What To Do in a Failing Civilization

[buzzsaw_23]

What to do in a failing civilization by David M. Delaney
Can global civilization adapt successfully to degradation of the biosphere and depletion of fossil fuels? I argue that it cannot. Important elements of all constituent societies would have to be reformed. Reform would have to be radical and would be uncertain of success. It could be undertaken only in the presence of incontrovertible necessity—a necessity that will reveal itself incontrovertibly only when catastrophic collapse has become unavoidable. I conclude that those who seek to preserve civilization should plan for its survival in restricted regions. ...

<snip>

First, who are “we”? Until now I have used “we” to refer to all humanity. If we insist that “we’re all in the same boat”, we shall all drown, because the one boat will sink. Those who hope to preserve civilization must accept that it is likely to sink into chaos in much of the world. The survival of some elements of civilization will require lifeboats that can be constructed only from communities, regions, perhaps nations, that are not now in overshoot.

To preserve civilization at least some of these must choose to stay out of overshoot, establish independence in the production of food, energy, materials, and crucial manufactured goods, and defend their borders against the migrations that will tend to spread overshoot everywhere.

This strategy may fail. The necessary awareness and resolve may not develop soon enough in any of those fortunate regions not already in overshoot. Awareness and resolve may be prevented by the very institutional and psychological mechanisms that have been described earlier in this essay. Regions with resolve may be prevented from implementing it by superior governments or by economically or militarily stronger trade partners. But those who argue for survival of a community may have a better chance of persuading their audience than had those who argued for better management of global population and resources. They will have the advantage of arguing at a time when less fortunate regions of the world have begun to provide both unmistakable examples and unmistakable threats. ...


http://geocities.com/davidmdelaney/what-to-do-in-a-failing-civilization.html

[Raster]

1. obviously it's every man (or corporate entity) for themselves...

[kenny blankenship]

2. K.Y.A.G.

unless you live in a naturally fortified, economically and ecologically self-sufficient enclave.

[bemildred]

3. Suppose you are a liver cell in a body with lung cancer.

What should you do?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

4. Plant a garden.

Every man for himself. Harsh but realistic.

[cliss]

5. Good article. Thanks for posting, Buzz.

I tend to agree with the author. I really don't see any kind of future ahead other than his example of the "hunter-gatherers". It may seem drastic, but we humans are drastic.

We simply can't leave a good thing alone. Conserving resources is an impossibility because we are so undisciplined.

So that leave us to the suggestion that others have posted: every man for himself. I think that is a smart move. Expect the government to do nothing for you. Be independent. Learn how to grow foods, preserve them and be self-sufficient.

That's us.

[GliderGuider]

6. Way to go Dave!

David Delaney is an acquaintance and a former employer of mine. When I became interested in Peak Oil a while ago, Google searches turned up his articles. He is one of the smartest, more realistic people I know, and is among the least intellectually compromising. He's seen this catastrophe coming for four years now, and has been diligently refining his comprehension of the issues over that time.

As the article demonstrates, he is deeply pessimistic. From my own research I believe his pessimism is well founded, and share it myself. He is firmly convinced that the human species is in overshoot, that a die-off is coming, that there is nothing we can do to avoid it, and that denial of this understanding is nothing more than comforting delusion. I agree with him.

I also agree with him that die-off will affect only about 80% or 90% of the species, and that the remaining 10% to 20% will be able to survive if they are in the right circumstances. The problem is to determine what those survivable circumstances are, and if you aren't in them to determine how to get there.

One thing he doesn't mention in his article is the time-line. This is largely determined by oil supplies - the Peak Oil problem I mentioned at the beginning. From conversations with him, coupled with my own research, I am convinced that the industrial societies are five to ten years away from the first undeniable evidence of collapse. In fact, the first signal - high and unstable fuel prices - are with us already.

The whole concept sucks and is very uncomfortable to contemplate on a personal level. Delaney frankly says that this understanding has wrecked his life. But if our civilization does not listen to its Cassandras - the Dave Delaneys, Colin Campbells, Matthew Simmons, James Kunstlers, Matt Savinars etc. - we will all be screwed, instead of just 85% of us.

[blindpig]

7. Bookmarked!

A must read for anyone who gives a shit. No happy talk here, and for good reason. Damn near everyone, including most DUers, refuse to consider the possibility that the current economic system and human overpopulation will wreck civilization soon, maybe within their lifetimes. Particularly I think most balk at the inevitability, can't give up their conventional hopes and dreams. Dreams are good to have but if not grounded in reality will only disappoint.

[phantom power]

8. That line is the horizon

That line is the horizon
We watch the wind and set the sail
but save ourselves when all omens
point to fail
--Suzanne Vega

[Lydia Leftcoast]

9. If I were an architect, I would start building "eco-houses" geared toward

each climate, one that would require no air conditioning and minimal heating.

For example, a house in Minnesota would have rooms that could be blocked off in the winter to save on heating costs and all water pipes and plumbing running through the middle of the building in an area that could be heated by a wood or coal stove or fireplace. It would have a three-season porch, with slide-down storm windows over screens, to act as a buffer between the outside weather and the inside during the winter and to serve as the center of activity in the summer.

There would be a screened-in "sleeping porch" on the second floor in the back for summer. There would be solar panels on the roof, because Minnesota gets a lot of sunshine, even in winter. (It can be below zero and sunny.) Trees around the house would protect it from direct sunlight in the summer and from blizzards in the winter.

At the other extreme, a house in Hawaii would have cross ventilation that would eliminate the need for air conditioning.

[Karenina]

12. All of these solutions require $$$

out of reach to the population-at-large.

[TrogL]

10. Areas previously considered "borderline" are going to become viable

The "targa" climactic zones (eg. Canada, Russia, Scandinavia) are going to become extremely important. As the climate warms, the "temperate" regions are going to become unliveable and people are going to want to move North.

The problem is, people are already there with wildly different cultural norms. People in targa climactic zones are used to working together, interdependece, multiculturalism and behaving themselves in an international setting. A transplanted freeper is in for a rude awakening.

[raccoon]

11. It would almost be worth going thru global warming just to see

that--"A transplanted freeper is in for a rude awakening."