The wikipedia article does a good job of relating all the topics covered in the three episodes, you might want to read that first if you havn’t seen the programs as I’m going to jump around a bit and pick out just some of the ideas that interested me.

The main theme of the series is that from the mid-20thCentury, new ideas emerging from ecology somehow hooked up with evolutionary theory, genetics and computer science to produce the idea that humans and human society, along with the rest of nature, can be understood as machines acting in a system, which are therefore controllable and predictable. Curtis sees this as a dangerous idea, that robs us of our human agency and makes us doubt the existence of free will, especially, the will to change things.

These themes converge dramatically in the Rwanda and Congo: -the Rwandan genocide is portrayed as the result of misguided liberal guilt of the departing Belgian colonialists, who had created artificial tribal conflict in colonial days by propagating the myth of Tutsi superiority; then encouraged the new Hutu government to rise up against the Tutsi minority who had oppressed them during colonial days. This was then exacerbated by misguided involvement of western aid agencies who set up camps which became breeding grounds for more violence; -meanwhile Dian Fossey studied Gorillas in Rwanda, ultimately coming to abuse the local people in efforts to protect the gorillas from poaching; -all this against a backdrop of the rise of computer technology which was fueled by the mining of Coltan in the Congo, spawning a war that has cost 4 million lives in the last 8 years- the computers being the machines which, according to some, then became the way out of economic boom and bust, the way to a stable society which could run itself- like a machine.

The series starts with a look at the influence of Ayn Rand’s influence on the modern world; I have to admit that I had no idea that her objectivist philosophy had had such influence on Alan Greenspan, who was one of here disciples.

While governments had been unable to provide stability in the markets, the advent of computers gave rise to the idea that human society itself could be modeled as a self-regulating system: computers became seen as a medium for liberation and equality. This idea emerged from Silicon valley in the 1970s at the dawn of the computer age. Environmentalist Stewart brand was one of the pioneers, providing one of the links between systems theory and ecology.

But prominent ecologists were already taking on the idea of nature as a self-organising machine. Jay Forrester was an early pioneer of cybernetics, the view that brains, cities and whole societies operated as networks of nodal connections, and that computers would be able to uncover their operating system.

The Odum brothers, Howard and Eugene, developed electronic models of ecosystems based on field data, which they claimed showed how nature self-organised towards balance: the idea of natural balance and the web-of-life. There models became accepted as fact within ecological science.

Although permaculture is not mentioned in the series, Howard Odum was a major influence on permaculture co-founder David Holmgren who dedicated his book “Permaculture: Principles and Pathways beyond Sustainability” (2002) to him. He also references cybernetics as another strand of systems thinking, but goes onto say

the influence of systems thinking in my development of permaculture and its design principles has not come through extensive study of the literature, but more through an osmotic absorption of ideas in the “cultural ether” which strike a chord with my own experience in permaculture design. Further, I believe many of the insights of systems thinking that are difficult to grasp as abstractions are truths that are embodied in the stories and myths of indigenous cultures.

His reference to indigenous cultures provides an interesting cross-over of the role of systems thinking in actual machines- computers- to human society and nature- that there is an “intuitive” aspect to this understanding as well as an empirical one.

I had also come across systems theory in the work of Joanna Macey and Deep Ecology, and had a vague feeling then that it was somehow at odds with the “holistic” “intuitive” side of things that Deep Ecology was supposed to be all about. Computers and machines seemed the exact opposite of emotional encounter groups that were the hallmark of Deep Ecology sessions. I see now that the cybernetics part was giving the movement scientific credibility- it was science, with models and graphs and studies to back it up, but of a “holistic” kind. There were also lots of references and general interest within Deep Ecology with New Science, Capra and the Tao of Physics, Buddhism and physics and David Bohm, and so on. (From there you are only a short step away from Deepak Chopra and The Secret.)

So these ideas were taken on by greens and the counter-culture without realizing that they came from something as dry and soulless and mechanistic as computer science- the very antithesis of what the movement imagined itself to be about. “Getting in touch with nature” was supposed to be about the emotions, and spiritual forces, not lines of computer code, a great irony in this whole story which I find quite fascinating.

The idea of human systems was also influential in the next part of Curtis’ narrative, the hippy commune, and one of the greatest migrations out of the cities in America took place during the 1970s as mainly young people flocked to the land to live in small utopian communes which were non-hierarchical -they were supposed to operate like self-regulating systems. Some communes did prosper and thrive and are still around today- like The Farm in Tennesee, although Curtis mentions only that most of them failed after a few months or at most a couple of years. Why? (I lived in two communes for short periods of time; they were both pretty dysfunctional and as was often the case had rapid turnovers of residents. A major course of conflict was the dish-washing rota.)

Perhaps the problem was with the underlying theory of stable, self-regulating eco-systems in the natural world which, as Curtis explains in the documentary, has not stood the test of time. The models that Odum had made were over-simplified; ecology has moved on from the notion of “natural balance” and most ecologists now agree that ecology is about constant dynamic change and adaptation. There may not even be such a thing as a distinct ecosytem anyway, since boundaries are always permeable. (The idea of the whole earth as a system was developed into the Gaia hypothesis by Lovelock, something Curtis only mentions in passing.)

There is no such thing as natural balance, and computer models cannot replicate natural systems very well at all. This is a theme explored by Aynsley Kellow in his book which I reviewed here.

So what does this mean for permaculture? I don’t know, but the idea of a design system based on natural systems does seem to me these days to be metaphorical at best: actually we don’t want our systems to be too much like nature for all sorts of obvious reasons. There are lots of good ideas in permaculture for design and the idea of self-regulation in a designed system makes perfect sense- collecting rainwater, managing perennial landscapes for food- this need not have anything to do with a natural system though. Still, it is interesting that the underlying theory may be based on a completely flawed view of nature.

This idea however went on to inform public policy quite profoundly long after the science had moved on. In 1972 the Club of Rome published The Limits to Growth, based on Forrester’s cybernetics. The report used computer models to forecast the point of overshoot when the population and consumption of people would outweigh the planet’s carrying capacity. This has become a seminal text, one of the foundations of environmentalism, and is still widely referenced today, eg in the preface of “Fleeing Vesuvius”.

Critics claim models are only as good as the data and assumptions that go into them, and that the modelers underestimated the ability of humans to innovate and adapt. Interestingly, Curtis does not mention climate change, although this would be an obvious extension to the narrative: a science relying heavily on models, but with sometimes poor data, trying to integrate human, ecological and climate systems in one huge model, a process that is itself having enormous influence on policy. It is almost as if we believe that, given enough data and computer power, we can predict the future.

Curtis takes these ideas through the east European revolutions in the early 2000s, that used the same idea of non-hierarchical organisation, but that went the same way as the communes: they failed to account for power and inequality already present and soon reverted back into corruption.

Richard Dawkins gets a mention as taking the theory further with the idea of the Selfish Gene (originally invented by William Hamilton): human behavior can be understood as being driven primarily by the impulse of the gene to survive. This doesnt make people selfish necessarily, but it does provide an explanation for things like the Rwandan genocide: from the gene’s point of view, it makes sense to kill our cousins, or at least those not too closely related but not too distantly related either.

Which raises a couple of interesting questions, because if genes mean that we really are like computers and the code is in our genetics, where then does lie free will? This is really the whole point of Curtis’ film, to question the validity of a theory that says, everything can work as an orderly whole, we are just cogs in the machine, so how can we really work to change things? Where can political action come from? Interesting questions, but I am not sure that free will’s existence or otherwise is a testable hypothesis.

Curtis is concerned that seeing ourselves as just part of a system with “natural balance” could be seen as a way of justifying discrimination and apartheid, as had been done by Field Marshall Smuts and his theory of “holism”- everything had a natural place, presided over by white men. In this sense then these ideas of basing human systems on natural systems and striving for some kind of pre-existing balance is far from liberating or progressive, but could lead to oppression and fascism.

So a lot of interesting ideas, covering science, environmentalism and policy. I’m sure I’ll return to explore more them more in the future.

See Dan Dennett on “Belief in belief” here

Updates: I’ve just put a couple of updates for clarification and a couple more links. I’ve marked them in the text.

I also want to say, whatever about my concerns regarding the ideology behind Transition, there is heaps of great work being done in the movement, which is hugely influential in exploring  responses to Peak Oil and Climate Change. I am particularly looking forward to reading the “Can Totnes District Feed Itself” report- I hope it has some recipes in it!

I paid a visit to a forum on Transition and permaculture over at Transition Culture recently- wow, I only just got out in time before they lynched me! Apparently, post-modern lunacy is alive and well in the Transition Land where in a very interesting discussion on Transition, Permaculture, inclusiveness and the like, it became apparent that some things are just not on the table for discussion- yes you guessed it, yours truly raised the old chestnut of the evils of faith and all Hell broke loose. I quickly found myself embroiled in a disappear-up-your-own backside post- modern attack on my freedom of speech and left the forum just before the hounds were let out to accuse me of “bashing people of faith”.

The trouble started because of my comment:

“Faith is the one thing that will not help us deal with what is coming down the line!”

To which Rob replied:

“As fascinating observation, but, to my thinking, complete nonsense, and a somewhat dangerous perspective. I understand where you are coming from, that religion is not based on science, that it is irrational, ‘The God Delusion’ etc. etc. That is as maybe.

However,there are many many people around the world in crisis right now, whether it be through illness, war or whatever, for whom their faith is one of the key things that gets them through, logical or not. Of course one can construct an intellectual argument that says that we should be aiming to move people away from that, but there is, I would suggest, a deep arrogance to that.”

Now the charge of arrogance is predictable coming from Rob- all to easy a put-down and way of avoiding the issue. It should not be hard however to think of some of the evil consequences of faith (belief without reason):

-suicide bombings

-jihadism

-oppression of women

-institutional child abuse spanning decades in Irish industrial schools

-promotion of and support for quack medicines that dont work and might put people’s lives at risk;

-support for Man U FC (just joking- that’s not really evil, just demented).

I’m sure you can easily think of more.

Update: Here are a few more:

-the cynical exploitation of the bereaved by charlatan spiritualists;

-the dumbing down of education by the insistence on teaching Creationism as a theory of equal standing with the facts of evolution;

-the stiffling of stem-cell research

OK, you could argue that not all of these are a direct result of the faith in question, but in the case of the kind of institutional child abuse of the kind described in The Ryan Report- which has been widely referred to in the public debates as the Irish Holocaust- it is the special treatment demanded by churches over the years and the deference paid to “people of faith” as a special category who should somehow be revered and exempt from scrutiny and criticism which allows such horrors to continue unchallenged for so long.

On a forum such as Rob’s it seems a sad day that I should have to defend my right to criticize faith in a general sense and ask for more rational approaches to life, but this just shows that there is still a strong post-modern influence in the Transition movement.

This could be described as the “mean green meme”- a phrase from the stages of consciousness model Spiral Dynamics, which I have written about before here:

Instead of looking ahead to what the next Emergent meme may be, Green thinks it has found Nirvana already and in a paroxysm of narcissism and naïve romantic views of what life used to be like back in the good old days it destroys the goose that laid the golden egg- the very scientific method that lead to the deeper Green ecological understanding in the first place.

Incidentally, I don’t subscribe to SD as an accurate model and feel that it has cultish aspects itself; however it does provide a useful framework to discuss  cultural values and attitudes.

The Green or Post-modern Meme has certain characteristics which actually work towards oppression and restriction of free speech:

-over concern of political correctness and concern about how things are said rather than what is being said;

-a contradictory stance that claims all beliefs are equal -but some (their own) are more equal than others;

-a rejection of science- usually selective- as being “just another belief system”;

-this can lead to for example a tolerance and even promotion of pseudoscience and superstition which claim “equal status”;

-an over-sensitivity and concern with feelings over facts which tends to take offense at the first opportunity, thereby making intelligent debate impossible;

Update: The insistence that I drop my arguments or modify my tone because “I am so sure I am right but my view is really only one amongst many” is a particularly insidious argument that could be seen to be the hallmark of post-modern hypocrisy and delusion. It is only, note, used as a defense against the requirement of evidence for beliefs, never with regard to beliefs that we all know to be true: climate change is mainly man-made; peak oil will usher in an energy descent we are ill-prepared for.

When considering the evidence for climate change, for example, we are not likely to hear the objection:

“Ah, no man, you’re so arrogant!! You seem to think you’re right!! Why can’t you see you’re view is just one amongst many- and all views deserve equal respect.”

Honestly, if I were to give climate deniers some advice, I would say, take a page out of the New Age book- throw the “scientism” or “science is just another belief system” argument at them! Failing that, just claim your climate -denying beliefs are sacred -they are part of your religion and therefore cannot be challenged.

(Ironically, I just found this story of a climate change activist using the special priveledge afforded religion to defend his case!)

Do we really have to still have this corrupt and turgid debate about epistimology, even amongst ourselves as we prepare for the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced?

Let’s all join hands in a circle and repeat after me:

-not all beliefs are equal

-evidence is better than faith

Really, our future may depend on this. The views of New Agers regarding science as “another belief system” that cannot answer “holistic questions” are false. This is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact. You would think really that we should be able to state that in the context of a debate on Transition without being dismissed as being “arrogant”.

These Post-modern positions have had many dire consequences for society over the last several decades and have been criticized for such things as

-giving more resources for perpetrators of crime rather than their victims;

-a complete inability to deal with extreme beliefs and fundamentalism which are explicitly opposed to the post-modern agenda itself (“I’m sure if we could just bring Al Quaeda to the Heart and Soul Group, reach out to them and really show that we respect their beliefs they will be happy to work with us”);

-the existence of homeopathy degrees.

In the forum- which was Rob’s response to Sharon Astyk’s astute critique of Permaculture and Transition- the discussion covered many interesting topics and many opinions, but several people clearly had issues on the “hold-hands-in-a-circle-and-share-your-feelings” aspects of the inner work often found within Transition groups, which is strongly influenced by the work of Joanna Macey.

The comment that best sums up the issues raised here- which were also common on Sharon’s forum- was this brilliant piece from Julian on Rob’s forum, in response to a commentator who complained that the discussion on faith in a debate on inclusiveness in Transition was not appropriate:

Maybe you could provide a profile of the type of chaps/chapesses that you would like to “wander” in and join the circle and be made to feel welcome in to the light of the infinite sun.I have already witnessed inquisitive folk “wander”off from transition meetings for the foreseeable even before the enlightened ones hands have clasped one another.Perhaps the speed at which this debate has moved from circles to religion to exclusion should tell us something!

Clearly this is a divisive issue and both forums had many interesting and useful comments on it. My own perspective on this is, yes circles and feelings can take many forms and can be very useful for personal growth work etc, and some people get a huge amount out of them. For myself, I have done more than my fair share of this kind of thing and no longer feel the need. I worked with Joanna Macey many years ago and at the time was hugely influenced and inspired by her work; however I do feel it is ideological and lacks a critical component- hence the “cultish” aspects that can put people off (including people of other faiths.)

Sharon has already discussed this in her blog, personal development work is important for some but there should be more  models available.

I am not claiming TT is a cult, far from it, but this represents a “cultish aspect” that maybe should be avoided- or at least made less prominent. The ideological basis for Transition is hard to deny – and the New Age influence, particularly in regard to the promotion of Alternative Therapies in the Transition Timeline should be of concern to everyone who undertands the movement is dependent on a good understanding of the science that underpins climate change and peak oil.

Nor am I “bashing people of faith”- I have no problem working with “people of faith” but I do take strong issue with ascribing them a special privilege with ring-fences their beliefs putting them above critical appraisal. You want arrogance? Hard to beat an inviolable and unchallengeable belief in the Supernatural.

And that is the whole problem with Faith- by its very nature it demands that it is not questioned- believe in it and it and it will be true is I think the  basis of New Age pseudoscience- ie that your feelings thoughts and consciousness create physical reality- but underpins much more traditional religious belief also, eg the Power of Prayer- God will answer your prayers if you just believe in him enough.

I was accused on the forum of making assumptions about people’s faith, that they must be stupid or something. Sharon herself kindly responded and did not seem to find me arrogant but made a couple of very revealing observations:

I know few really religious people who haven’t experience with atheism. I’m sure there are some who don’t, but I don’t think it is a majority experience – how could it be, if you are a reasonably thoughtful person who has reasonably thoughtful considerations of the question of G-d? The reality is that more people go through atheism and come out at faith than vice versa – and far more in times of difficulty. To some, I’m sure this looks like an irrational strategy, or an inability to tolerate the truth. To others it will look different.

Most people of faith may question their faith; it is often seen as a virtue to struggle with these doubts and overcome them, thereby strengthening the faith. Maybe, though, many who profess faiths do not hold them strongly if at all- it seems clear that the “faith communities” are at least as much about community as about faith, but even so, the faith- aspect is surely a hindrance than a help precisely because these communities do not presumably foster and help develop critical approaches- the faith is a given even if you are struggling with it.

I dont assume people with faith are stupid or have not considered atheism; it is not hard to find other reasons why they may be reluctant or unable to make the leap:

-as said already, the need for the community may be stronger than the need for critical thinking;

-the nature of faith itself- and especially the post-modern culture of political correctness and false concepts of “equality” suppresses the emergence of a strong secular alternative, which is largely absent from public debate;

-we have an evolutionary predisposition to irrational beliefs

(see also the work of Susan Blackmore)

-historically, the church has been very powerful and effective at indoctrinating us and scaring us as children with visions of hell which may still contribute to our reticence to take on beliefs in adulthood;

-it is also possible that they are, well, stupid… Update: or perhaps more vulnerable to exploitation by powerful groups who use the “faith is a virtue” card to manipulate and control and extort.

I have consistently tried to draw parallels between the kind of thinking that denies climate change or fails to recognize our dependence on oil and its depletion and the psychology of faith; this is why I see these issues as so important for Transition. This may translates into the transition movement as being an over-reliance on “vision” and less on realism and substance; and while it does not advocate any particular  faith (other than in Transition itself) there is a promotion of pseudoscience (which undermines people’s understanding of climate science etc) ; a tolerance of the Faith Communities as somehow privileged; and an intolerance of secular values and critical thought.

Rob says:

Is it a tenable perspective to suggest that we only work with and engage those that have renounced any world view based on anything other than rational science? Of course not.

Of course that is not what I am suggesting. The post-modern idea that we can work with anyone who supports the need for Transition doesnt work, because we wont work with the BNP and that is NOT because they dont believe in climate change; equally we might not tolerate female oppression per se, but what if there is a “faith-based group” which treats women as second class citizens but is very strong on adaptive strategies to PO and GW?

I balk at Rob’s idea of:

I am particularly taken with the idea, which has got me thinking feverishly over the weekend, about what Transition trainings might look like if the inner aspects were developed with people from different faith groups, and if those elements of the trainings were based in that culture and language. Doesn’t feel like we disagreed on the need for some element of an inner aspect to the Transition training, rather on where it is coming from, how accessible it is and how comfortable it feels…

There is an alternative. Transition could adopt specifically secular values, and have a Critical Thinking Class alongside every heart and Soul Group. This would educate people about science and the scientific method, an essential part I would have thought of transition.

Udate: The public understanding of science is very poor, which is one of the reasons people are still reluctant to accept the inconvenient truth- they are easily swayed by the deniers who use some of the same methods to discredit climate science as quacks use to confuse the public about medical evidence. The parallels should be obvious; but by exposing one, we cannot ignore the other.

There is no need to avoid faith-groups or in any way demonize them- although we must be bold enough to accept that some of them are indeed diabolical, but we must not give them special status because of their faiths.

The promotion of pseudo-science should be dropped and explicitly avoided especially with reference to health care.

Rational, secular and atheist approaches should be welcomed and promoted, they should not be dismissed as “arrogance”; with tools to develop critical faculties added to the tools for inner work.

The whole area of faith and the freedom to challenge it; of the public understanding of science and rationality, and evidence-based approaches are issues not just for Transition, but for society as a whole and for democracy. These issues concern what kind of values we hold and what kind of world we want to live in.

Update: Inner work -personal development- can be done in a secular fashion, and in fact Transition could be positioned to play a great role in developing this. There is already models out there; for any seeker of truth who is dabbling with religion, spiritual practice or personal development, I would invite you to try the work of Eric Maisel. I found his book The Atheists’ Way- Living Well without Gods- wonderful and I wish I had come across it years ago.It should be much more widely known.

The website Point of Inquiry has regular interviews on the subject of secular humanism.

There is plenty more material available once you start looking for it. The “inner work” bit does not have to be done in any context of religion or spirtituality, or ideologies of any kind, and would be far more effective and useful to people if it were not.

There are no gods, no spirits, the supernatural is a delusion- one we are however, all susceptible to believe at times.

Whether you can accept this or not, you should at least join me in making it normal and acceptible to have people express this view.

Ironic and appropriate then for us in Ireland that this debate takes place the week a Balsphemy Law is passed here- which has in turn spawned a new religion of Dermotology!

Not only that, but Sharon is quite correct: in times of crisis, people may turn in desperation to irrational faiths to save them- it was widely reported in the Irish media this week that hundreds of people are gathering at a tree stump near Rathkeel in Co.Limerick to pray around a tree stump where has appeared the face of the Virgin Mary. One commentator made the point that we should not mock these people -they are the same ones who put their faith previously in the Irish Banking system!

Ah the many angles and aspects of Faith- faith we can succeed; faith we are doing the right thing (are we?); faith things will be alright.

If we are to have Faith in transition, we must be free to speak out against the problems caused by faith. And if we succeed in this, maybe we will find a future world where faith itself  moves into transition, away from its privileged status which has held humanity in chains for so long.

Further Reading

The End of Faith Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris

The Long Descent- A Users Guide to the End of the Industrial Age

John Michael Greer

New Society Publishers 2008

John Michael Greer has written a fascinating and engaging, but also contradictory and perplexing account of how he sees the industrial age ending.

His primary thesis is that collapse will not come as a sudden, abrupt End Of Days or Die Off scenario- one minute thriving bustling affluent society with the universe at its feet, the next a crumbling pile of rubble with nothing but wisps of smoke to hint of its former glory- but will follow a “catabolic” process of progressive disintegration, over possibly a couple of centuries. In Greer’s scenario, short periods of abrupt and sharp downturns- the beginning of which we are experiencing now- punctuate longer periods of relative stability. Like an organism that begins feeding on itself, society will collapse in a series of stepped-down stages as it becomes progressively unable to meet maintenance charges with income.

One of the most interesting parts of the book is the chapter “Tools for the Transition” Greer has a most interesting discussion of the merits of the slide-rule over the pocket calculator, and explains why it is infinitely more suitable to a low-energy world:it is durable- a solid aluminum slde-rule could last nearly geological time-scales-, independent, dependable and perhaps most significant of all its use of transparent- a future archeologist would be able to work out exactly how to use it. I have never actually used a slide-rule, but this discussion has inspired me to get one, and even teach its use on permaculture courses as an example of durable technologies. There are many other insightful observations Greer makes in this chapter, including comments on salvage and organic agriculture, and what will endure into the post-collapse world.

What  sets Greer’s book apart and make it really interesting is his focus on “The Stories we tell Ourselves”. He weaves his discussion of the Long descent around what he sees as two modern myths- the myth of unending progress and technological supremacy on the one hand, and imminent catastrophe and collapse on the other. Both are myths or stories that fail to see the much more likely outcome of catabolic collapse.

His analysis of Peak Oil and other resource depletion are astute and draw on earlier writers such as Catton:

More than 20 years ago, William Catton pointed out in his seminal classic Overshoot that the downslope of industrial society would force human beings to compete against their own machines for dwindling resource stocks. His prediction has become today’s reality.

Falling broadly into the category of ecological writers who see human society as essentially subject to the same natural limits as other animals, our prosthetic habits of tools and technology merely giving us temporary escape, Greer covers a lot of ground you will find elsewhere, and this is the first contradiction, because his stance throughout the book is that he is presenting a radically differnt vision to the one presented by many peak oil writers: but who exactly is he referring to?

Yes, there is Jay Hanson’s Die-off.org; there is Matt Savinar and his bulletins on special offers on survival food; and no doubt in America, Greer will come across far more of the hard-core survivalist types than we might in Europe; but in general, I would place him very much in the tradition of the main Peak Oil writers- Heinberg, Kunstler, Simmonds and co.. These are the voices who have shaped the Peak oil movement in the past few years with their reasoned and measured descriptions of the current evidence and what they see as the likely impacts over the next years and decades. By no means do they paint a rosy picture, but nor do they predict an immediate once-and-for-all end of everything. Indeed, the title Greer uses seems to be even a reference to Kunstler’s main work on the topic- The Long Emergency- as well as Holmgren’s well-known Energy descent scenarios.

So I found it a bit confusing to read on the one hand that “the fallacy that bedeviled the Y2K survivalists was the belief that government, business, and citizens, faced with an imminent threat and presented with a clear, constructive response to it, would sit on their hands and do nothing until collapse overwhelemd them.”(p91)

and then that “Statistics from Russia, where a similar scenario played out in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse, suggest that population levels could be halved within this century”

and “One dimension of that context is likely to become the preeminent political fact of the age of peak oil: the impending decline- and, at least potentially, the catastrophic collapse- of America’s world empire.” (P100-101)

I mean, how catastrophic is “catastrophic” exactly? Is there like, the Y2K fallacy-type catastrophic, which is what most people think about peak oil but is wrong, and then the “Long Descent” John Michael Greer-type catastrophic which is really quite different and which only Greer has been perceptive enough to see?!

And it gets worse. Greer points out that one of the more fragile aspects of industrial life is the health system and councils that “It is probably best to assume that by the time the next wave of crisis arrives, your only health care will be what you can provide for yourself” and goes onto say “You probably wont live as long as you expect, and if you need high-tech medical help to stay alive, you’ll have to accept that it may stop being available without warning.”

Well that’s reassuring Michael, I mean for a minute there I thought you might be just another one of those survivalist doomers.

Don’t get me wrong. I happen to agree with this analysis and I also share and welcome Greer’s prescient wise words about acceptance of death and how this is one of the things we need to adress if we are to face the future- any future- with fortitude, but it all seems strangely at odds with his repeated admonitions of whoever he sees as the bulk of Peak Oil commentariat for painting too stark a picture of the impending collapse.

In addition, there are many compelling reasons to feel that our situation at all-time Peak Energy is fundamentally different from past collapses. the higher they climb the harder they fall, as they say, and our dependency on fossil energy and on a functioning economy from day to day is so complete, and our culture so lacking in resilience, and our traditional skills deficit so absolutely vast, that our society seems peculiarly vulnerable.

And then there is climate change, which again will effect people very personally and is already doing so. Overpopulation, species extinction general environmental degradation means that unlike the first character in an earlier collapse, our contemporary urban refugee may have nowhere to go.

Greer is right to emphasize the lessons of past collapses and how they may unfold over lengthy periods of time, and I love his vivid story of two hypothetical characters who live through very different times but who experience collapse in a similar way: the only difference is, in the contemporary scenario, there may be nowhere left for the environmental refugee to flee to.

In this we are given a fresh perspective, but as Orlov has made so vividly clear, collapse will be an essentially personal affair- for many in the developing world, it happened last week with the loss of their job and repossession of their home, and for many more it will happen next week. For some, collapse surely will be indeed a rather abrupt affair, as they suddenly find themselves out on the street unsure of their next meal, their previous life of luxury bought on futures’ markets just a distant dream. For many in this situation- as well as those who suddenly find their life-support systems switched off, or who go hungry because they were unprepared for the supermarket supply-chain disruption,  the historical fate of society as a whole will be largely irrelevant.

Greer continues his exploration of stories and myths with a look at New Age beliefs, and he has some interesting observations about for example the origin of the “create your own reality” myth:

Of course each of us does play a part in creating the reality we experience; subtle factors such as expectations and assumptions have a much more powerful role in the way our lives turn out than most people realise… As the New Age movement gained members and lost focus, though, gimmicks of this sort became the basis for a philosophy of cosmic consumerism that claims the universe is supposedly set up to give people whatever they happen to want, so long as they ask for it in the right way.”

He even gives an analysis of David Icke’s Lizard theory which he sees as a kind of projection of “the shadow” – a way of overcoming the reality of limits: if you cant get everything you want, if the universe isn’t exactly what you want, it must be the fault of those evil shape-shifting lizards.

It seems rather paradoxical though, that while for the most part he takes a “meta-theoretical” perspective on different world views and how they emerge, some of his thinking itself appears to be rather New Age: his recommendations for health care in the future seem rather ill-informed and naive:

…While there is some quackery in the alternative field, there’s also much of value, and the denunciations of alternative health care that come from the medical establishment are mostly just attempts to protect market share.

This itself is surely one of the most pervasive of New Age myths: conventional medicine is mainly just out to make money from your illness and is more likely to make you sick then anything else; “alternative” medicine is more “holistic” and treats the whole person in a “natural” way. In reality, “alternative” medicine is simply treatments that have not been proved; once a treatment has been demonstrated to be effective through double-blind clinical trials, it becomes simply “medicine”. (see for example John Diamond, Snake Oil 2001).  His specific recommendation of acupuncture betrays a sloppiness not apparent elsewhere in the book:

Many of the most effective alternative systems- herbalism and acupuncture come to mind- evolved long before the industrial system came into being and use very modest amounts of sustainable resources to treat illnesses.

As a number of recent publications have shown, there is little evidence that acupuncture works, and what evidence there is, is weak: it could scarcely be confidently considered as an effective remedy, and the suggestion that having been created in pre-industrial times is something in its favour is again a classic New Age absurdity. Systems of health care like acupuncture didnt have the benefit of modern medical science and don’t even recognise the existence of the cardio-vascular system, simply because this had not been discovered at the time. When you read about acupuncture’s recent history- how Mao encouraged it in revolutionary China because there wasn’t the resources to provide modern medicine for the peasants, even though he didn’t believe in it himself, for example, and how “sham” acupuncture- using retractable needles as a placebo achieves just as good results as the traditional methods, it is clear Greer has simply failed to do his homework on this one.

More than that, the multi-million dollar alternative medicine industry is really just an alternative marketing wing of the mainstream drug companies, making good use of the contemporary fashion for anything “natural” and “alternative” to sell its wares to the gullible. (See for example Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science.)

To say “there is some quackery…” is a mind-bogglingly large understatement: the whole alternative healthcare field is rife with the most unbelievable level of manipulation, fraud and deceit. The ignorance and gullibility of large sections of the pblic, and the complicit role the media plays in simply misleading people happens in this area just as much as in the areas of perpetuating the myth of progress. That doesnt mean that science is immune from such aberrations- but it does at least have an internal system of verification quite absent in alternative therapies, and it does actually make real progree using the clinical trial.

By the same token, while Greer’s discussion of the role and future of science in society is valuable and interesting, he makes some big mistakes: his dismissal of Dawkin’s atheism as anthropolatry (the worship of humans) is simply wrong: Dawkins, like most atheists, believes humans are just a clever kind of tool using ape. It is religious and superstitious views- placing humans at the centre of a supposed Creation- that idolise the human.

The reasons for Greer’s blindspots on these matters are  obvious: he is himslef a Druid- an Arch Druid in fact- but in this book tells us little about it, leaving us guessing what he feels makes that spiritual tradition more valid than others, or more valid than the other myths he discusses.

So one gets the impression that he may have wanted his last chapter, “The Spiritual Dimension”, to have been more central to the main thesis than it actually is, and while it raises important points about what the role of religions might be post-collapse, and which ones may come to the fore, it is when he mentions “magic” that he loses me completely.

“There is a rich irony” says Greer “in the common dismissal of the lessons of spirituality as ‘magical thinking’ because magical thinking is exactly the form of human thought that deals with the realm of motivations, values, and goals that technical and scientific thinking handle so poorly.”

Is it? I though “magic” was simply what people tend to ascribe to phenomena they dont have an explanation for. This definition would come as a surprise also, I think, to most of the people I know who profess to believe in “magic” which they would probably see more as a way of manipulating the material world through communing with nature spirits and the like.

Greer seems to me to get very muddled here, claiming that Carl Sagan was a “theologian” with his image of “we are stardust” while “magic” is apparently something which has “theoreticians” suggesting it can in fact be studied rationally. This is upside down thinking: science is essentially a method of inquiry which rejects faith-based beliefs; it is not theology when Sagan says we are star dust- Greer misses the point completely- it is fact based on verifiable evidence -which is exactly what sets science apart from myth.

Equally, there is no reason why science cannot handle the realm of “motivations, values and goals” with the same method, and of course there is a large body of scientific literaturee which attempts to do just that. I would refer Mr. Greer to Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell as a good exploration of the issues here.

Greer misses an opportunity to explore the real legacy of scientific thinking, and the likelihood and consequences of a return to pre-rational belief systems in the future.

For all that, The Long Descent is a stimulating and valuable contribution to the Peak Oil literature. I obviously don’t agree with a lot of it, and I find his stance as somehow being more profound than other writers unconvincing, yet he writes well and to some extent does explore the lesser known paths.

I

Why dont more people care about the environmental crisis? and

what values do we need to carry forward with us into this period of transition?

Dave, Chris and myself had not known each other previously but were brought together by Davie Philip for this workshop because of our common interest in Spiral Dynamics

The workshop attracted the largest numbers of participants for that session- the word “consciousness” strikes a cord for many people, but clearly means very different things for different folk.

Chris facilitated the discussion using the “fishbowl” technique. This was ideal as it allowed a focussed discussion to take place on complex issues with a large group.

The basic discussion seemed to split between those who saw consciousness as something that we can hope for some kind of evolutionary leap in which will lead humanity into a new dawn of co-operation and communality; and those including myself who saw it as something that will more likely regress to earlier and perhaps more savage forms as resources begin to run scarce- “Civilisation is only three meals deep”.

“If the rich world does not currently care about the poor world or the environment at a time will unparalleled wealth and resources, how on earth can we expect it to start caring after peak oil?” was one of the comments made to question the more romantic views of the subject.

In a short workshop there was only so much we could go into; I would have loved to have had the time to consider aspects of evolutionary psychology for example; but a good discussion took place nonetheless on a subject that I feel is much neglected by the environmental movement.

After the weekend Dave emailed me and had these reflections to share on the workshop and the general state of the planet:

“I’m feeling a little overwhelmed right now. I count the Convergence 13 event as a high quality success but I sense that we are all still tinkering around the edges of a problem that we need to believe we understand.

I hear today of food riots in 28 different countries while Gordon Brown promises he’ll do everything to restore the UK housing market and help 1st time buyers get on the property ladder. We are already in the first rounds of that ‘prisoners dilemma’ game, a grand charade in which tragedy of the commons will be played out with oil and bread alike. I am not impressed by human nature.

All my worst case scenarios seem to be happening years ahead of forecast. I’m not feeling well prepared or potent with understanding and foresight. I do feel an increasing sense of destiny though and believe that those like us will very soon be called to a major step up.

The Global Insight models that correlate UK economic growth rates with energy price ‘shocks’ all point to 2.5% negative growth from about 2009. All this is just the economic impact of peak oil and climate change… And I suggest we will see the high water mark of Orange in 2008.

Can we contribute to some kind of message to friends and colleagues about this? I feel a need to warn people. The time for voluntary attendance at greeny workshops might be passed, perhaps we need to get stronger with our communication. It was after all, free will or the illusion of it, that got us into the current mess! I’m serious about this: people need to reconnect in the Joanna Macy sense, they need to understand that “If you haven’t done enough inner work then you cant be sure about where your outer work is coming from.” An attractive choice of workshops to choose from is a mirror of a major part of our human problem – the choice to believe what I will. The antidote is for the subjective to accept the objective – real learning!

I’m ready to try whatever is necessary to wake people up, key players preferably. Choosing to not see is fast becoming the problem that we need to solve. “

Thanks to Dave and Chris for their experience and insights.