the industrial epoch due, ultimately, to the existence of the laws of thermodynamics and the Earth’s spherical, and thus inherently finite, dimensions. Even though it is scientifically unsupportable, it is probably innocuous to view something like the development of civilization or the accumulation of scientific knowledge as progress, since these things can and most likely will be sustained so long as humans inhabit the Earth. What is not innocuous, however, is to view industrialism and the vast majority of the technological, institutional and demographic changes it has wrought as progress, since this action only works to thwart the development of ways to adjust to our rapidly approaching postindustrial, and thus postmodern, future.

As for universalism, I’ll define it here as the idea that it is either inevitable or desirable that the world converges on a single system of religious belief, or a single type of political and economic organization, such as global democratic capitalism or global communism. Universalism’s origins lie in the western monotheistic tradition – or, more precisely, in the Christian and Islamic theological doctrine that all of humankind, not just those currently practicing Christianity and Islam, is predestined for salvation by a single, beneficent God. With the onset of the Enlightenment in western Europe, however, the Christian doctrine of salvation was embraced, wittingly or not, by secular idealists and transformed into universalistic, humanistic and progressive political ideologies, such as liberalism, Marxism and positivism. Irrespective of whether it is of a religious or a secular ideological nature, the belief in universalism is where the West’s missionary zeal comes from.

There are two significant manifestations of secular universalism active in the world today: 1) the globalization movement, which seeks to unify the economies of the world into one giant economy through the removal of all barriers that hinder the free flow of capital and goods over national boundaries, and in so doing theoretically bringing about an era of ever-lasting peace and prosperity; and 2) the rise of neoconservatism, which is a political ideology wedded to the idea that a combination of liberal democracy and capitalism forms an endpoint to history, and whose followers have a tendency, especially those who reside in the world’s self-anointed redeemer state, the United States, to enthusiastically advocate the violent overthrow of the world’s remaining undemocratic regimes in order to speed up the human race’s entrance into an eternally radiant and harmonious future based on the supposedly millenarian attributes of democratic capitalism.

The problem with universalism, in either its religious or secular manifestations, is that it is a crackpot idea. The notion that all of humankind at some point in the future will be harmoniously united behind a single religion or political ideology is nuts, as the world is simply too big, diverse, complex and chaotic for such a scenario to ever arise. For this and other reasons already mentioned, it is safe to assume that the ongoing globalization project will fail, with its wreckage joining that of the various other attempts by the West to achieve a universally radiant civilization.

And now the time has come for a brief overview of some of my policy suggestions:

DOMESTIC ECONOMY:

In the name of improving physical efficiency via decentralization and localization, I propose the creation of a dichotomous split between industrial sector and service sector corporations, with the latter being abolished. Actually, since most service sector corporations will likely go bust during the next discontinuity, it would probably suffice to have their abolishment grandfathered in. This means that any service sector corporations that manage to survive the discontinuity would be allowed to remain in business, while the creation of any new service sector corporations after the discontinuity would be outlawed (this assumes, of course, that the new political party gets elected soon after a discontinuity strikes and can thereby enact this policy in time). Moreover, if any of the surviving service sector corporations were to choose to expand their operations any further after the discontinuity, they would be forced to surrender the perquisites of corporate personhood and limited liability.

Given that corporations are so ubiquitous and omnipotent in Canadian society, some people might shy away from the idea of abolishing their existence in certain sectors of the economy. But it is important to remember that corporations are not human beings but mere fictitious legal entities that were first created as institutional tools to help promote the common good. (At least ostensibly that is why they were created, although American wit Ambrose Bierce might have been closer to the mark when he defined corporations as ingenious devices for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.) The fact that the perquisites of corporate personhood and limited liability exist, furthermore, is not an accident, but the result of central planning. Indeed, a corporation’s right to life, liberty and property is enshrined in most modern constitutions, including Canada’s. But there’s no reason why the omnipresence of corporations in contemporary Canadian society – or indeed their existence at all – cannot be challenged in the years ahead. Constitutions can be amended. What central planning can giveth, moreover, central planning can taketh away.

While heavy industries would be allowed to remain incorporated for the foreseeable future, as a corporate structure is the only means, sans nationalization, of raising the vast amounts of capital that large-scale industrial enterprises require, the existence of corporations in the service sector is completely superfluous and can therefore be easily done away with. By outlawing service sector corporations, the hope is to recreate the large and decentralized petty-bourgeoisie of the 19th century. Being freed from corporate competition, the plethora of new small businesses would be placed on a truly level playing field, since none of them would have the wherewithal to lobby government for special privileges. But this new state of economic fairness would come at a price – the prohibition of all future incorporations and franchising. Thus great personal fortunes in the service sector would become a thing of the past.

The reestablishment of a large and decentralized petty-bourgeoisie would be promoted not only for reasons of economic fairness, but also, and much more importantly, for the large boost to overall physical efficiency it would engender. For an example of how this works, think of how much less energy is expended when meat is raised, butchered and sold locally by local farmers, butchers and merchants, as opposed to when it is sent to a huge centralized abattoir from farms covering a vast hinterland, butchered there on a mechanized assembly line by semi-skilled or unskilled labourers, and then sent off to markets far and wide, usually ending up in a large grocery chain’s display freezer where it is then sold to the public. While corporate centralization allows for the creation of economies of scale, and thus high levels of economic efficiency – i.e., low prices – through both the utilization of mass production techniques and the bulk buying of goods through long-term contracts (although often the attainment of these low prices is helped by lobbying efforts for company specific or industry-wide subsidies and tax breaks), it comes nowhere near the physical efficiency achieved by doing things locally.

The industrial sector, too, would be divided between an incorporated and centralized heavy industry sector (e.g., mining, automobile production) and a non-incorporated and decentralized light manufacturing sector (e.g., furniture making, food processing). In place of monotonous mass production, the light manufacturing sector would be based on a return to craftsmanship. The heavy industry sector, on the other hand, would continue to focus on extracting raw materials and mass producing goods such as textiles, chemicals, refined metals, electric power generation, transportation and construction equipment, machine tools and various types of appliances. Governmental regulation vis-à-vis manufactured goods would be fixed around promoting their durability, thereby putting an end to planned obsolescence. The mass production of most kinds of techno-trinkets and recreational craft (e.g., video game consoles, electric toothbrushes, dirt bikes) would be prohibited, as these things are a frivolous waste of finite natural resources.

Wherever deemed necessary, the industrial sector would be shielded from foreign competition through the reappearance of protective tariffs. In exchange for tariff protection, the industrial sector would be expected – as was the case in the past – to siphon some of its profits into the coffers of political parties that support the tariff, thereby giving these political parties access to funds to help offset their operating expenses.

Canadian zoning laws would be rewritten to encourage compactness and walkable communities over automobile-friendly sprawl, thus helping to recreate the old dichotomy that existed in Canada before WWII between rural and urban. As for the prodigiously wasteful suburbs, the fate of this neither truly rural nor urban landscape inhabitation scheme is almost certain to be a bleak one in a future of ever-diminishing techno-financial complexity. Because so many Canadians have tied up so much of their wealth in this living arrangement, it is likely to become a source for all kinds of political mischief in the years ahead. Any attempt to make the suburbs a more physically efficient living arrangement is going to be a difficult if not impossible task to achieve. In most cases, the population densities in the suburbs are too low for them to be served by any kinds of mass transportation other than buses. Nor will there be sufficient amounts of money and time available to relocate all of Canada’s suburban population to new and more compact housing developments in the inner cores of cities and towns. Thus, for the foreseeable future, it looks like we’ll just have to muddle through as best we can with the suburban sprawl fiasco.

Various modes of mass transportation would be strongly encouraged, especially the reestablishment of a vast web of railway lines that would link most if not all of Canada’s cities and towns together. These railway lines would handle both freight and passenger trains. The commercial aviation industry would be gradually shutdown, with transoceanic travel being returned to ocean liners, as they are a more physically efficient and durable means of transportation. Automobile production would be wound down inversely with increases in the construction of mass transportation networks.

The reemergence of family operated mixed farms would be promoted over the further expansion of agribusiness. To increase physical efficiency, farmers would be encouraged to provide for local markets, thus ending the importation of any foodstuffs from abroad that can be grown locally.

Thanks to the oil and natural gas bonanza of the past century, food production for the first time in history has become an energy sink, with the energy inputs in industrialized agriculture far exceeding the energy outputs (i.e., the food). If agriculture, and thus civilization, is to continue in a postindustrial future, it will have to be returned to producing energy surpluses. It would be wise, therefore, for the new political party to adopt policies that would help to gradually achieve this end, whatever those policies may be.

A huge effort would be made to guarantee each Canadian citizen’s access to basic healthcare, shelter, clothing and sufficient levels of nutritious food to survive on.

FINANCE & BANKING:

In order to (1) improve financial stability and (2) decelerate consumerism, credit cards, installment plans and other forms of consumer credit would be terminated. A short term exception to this policy, however, might have to be made for the purchasing of the biggest of big ticket items: automobiles and houses. As was the case until the early 20th century, credit would only be made available to those engaged in productive or commercial activities.

The use of fractional-reserve banking would continue. This means Canada’s economy would remain a growth economy, since fractional-reserve banking ultimately works by making a belief in tomorrow’s economic expansion the collateral for today’s debt. In other words a faith in future growth is intrinsic to the way fractional-reserve banking operates. Without this faith in future growth materializing into actual growth, moreover, a fractional-reserve banking system would collapse like a house of cards. While a growth economy is inimical to the concept of sustainability, without a smoothly functioning credit system how else can all the projects that need to be done get accomplished? Instead of trying to implement a newfangled and untested steady-state economic system, the idea is to control how and where capital can be used so that a substantially more decentralized, physically efficient and resilient society can be created over what exists today. When Canada has been de-complexified to a significant enough degree, then a non-growth type of economic system would be put into place.

Deposit insurance would be done away with; it is a bluff anyway, since the CDIC would be lucky if it has enough cash on hand to cover more than 5 per cent of Canadian bank deposits. To compensate for the added risk of depositing money in a bank, depositors would receive higher rates of interest than is currently the case. This action would encourage saving over speculation, and thus help to promote a healthy system of capital formation. Higher rates of interest on deposits would also mean that borrowing would be more costly than it is today.

It might be a good idea to break up the handful of large banks that currently exist in Canada into a plethora of smaller ones, since a more decentralized banking sector would reduce the systemic risks associated with financial panics, which are certain to be a recurrent problem. A more decentralized banking sector might also significantly reduce the lobbying power of banks. This would be beneficial, as banks have a tendency to lobby for the enactment of laws that enhance debt-fuelled profligacy over thrift, as the latter is more profitable for the banks than the former, at least in the short term.

In exchange for the profits accrued from the privilege of being able to lend money into existence, the banking sector would come under stringent regulation. For example, bank assets would be marked to market at all times, reserve ratios would be strictly enforced, and all off balance sheet shenanigans would be discontinued. Derivatives, moreover, would be either regulated, and thus transformed into legitimate forms of insurance, or abolished. Finally, capital controls would be reinstated, with the movement of capital both in and out of Canada being severely restricted.

TRADE:

In the post-discontinuity future, international trade is going to be severely hampered by factors that include: 1) the vanishing of letters of credit due to the breakdown of the global financial system; 2) the loss of an international reserve currency (the US dollar) in which to denominate both commodities and cross boarder trade; 3) the return to protectionism by many countries in an attempt to both create jobs domestically and to isolate national economies from the havoc being wreaked by a collapsing global economy; and 4) the outbreak of thinly disguised resource wars between various nations and empires in the making, leading to embargoes, blockades and the destruction of some of the world’s resource extracting and manufacturing centres. To be sure, trade will continue to exist in a post-discontinuity future, just not at anything like the levels we are currently accustomed to. In many cases, moreover, the trade that does occur will be highly erratic, and thus unreliable.

In order to shield itself from the caprices of a broken international trade and financial system, Canada would become reacquainted with its protectionist heritage. Protectionism would also be upheld because it maximizes physical efficiency, in the sense that it is more physically efficient to produce goods locally than to import them from abroad.

IMMIGRATION:

Immigration into Canada would be halted. This wouldn’t be done in one fell swoop, but over, say, a two to five year period. From then on perhaps a door could be left slightly open for a few hundred or so new arrivals per annum, but only via a parliamentary vote on each individual.

I fully understand the sensitivity of this issue. In particular, I understand that this policy is bound to elicit charges of racism and xenophobia. These charges, should they occur, would be entirely understandable, given the West’s deplorable legacy of attributing its ascendancy over the rest of the world over the past couple of centuries to its white skin. This mendacious idea achieved its climax, of course, with the rise of Nazi Germany and its uniquely barbarous ideology that maintained that the earthly salvation of so-called Aryans (i.e., white Germanic peoples) hinged on either the eternal enslavement or the extermination of much of the non-Aryan human race. In the wake of the unprecedented scale and cold-bloodedness of Nazi atrocities, the idea of white supremacy and “scientific” racism has lost any degree of academic respectability it once had in the West, although some whites, alas, still adhere to it. Moreover, it is now obvious that the West was able to lord it over the rest world for the past couple of centuries not because of something as silly as skin colour, but because of its “discovery”, settlement and exploitation of the vast resources of the New World, and, more importantly, because of its being the birthplace of the financial, industrial and scientific revolutions. But with post-war decolonization and the inevitable dissemination of scientific and technological knowledge from the West to the rest of the world, most of the advantages the West once had over other civilizations are now gone. Indeed, the country with the largest industrial output in the world today, China, is to be found in the Far East. In the near future we face not a changing of the guard, so to speak, in which a new geographic region of the world, such as East Asia, takes over the reins of global domination from a rapidly declining West, but a return to pre-19th century conditions in which no single part of the world is capable of dominating rest.

Immigration would be opposed because of a concern over Canada’s long-term carrying capacity, not because of the new political party’s adoption of a grotesque and poisonous politics of racial and ethnic sentimentalism. While Canada is a vast country, dependable agricultural land covers only approximately 5 per cent of its land surface. Its reserves of non-renewable resources, moreover, are not limitless.

To be frank, you cannot create a new political party based on the precepts of materialism without confronting the human population taboo. Just like there are limits to growth, there are limits to how many people a given area of land can sustain. These carrying capacity limits will become more apparent with the gradual but inexorable decline of fossil fuels. If Canadians are willing to accept a degree of indigence that can be found in, say, the slums of Calcutta, then by all means let Canada’s population be tripled or quadrupled from what it is today. But if Canadians have higher material aspirations for the generations to come after them, then immigration is going to have to be stopped at some point. Why not make it now?

FOREIGN POLICY:

While Canada’s foreign policy would be more subtle than mere isolationism, it would refrain from seeking monsters to destroy in foreign lands. The world is going to become a far more nasty, violent and unpredictable place, and there’s very little that either the Canadian government or the Canadian people can do about that. It should be remembered that the world has been hardly any less of a war torn and cruel place since the end of WWII than it was during the period from 1914 to 1945. In fact, the only significant difference between the two periods is that one from 1914 to 1945 involved warfare between industrial powers.

Instead of unnecessarily getting entangled in foreign intrigues, Canada would concentrate on protecting the North American continent from invasion, presumably with the help of the United States in this endeavour. This shouldn’t be all that hard to do, considering that North America is blessedly surrounded by three large oceans that make transoceanic invasion essentially impossible.

Finally, it would be of the utmost importance, as it has always been in Canada’s past (or at least it has been since Confederation), to maintain at least cordial relations with our much larger and much more militarily powerful neighbour to the south. Whatever we do, we cannot piss them off. If we somehow do, we run the risk of having them “liberate” us from the tyranny of Queen Elizabeth II (and our oil).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

In conclusion, none of my policy suggestions are written in stone. These are just some ideas off the top of my head that I believe would help Canadians persevere in a humane fashion against the tectonic stresses for, at best, a few decades.

Ultimately, only through the realm of politics will Canadians be able to mitigate the fast approaching calamities that they and the rest of the world face in the years ahead. After the next discontinuity strikes, it is likely that many individuals will attempt to resurrect the status quo ante. But this action will be nothing more than an act of futility. Industrial progress is chimera (if not the idea of progress in general), and this fact will cause the West to enter into an existential crisis, as the conventional left-wing / right-wing political spectrum that dominates its current political discourse becomes increasingly incoherent and irrelevant. If Canada, with its vast size and resource base, geographical isolation, and history of peace and civility cannot find a modus vivendi that staves off a descent into barbarism, then it is likely that no country can.]]> Michael James General Discussion Wed, 05 Oct 2011 21:12:44 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1073,1113#msg-1113 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1073,1113#msg-1113
I am a young Climate Justice activist in Canada and I struggle very deeply with accepting the notion of placing geoengineering on the table at this point in the crisis.

Much of the sentiment I can relate to is stated rather clearly in what George has written, but I am most concerned with the morality of accepting geoengineering as a solution and the consequencess of suspending further innovation at the grass roots if used.

Tad, I am also an admirer of your work and would like for you to please clarify your argument on geoengineering in the context of your current research on adaptation to nonlinearity (Plan Z) -- the work you are doing with CIGI.

Thank you both for this discussion,

Matthew Chisholm,
Halifax, Nova Scotia]]> MChisholm General Discussion Wed, 10 Aug 2011 16:44:47 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1032,1112#msg-1112 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1032,1112#msg-1112
Lots of helpful stuff there I think.]]> johnlemieux General Discussion Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:28:11 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1087#msg-1087 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1087#msg-1087 en.calameo.com] may form the basis of some discussion as the next generation is going to have to cope with serious problems we've left them.]]> Watercolourlover26 General Discussion Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:50:48 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1085#msg-1085 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1085#msg-1085
You are part of our hope for the future. Best of luck.]]> max General Discussion Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:54:15 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1077,1084#msg-1084 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1077,1084#msg-1084
One of the nastier characteristics of religions throughout history is that they seem to create a focal point for finding scapegoats--the persecution of Christians, of Jews, of Franciscans, the Inquisition, burning heretics, and Israel and Islam, the Middle East in general. There are usually other forces at play too, but religion seems to help lots of folks to channel their anger against some group of "others."

On the positive side, churches can serve as centres for community support, help for those less fortunate, and comfort in hard times. It's a pity we don't see more of our religious leaders speak up about issues like climate, deforestation, unsustainable growth, and environmental destruction. Religions usually weigh in on ethical issues, but today's leaders seem unwilling to commit themselves, which is a pity, because if things continue as they are, we are going to be facing some very nasty moral decisions. Lifeboat ethics.]]> max General Discussion Mon, 07 Mar 2011 14:51:27 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1077,1083#msg-1083 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1077,1083#msg-1083
The advantage of a religion is that it offers absolutes in times of human difficulty. I didn't major in Theology so I'm not qualified to comment on the many religions around the world, but I venture to suggest religions have been the cause of much human strife. Regardless of your belief system, it seems to me religion could play a powerful role in preparing its adherents for the difficult decades ahead. Not by declaring all our coming troubles are "God's will," although that may give comfort to some and I would not mock that belief although I disagree with it.

No, the absolutes of which I speak might contain a call to protect God's gift to all of us: life, the future stewardship of the earth (seen as God's gift to mankind), and the duty to leave our descendants the fruits of that gift. If I understand the Christian aspect of religion, the environmental movement is not incompatible with basic Christian beliefs. I'm saddened by organized religion's almost total lack of leadership in our current dilemma. I've heard no thundering denunciations from the pulpits on the antics of Wall Street and the financial mess. Surely there is a parallel here with throwing the money changers from the temple? I regret there has been no leadership in decrying the whole production/consumption/obsolescence treadmill about to become unsustainable. Organized Christian religion seems to have thrown up its hands and turned inward, perhaps in its desire not to offend.

I firmly believe there are more positives than negatives when it comes to religion and our current dilemma, but I have to leave it to believers to sort that one out. Let the discussion begin.]]> Watercolourlover26 General Discussion Wed, 02 Mar 2011 14:12:19 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1077,1077#msg-1077 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1077,1077#msg-1077 Alileeca General Discussion Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:23:26 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1076#msg-1076 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,927,1076#msg-1076 Alileeca General Discussion Thu, 24 Feb 2011 22:20:59 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1073,1073#msg-1073 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1073,1073#msg-1073 New York Times, the most influential newspaper in Dumbfuckistan, oops, I mean the United States. (Americans are not really dumb, but suffer from a dreadful lack of information due in part to the corporate media). I also read your talk on complexity, which I also found to be excellent.

However, when you mention geoengineering – injecting sulfates into the atmosphere - as a plausible antidote to global warming, I can’t help but slap myself on the forehead in astonished agony. Tad, get a grip on yourself! In [iCarbon Shift[/i] you do mitigate this mitigation by calling the prospect hubristic and appalling with likely unintended consequences.

I’m not a dogmatic Luddite or Romantic. I’m a Paleolithic Conservative with an open mind, open to appropriate use of technology, but firmly convinced that we need to live as closely as possible to how nature/evolution designed our particular animal species to live: material simplicity, natural food , exercise, joy and self-worth derived from emotional bonding and productive activity, and embedded in an ecosystem with the understanding that we do not ultimately control the system. Most of our problems stem from humankind’s arrogant efforts to manipulate nature to our perceived benefit, with disastrous, unintended consequences. Industrial civilization is a Faustian bargain gone wrong.

Spraying sulfates into the atmosphere is like tossing salt into our mother’s eyes to cure her fever, most likely a quack remedy which will cause more problems than it solves. This is an example of trying to solve a problem with the very type of thinking which created it, which Einstein cautioned against.

However, to prove that I’m not a fundamentalist Romantic, I will concede that if global warming reaches hideous proportions signaling the extinction of most life, including humans, I could support sprinkling fairy dust in God’s face, but only as an absolute last resort. In fairness, I suppose that is what you are saying.

In the meantime, I will continue to build a transition community (I think the Transition Town Movement is our best bet), educate the public about resilience, and grow food and raise bees on my 10 acres 50 miles south of Chicago. I moved out here 26 years ago because I’ve known since my counterculture days in the 1960’s that our socio-economic-political system is not only insane but headed for collapse.

Tad, thanks again for your great work. The Upside of Down is still the best book on the world crisis that I’ve read, and I’ve read a lot of them!

George Ochsenfeld
ochsenfeld@aol.com
Monee, Illinois]]> ochsenfeld General Discussion Wed, 09 Feb 2011 00:42:48 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1032,1072#msg-1072 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1032,1072#msg-1072
Let's keep leaning!]]> Carmen General Discussion Sat, 05 Feb 2011 21:20:35 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1071,1071#msg-1071 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1071,1071#msg-1071
My questions and concerns are:

Given the reduced polar ice cover (and reduced glaciers over mountains) - where did all the water go? After all, we are in a closed system. Is the excess liquidity manifesting in increased floods (Pakistan, Australia) and heavy rainfalls - and possibly heavy, unprecedented snow storms around the world?

What happens when solar sunspot activity gets reduced to below average (past 70 year average) for a prolonged period, perhaps combined with increased volcanic activity (increased atmospheric ash cloud that reflects sunlight, cooling planet) and with the increased level of liquidity in our closed system? Will we continue to get increased precipitation in areas where we least expect it?

I am concerned about sudden or systemic reduction in global caloric (agricultural) output as a result of disruptive climate change (related to excess water or perhaps lack thereof due to disrupted jet stream patterns). As it is now, increased food prices in countries with very low incomes (Tunisia, Egypt, for example) are contributing to stress and instabilities.

I believe, as the Pharoah did after Joseph's interpretation of his nightmares, it would be prudent to have a global strategy to address potential need for critical food storage (similar to national stock piles or oil) to mitigate against unexpected climate-related reduction of caloric output in strategic agricultural areas.]]> goodfield19 General Discussion Thu, 03 Feb 2011 21:42:48 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1070,1070#msg-1070 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1070,1070#msg-1070 murraylumley General Discussion Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:44:53 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1069,1069#msg-1069 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1069,1069#msg-1069
We need imaginative solutions. I think that a good way to start is to convene an Interdisciplinary Symposium right now, at a center such as Columbia University's Earth Institute, bringing together diverse parties to search for timely, actionable and creative solutions to the problem. Participants should be experts in widely-ranging fields such as science, engineering, economics, journalism, education, political science, psychology, public relations, business, history, foreign affairs, etc. Such a symposium could be replicated in many major international institutions. Succeeding forums should involve all stakeholders in the problem as well. I have not seen such a concerted dramatic response to this singular existential threat.

Btw I just saw the beautiful movie on the world-wide effects of climate change, "Home", by Yann Arthus-Bertrand, which can be seen at: [www.youtube.com]


Ronald Kaprov, E.D., Science Education, Columbia University Teachers College
Thesis topic: Creative Problem Solving]]> ron01262 General Discussion Thu, 03 Feb 2011 14:39:48 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1067,1067#msg-1067 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1067,1067#msg-1067 The Upside of Down, in January 2007. In the same month, I discovered the Transition Town movement, which comes out of Totnes, UK and was founded by Rob Hopkins. He also read your book, and gives it friendly mention in his book, The Transition Handbook (published spring/summer 2008).

There are now 300 official Transition groups around the globe, four years later. Have you heard of it? Have any of them asked you to come speak at one of their events?

http://www.transitionus.org -->> US center

http://transitionculture.org -->> Rob Hopkins' blog

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_Towns -->> wikipedia article

http://www.transitionnetwork.org/about -->> Global Transition HQ

Also, have you looked at the Great Transition Initiative, similarly named, but different?
("Visions and Pathways for a Hopeful Future")
[www.gtinitiative.org]
[en.wikipedia.org]
[www.facebook.com]

-- Jim Barton
Asheville, NC, USA]]> smithmillcreek General Discussion Thu, 03 Feb 2011 11:33:17 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1064,1066#msg-1066 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1064,1066#msg-1066
"Population began to decrease, and with a worthless coinage and empty treasury, there was no way to pay the army."

Although we may be too close to events, the decline of the American empire seems to parallel the Rome example in many ways. I wonder if anyone is doing a thesis on comparisons? Empires in decline are hard to manage politically, and some nasty times may be ahead.]]> Watercolourlover26 General Discussion Thu, 20 Jan 2011 16:41:09 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1026,1065#msg-1065 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1026,1065#msg-1065 "No one individual can provide all or even a small proportion of the answers we need."

When I read The Ingenuity Gap some 8 or 9 years ago, I really liked it and I actually still do. The gaps you pointed out are still there today, and they will be there tomorrow and for a few more years. However, I have to disagree with the above statement. I think that when one looks at the world through the proper lens, it is not that complicated. Everything comes into focus. And when that happens, solutions come up by themselves, and problems become solvable.

Thus what we need to find is the lens. Sociology, as you noted indirectly, is not the lens needed to do this. Knowledge of the past is not the lens to use either. Both are useful, each in its specific way, but they are not the lens. I think that the lens will come from our knowledge of management, both its analytical and technical tools.]]> Denis Pageau General Discussion Wed, 19 Jan 2011 21:37:56 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1064,1064#msg-1064 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1064,1064#msg-1064
Enjoy

[www.bbc.co.uk]
[en.wikipedia.org]]]> diegoami General Discussion Tue, 18 Jan 2011 07:36:38 -0500 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1024,1046#msg-1046 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1024,1046#msg-1046
You ask very pertinent questions, some of which researchers have already directly addressed. Joseph Tainter, for instance, has provided a detailed analysis of how the western and eastern Roman empires responded very differently to similar EROI crises. In the case of Byzantium, Tainter argues, the empire’s leaders undertook a very deliberate process of institutional reform and simplification (of everything from political administration to military structure) that brought energy demands into closer alignment with energy supply. Tainter claims that this shift explains the eastern empire’s extraordinary longevity. He also suggests that the process Byzantium went through has been extremely rare historically; most civilizations don’t have the foresight, competence, and political capacity to undertake such a change.

Regarding your questions about the disadvantages of social complexity, much has to be speculative at this point, because research on these issues is really very preliminary. First, Tainter would argue that once Byzantium simplified itself, the natural and inexorable process of social and institutional complexification that he’s identified in his research (and that has been independently identified by scholars like Buzz Holling and Brian Arthur) reasserted itself. Eventually, this complexification produces, according to Tainter, diminishing returns and even negative returns (which means that each increment of extra complexity costs more than any benefits it produces to the larger society). At this point, the social system becomes increasingly vulnerable to exogenous shock. There’s no reason to believe that this shock has to come from a system of relatively greater complexity. The complexity of the source of the shock is irrelevant, in Tainter’s view, to the shocked system’s capacity to cope.

Yes, by this kind of analysis, at some point “increasing levels of organizational, social and economic complexity cross a threshold that inhibits positive innovation.” Complexity of certain kinds (and Tainter does not do a good job of distinguishing between kinds of complexity, a critical matter for future research) hinders a social system’s responsiveness and capacity to innovate. It’s a kind of sclerosis – a sociological and political rigidification. My thinking here has been heavily influenced by Macur Olsen’s The Logic of Collective Action and The Rise and Decline of Nations, which develop a compelling theory of why social systems become encumbered by narrowly focused special interest groups. Note that by this kind of argument, increasing complexity might benefit certain groups while it exacts great costs on the social system as a whole, a phenomenon that Tainter doesn’t really consider (he tends to consider only complexity’s aggregated consequences). These are central considerations of my ongoing work on ingenuity requirement and supply, summarized in my book, The Ingenuity Gap.]]> Tad Homer-Dixon General Discussion Mon, 01 Nov 2010 15:46:51 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1026,1045#msg-1045 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1026,1045#msg-1045
Although I'm far from "it's all too late anyway, so what the hell?" the problems of our dominant social paradigm are appallingly complex and resist the 30-second soundbites of what passes for news these days. I wonder how many of you agree with me that nothing will change until such changes are forced upon us by external pressures?

One small example is found here: [247wallst.com]. Try working that into the U.S. mid-term elections and see how far you get.]]> Watercolourlover26 General Discussion Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:03:14 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1026,1044#msg-1044 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1026,1044#msg-1044 The Ingenuity Gap, The Upside of Down, and another still to be written.

In its original conception, I expected The Upside of Down to include a very substantial section on prescriptions, perhaps a third of the total pages or more. But as I wrote, I decided it was essential to get the diagnosis of our challenge right and that getting the diagnosis right was going to take more time (and chapters) than I expected. In the end, I literally ran out of page space, time (I was far over deadline), and resources (with a new baby in the family, I simply couldn’t sustain the hours needed to write further).

But something else, ultimately more important, produced the imbalance between downside and upside you’ve noted: there’s simply a dearth of adequate ideas – ideas simultaneously both radical and practical, sufficiently powerful yet feasible – to address the crisis we face. And I was simply unwilling to recite a list of the same old bromides. There are lots of books detailing prescriptions, but none of these books effectively addresses a fundamental conundrum: what is politically feasible is insufficient, and what might be sufficient isn’t politically feasible. In the end I couldn’t justify adding to this ever-lengthening collection of insufficient or unused ideas.

My first two trade books, The Ingenuity Gap and The Upside of Down, provide, I hope, a deep analysis of the enduring and slow-motion crisis that confronts us. My next book – and I expect there will be one – will build on that analysis. To be fair, in the opening pages of The Upside of Down I warned readers not to expect a “check list of solutions.” No one individual can provide all or even a small proportion of the answers we need. But I do hope the next book will offer something of a scaffolding on which, and through which, these ideas can be generated by other people far and wide.

I moved to the University of Waterloo to engage in this work, and it’s going well – across an exciting range of fields with a group of fabulous colleagues and students. I know it’s frustrating and the time seems short, but I ask my readers, and all who join me in this conversation here, for their patience.]]> Tad Homer-Dixon General Discussion Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:59:09 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1032,1043#msg-1043 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1032,1043#msg-1043
Nevertheless, it’s an enormously exciting time to be alive. We are in a transition period for human civilization. Human history, to this point, has followed a trajectory roughly analogous to the development stages of youth and adolescence in individual human beings. Right now, we’re exhibiting all the characteristics of late adolescence: boundless energy, impulsiveness, denial of our vulnerability, self-gratification, and willful self-delusion. The challenge now is for the human species to grow up, to develop and act on some of the wisdom that should come with maturity as a species – the recognition that there are constraints on the possible, that we have profound responsibilities to others, and that prudence is a noble aspiration.

I’m not sure whether we will successfully pass through this transition. Some adolescents do stupid things and kill themselves in the process. But I know that when it’s time for me to depart this mortal coil, as they say, I’m going to regret that I won’t have lived long enough to have seen the end, or even the middle, of the story of this critical period.

One last thing I can say in response to this question: never let anyone get away with the statements like “it’s too late,” “there’s nothing to be done,” or “it’s game over.” We simply don’t know enough about the world around us, and the systems that affect human prospects, to be able to say with certainly that there’s no hope left. Unknown unknowns can break in our favour, as much as they can break against us. I distrust all unalloyed optimists or pessimists, because the world is too complex to support any certainty with regards to our prospects. As long as we are ignorant of at least some of our ignorance, there is room enough for hope.]]> Tad Homer-Dixon General Discussion Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:56:44 -0400 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1040,1042#msg-1042 http://homerdixon.com/forum/read.php?1,1040,1042#msg-1042
1. If events are basically telling us things are slowly deteriorating as predicted, how useful is it to play with any of the potential solutions (go green, cap' n trade, whatever) unless any of them has a snowball's chance to be implemented within 10 - 20 years minimum?
2. When presenting their ideas and opinions, do the smart people of the world (and I mean that with respect, not sarcasm) really believe we'll still be in a "Let's get back on track" mode? I'm amazed at the track record of the financial gurus and how they manage yet to continue saying, "We're on our way back to the good old days..."
3. Who is currently gaming or forecasting the most likely scenarios, such as those where trade actions like the Russian hold on wheat exports or an escalation of the Israeli/Iranian issue occurs? These types of events are totally plausible within five years.
4. How will the sudden, sharp shocks associated with these more-than-likely events play out? How would we individually find out that things may actually go south literally within weeks?
5. Are there studies relating to global migration trends today that discuss where arguably prudent people (either well-off or just plain ahead of the curve) are moving to? Given the coming global climate shift, Canada would seem to be a desirable location.

Cheers....... No, really.]]> mworgan General Discussion Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:49:18 -0400