Petrocollapse Roundup: Kunstler
Posted by Glenn on October 6, 2005 - 1:47pm in The Oil Drum: Local
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: james kunstler, oil, peak oil [list all tags]
As a speaker and writer I admire his pugnacious attitude, but as a front person for the movement, I have to say that he's a bit too strident in his rhetoric. Basically there are only so many people (mostly liberal/progressives) that like to be publicly and continuously insulted for just living their lives as they do. Still he serves a good role in making some people re-examine their lives.
UPDATED: Link to the text of his speech
He went on to say that the Consumer mindset has influenced the whole way that we view the world, entering into a self deluded fantasy world where you get things by complaining instead of producing it yourself - never accepting any sacrifice, always demanding more and more without respect for how exactly we produce ever greater quantities to consume. Politicians can only ignore this Consumer mindset at their own peril, thus they run ever greater deficits, never able to make the tough decisions because they have to give the Consumer what they want. Rather what Kunstler argues for is a brutal "reality based" world where people are not able to escape the realities of the impact they have on the world due to their consumption patterns.
All and all a pretty good critique of one of the many ways that our current culture is simply not prepared to deal with the stark realities of peak oil and one of the many ways in which we can learn from our own past, before we were corrupted by the Consumer mentality.
One of his best lines in the Q & A when he was asked about his comment on the fanatics (right wing was implied by the question) that would be elected in the post-peak-oil world. Kunstler gave a very good retort in my opinion - "I would be just as worried about so-called Progressive fanatics as much as right-wing fanatics".
IMO, Simmons/Kunstler are to the unfolding energy crisis as Churchill was to the pre-World War II period--trying to warn anyone who would listen of the dangers ahead.
The title of the event is: "The unfolding energy crisis and its impact on development patterns."
SMU is working on trying to have a DVD of the event available, but that is still up in the air.
You can order tickets online, from SMU (through the Environmental Science Department), at: www.smu.edu/esp
Jeffrey Brown
I would be happy to serve as a technical resources if anyone wants to set up a local group.
Jeffrey Brown
I say hoorah for any effort that challanges people in other states to reconsider their attitudes towards us. We are as equally birkenstocks as we are cowboy hats, and it's just a matter of making ourselves realize it.
As an aside, I'm currently residing in Austin having recently moved from Abilene (West Texas Futures, anyone?), and will probably be living in San Antonio in the coming months.
Cole Wenger
Now in the 21st c. this economics label has been reified (v, to consider an abstract concept to be real) and accepted in the culture. Consumer confidence, the consumer price index (and also worker productivity). These are common terms. Even for older people, it's hard to remember when American citizens were not labelled this way.
What is the outcome of this? It has meant that
- shopping and buying things are the main culturally sanctioned activities (as opposed, say, to participating in a democracy)
- people are regarded with respect to economic status, not their personal welfare. Homo Economicus, not Homo Sapiens
- the corporate mission of making and selling you stuff is legitimized and made central in the culture.
The results of this have been a disaster. Marketers target children. TV is mostly a channel for psychological manipulation that serves advertisers. People eat poorly. Many can only think in terms of sound bites and have short attention spans. Political messages have the status of cheeseburgers. Everyone must have the latest SUV. And the rest.TOD readers are unlikely to passively accept this labelling but the large majoritiy of Americans do; this acceptance is largely unconscious. "Consumerism" is the driving force behind unsustainable growth. Worse yet, it is America's chief export. As Richard Heinberg says, it's time to powerdown.
Kunstler on Financial Sense Online
Jim Puplava, Financial Sense Online
Excerpt:
JAMES KUNSTLER: The effect of the two hurricanes alone has been very, very impressive, and even though we're a week past the second storm, the reports are not nearly in even about what the damage has been. And we're still reeling from both of those storms. Yes, I agree with you, the potential for acceleration is very impressive and these tend to have mutually reinforcing effects on each other, and ramifying effects. As I said a little earlier, right now, because of the effect of the hurricane, and the rise in oil and gas prices, there are individuals all over America who are deciding not to buy those houses that they thought about buying back in August and July. And when you add up those choices, they may add up to the end of the housing bubble, and the end of the housing bubble may add up to a lot of people in the financial sector turning around and thinking, "well, you know what, this stream of bundled debt and investment revenue that we've been counting on, never coming to an end, seems to be coming to an end, what are we going to do? How are we going to cover our casino bets that we've made all over the world?" We seem to be heading into what you yourself have described on your website as a perfect financial storm.
JIM: Well, I couldn't agree more. I think at this point the energy of that storm is just gaining force, and I think we're going to see in the next 12 to 18 months, events unfold that we've never seen before, and it's going to be quite a bit of a shock.
In conclusion, Jim, if you wanted somebody to read your book and walk away with one important point, what would that be?
JAMES KUNSTLER: Oddly enough, it's something we haven't talked about. And it has to do with people thinking that we'll get through this somehow, we'll come up with something. And in a way, I have my own thoughts about that because I'm basically a cheerful person, and in my own way I'm also an optimistic person. I'm not really a doomy-gloomy guy.
I would leave you with this thought: that the American people have historically been a generous, brave, forward looking, resourceful group, and we've shown great courage in the face of adversity before. I think we've become kind of a somewhat sloppy and complacent people in the last 25 years or so, but it doesn't mean we can't recover a lot of those virtues that are really part of the fiber of our national character. It's still there and can still be recovered, and I think we're going to be able to do that. It's not going to be true for every place and everyone, but I think that's going to help us a lot. So I have a lot of faith just in our national character, and the better angels of our nature, as Abraham Lincoln said.
(1 October, 2005)
The Oil Drum has previously managed to maintain a level of credibility unique among peak oil websites. The petrocollapse thread was a giant step backwards in credibility building and a leap forward in associating peak oil with World Trade Center conspiracies, alien invasions, and the paranormal.
Ruppert I can do without. I'm not sure he brings anything to the discussion. Kunstler has merit as a critique of consumerism, but I do agree that there are many better representatives of the anti-consumerist viewpoint.
At the heart of peak oil is the idea of energy production, consumption, geology, physics, and economics. That should remain the focus. Kunstler should be playing a very very minor role in all this. He's a critic of consumer society and suburbia. That critique, in essence, can be summerized in a small paragraph. And as an expert on energy, economics, or visualizing how society will deal with depletion, I think Kunstler brings nothing. No real expertise--other than some ideas on how to redesign society.
Same goes for Heinberg. A few ideas on sustainability living. Nothing more. They aren't experts. But they've been able to build up a lot of frequenty flyer miles through their many speaking engagements.
Here's another perspective that is in agreement with the above post (shooting the messenger). Part of my ad hominem discussion earlier is that one should, at some point, ignore certain aspects of a problem, including people. It's just not discussed. Don't even speak to it. All the 9/11 stuff, for example. One can easily say: not discussed. Geopolitics, fascism, etc, etc. One can also easily say: not discussed. Same goes for survivalism. Join a survivalist online bulletin board to discuss survivalism. It need not be attached to peak oil, and degrades the level of discourse.
Kunstler is right We CONSUME to much, We Built to many OUT THERE housing projects. If we had more tight knit nieghborhoods we would not have CONSUMED so FAST what OIL we did have.
Peak Oil is all about a Consumtion rate. WE just CONSUMED our selves past the Peak by doing everything Kunstler points out.
Charles,
(See above or is it below Chicory)
I strongly disagree that just by mentioning people like Ruppert, we're doing either peak oil or the website a disservice. As I said in the other thread, many people are coming to the topic on the basis of Ruppert's and Kunstler's writing. It's up to a webiste like this one for people to point out where their arguments go wrong, if you think they do. I DO NOT think that appropriate action is just to ignore them, at least not right now when we're still desperate for the issue to be getting more national attention. If you think they're wrong, explain why.
There are enough serious scholars and commentators out there that we shouldn't have to wander down these dark alleys of conspiracy fantasy.
I routinely see some pretty weird stuff at TOD but that pales in comparison to limiting discourse on the cultural side of things with respect to peak oil. I could do without Ruppert and Kunstler is certainly no peak oil expert, but let's not get into some PO fascism kind of thing. If you think something is bullshit (9/11 conspiracies, whatever), just say so. Let's not shoot any messengers, OK? If I thought that what I say about deepwater drilling or criticising the oil markets had to go through a "correctness" filter, I wouldn't post here at all and neither would anyone else except card carrying TOD party members. I hate even having to say this.
But to add a bit. We would still have Peak Oil, But without what Kunstler pointed out we would have had Peak Oil in 20 to 30 more year forward from now, and M King Hubbert would not have been talking about the US Peak in 1970 but maybe in 1990.
SO in my Humble Opinion, Kunstler is right to be in the PEAK OIL debate!
Ruppert has always been a little out there in my opinion.
I have been following these issues since I first made it to college in 1981, I had been a "tree hugger" long before I know that term. I have been at one point or another able to live off the land, most of my life. I hold no college degrees, have no "paying" job, and have lived on less than $(US)10,000 for more than half my life. But I also vote every chance I get, and I am socially active in my neighborhood. Having no degrees does not mean I did not go to college, I have over 120 passing at 2.0 or better credit hours of college, from three places of Higher learning.
Laughs, I have a Top Secret Security Clearance and Am A+ computer certified.
Charles,
(Chicory see above)
Penny-Royal a member of the mint family, eaten as a stomach restive , or as a tea.
Umm... no one brought up alien invasions, or paranormal activity. Not to say that those two topics haven't been associated with 9/11, but stop and think about it: if our government was in any way culpable in 9/11 then it would make perfect sense to have an active disinformation campaign intended to associate questioning the event with the most outlandish rubbish in the hope that both will be rejected. And indeed, this is what appears to be happening.
The thread associated with the earlier posting on Ruppert did indeed mention World Trade Center anomalies, especially in regard to the collapse of Building 7 (which few people are even aware of), but I have to point out that Ruppert himself does not promote this line of inquiry - he brings a policeman's "motive, means, and opportunity" approach to his investigation which I find pretty iron-clad.
Way to go nowhere, people.
That basically goes back to the hippies and the youth rebellion of the 60's, attacking 'the establishment'. We know that the American people don't reward such attacks with leadership.
If you want indefinite rule by the corrupt pollution crazy oligarchy, just yell as loud as you can to every hardworking American trying to scrape by, deal with medical bills, stagnant to declining wages, fewer good jobs, expensive education. Just YELL at them about CONSUMERISM! Spit on them! Trash them!
Way to go nowhere, obviously.
We need to understand the anxieties and fears of working people and structure our political pitch around hope and help.
For example, push for universal health care, higher minimum wage, energy efficiency, etc. We can push a better more equitable govt and economy and as part of the picture fund peak oil R&D, mandate fuel standards, develop mass transit. But it has to be part of an ETHIC of CARE.
Why not? I do not care for some of his theories, but I do not see him as a threat to the credibility of TOD by his stature in PO forums or his ideas being debated here. The debate has been informative to me even if I do not buy the conspiracy argument around 9/11 and I hope open debate continues. Debating Kunstler's speech at a conference here on TOD need not be feared.
The only thing to fear is fear itself.
I certainly feel chastized now for criticising consumerism which is, after all, the root cause of so many of our problems. Unsustainable growth driven by insatiable demand is a big problem. As a "progressive", I've been for all the good things you list all my life. And what have I seen in all that time? I've seen things get worse and worse and worse.... Before people can change, they've got to learn how to question the status quo. Somebody has got to tell them the bad news. Although if PO theories are correct, and I believe they are, people are going to be receiving that news in any case.
http://cascadiascorecard.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/happiness_econo_1.html
As I said in comments over there:
I've got some posts on this [happiness and consumption in industrial societies] too, going back a ways on my blog. It is a key missing piece in conservation and environment discussions ... but at the same time I don't think general society will buy the argument from environmentalists.
If "happiness scientists" make the pitch that we should understand (and perhaps get off) the "hedonic treadmill" ... maybe it WILL make some headway.
... I guess I should just be happy with that ;-)
If education is going up, medical care going up, wages going down, why are people still shopping at Best Buy? Right now its because their houses went up as well and there is no reason why they shouldn't take out a HELOC to buy that plasma TV.
I think yelling is the only way to get over the screaming of the advertisment.
The bloggers are largely responsible for the directions each thread takes, so one could argue that there is at least some interest in those topics you deride, however inappropriate to PO.
It's something that happens in blogs, and unless you want to stifle freedom of expression, it is a necessary pimple. In most cases, people generally get steered back to the topic by their peers. The exception is usually when there is something to be learned or else something very controversial being debated.
I'd rather have the occasional stray thread appearing than edited comments, wouldn't you?
My feeling is that there are dozens of peak oil websites that pump out this drivel constantly and about one respectable peak oil website - this one.
My point is about continuing to focus TOD on the high quality analysis that it is becoming know for. This should not be misconstued as a pitch for censorship.
I stand united with you against drivel. Advocating shooting the messenger is drivel. Sorry, but this pisses me off.
you mean compassionate conservatism isn't working?
..wink..
It's the consumer Republicans who seem to think "the American lifestyle is non-negotiable" and continue to drive around in Escalades.
So you might be generalizing too much about who likes Kunstler.
Just to clarify one point. Jim Kunstler thinks that Ruppert is crazy regarding the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
In regard to politics, this is another reason I like our Simmons/Kunstler lineup in Dallas.
Simmons comes to the PO topic from the Republican Party and from decades of oil and gas experience.
Kunstler comes to the PO topic from the Democratic Party and from a vastly different business background.
But they have largely arrived at the same point regarding PO.
Jeffrey Brown
"The desperate defense of our supposedly non-negotiable way of life may lead to delusional politics that we have never seen before in this land. An angry and grievance-filled public may turn to political maniacs to preserve their entitlements to the easy motoring utopia - even while reality negotiates things for us.
I maintain that we may see leaders far more dangerous in our future than George W. Bush.
The last thing that this group needs is to get sidetracked in paranoid conspiracy politics, such as the idea that Dick Cheney orchestrated the World Trade Center attacks, which I regard as just another form of make-believe."
I don't mean to sound conspiracy theorist here. I'm just trying to be a rational person, who's trying to understand how he came to what sounds like an irrational idea. I do not suggest that anyone in our government orchestrated the attacks. If you even take the most cynical approach possible, I doubt that the Bush/Cheney/Rove machine would have attacked a target that housed in it the businesses and people who were the masters of creating wealth in our society. That would hurt their own bottom line.
But, and, you really need to understand the point it is not my intention to be inflamatory here, is it not possible that the real perpetrators of the attacks are not the ones this administration has told us? We've come to understand that the facts given to us by our government should not be understood to be true, scientific facts, but either the solution to the problem that seems to fit the data the best or the solution to the problem which seems to work out best for, in their eyes, the public. Facts were contrived from false pretenses, and sometimes seemingly no pretenses, leading up to the War in Iraq. It is pretty hard to negate this.
That being said, almost all of the "facts" given from us about who carried out 9/11 were given to us by various branches of the government; from the cockpit audio data from air traffic facilities, to radar data gathered at military complexes, to seemingly damning evidence in the form of "chatter." I am not suggesting a massive conspiracy here, but simply trying to argue for objective analysis. Is it not possible that through a mixture of human error, deliberate misaction, and stretching of the truth for political gain, that the official story of 9/11 differ, in at least a significant part, from the way it was? And, if that's true, shouldn't we, as rational people, try to go back and reconstruct a better theory that matches better data?
What I'm not saying is that the administration conspired a national coverup, gave money to the Saudis to have agents perform a suicide attack on our country, or any of that. I am simply saying that accepting the status quo, especially one that emerges from an already thick stew of corruption, is a bad, and potentially dangerous, idea.
For all we know as certain, it could have been a band of underground Peak Oil advocates who thought such an attack would cause severe demand destruction, thus saving the world for several years from the onslaught of Peak Oil. Unlikely, but it's as sound of a hypothesis as any other.
The rocks are only so porous. The volume of the Earth's crust is finite.
(as for Gulliver, see: http://education.yahoo.com/homework_help/cliffsnotes/gullivers_travels/18.html )
(as for finite Earth, see Isaac Asimov's 1974 talk at:
http://www.asimovonline.com/oldsite/future_of_humanity.html )
http://www.lezbeout.com/FOXNewsmethodicalbrainwashingofAmerica.htm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/hbomb/15283066/in/photostream/
http://educate-yourself.org/mc/americanstargetbrainwashingcampaign10sep03.shtml
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/04-10-05/discussion.cgi.17.html