Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Goodchild - Systemic Collapse: The Basics

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 12:56 PM
Original message
Goodchild - Systemic Collapse: The Basics
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 01:45 PM by GliderGuider
Some here will disagree with Peter Goodchild's analysis, and perhaps even with the mere fact that he is performing such an analysis (not to mention the fact that I posted it :-) ). In my opinion, it's important to think about such possibilities at this point in our species' history. The idea that something as apparently monolithic as modern civilization might collapse is at first incomprehensible, then deeply disturbing. If you find yourself resistant to even examining such ideas (as opposed to simply disagreeing with Goodchild's assumptions or conclusions), it can be very profitable to reflect about where that resistance comes from. Acknowledging the possibility is essential if we are to equip ourselves to discuss appropriate responses.

Systemic Collapse: The Basics

Systemic collapse, societal collapse, the coming dark age, the great transformation, the coming crash, the post-industrial age, the long emergency, socioeconomic collapse, the die-off, the tribulation, the coming anarchy, perhaps even resource wars (to the extent that this is not an oxymoron, since wars themselves require resources) ― there are many names, and they do not all correspond to exactly the same thing, but there is a widespread belief that something immense and ominous is happening. Unlike those of the Aquarian Age, the heralds of this new era often have impressive academic credentials: they include scientists, engineers, and historians. The serious beginnings of the concept can be found in Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Population, Resources, Environment (1970); Donella H. Meadows et al., The Limits to Growth (1972); and William R. Catton, Jr., Overshoot (1980). What all the overlapping theories have in common can be seen in the titles of those three books.

Oil depletion is the most critical aspect in the systemic collapse of modern civilization, but altogether this collapse has about 10 principal parts, each with a vaguely causal relationship to the next. Oil, metals, and electricity are a tightly-knit group, as we shall see, and no industrial civilization can have one without the others. As those 3 disappear, food and fresh water become scarce (fish and grain supplies per capita have been declining for years, water tables are falling everywhere, rivers are not reaching the sea). These 5 can largely be considered as resource depletion, and the converse of resource depletion is environmental destruction. Disruption of ecosystems in turn leads to epidemics. Matters of infrastructure then follow: transportation and communication. Social structure is next to fail: without roads and telephones, there can be no government, no education, no large-scale division of labor. After the above 10 aspects of systemic collapse, there is another layer, in some respects more psychological or sociological, that we might call “the 4 Cs.” The first 3 are crime (war and crime will be indistinguishable, as Robert D. Kaplan explains), cults, and craziness — the breakdown of traditional law, the tendency toward anti-intellectualism, the inability to distinguish mental health from mental illness. After that there is a more general one that is simple chaos, which results in the pervasive sense that “nothing works any more.”

Systemic collapse, in turn, has one overwhelming cause: world overpopulation. All of the flash-in-the-pan ideas that are presented as solutions to the modern dilemma — solar power, ethanol, hybrid cars, desalination, permaculture — have value only as desperate attempts to solve an underlying problem that has never been addressed in a more direct manner. American foreign aid, however, has always included only trivial amounts for family planning; the most powerful country in the world has done very little to solve the biggest problem in the world.

Much more at the link.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
1. On that last note...
"the most powerful country in the world has done very little to solve the biggest problem in the world."

Jesus needs babies and Nike needs cheap labor
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 03:30 PM
Response to Original message
2. K & R for later reading... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:27 PM
Response to Original message
3. With respect, his figures are simply not backed up by fact.
Sorry, but it's just dishonest. Look at my sig.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Dishonest? That's a pretty strong position.
Numbers aside, how does contemplating the possibility of collapse make you feel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. I am a post-apocalyptic freak, I *love* stuff like "collapse."
In fact, it would make me giddy as all fuck if "collapse" actually occurred, it's essentially my favorite of all fantasy / scifi genre. Does that make me crazy? No. Because I know it is fantasy. I separate fantasy from reality, which is why post-apocalyptic video games and novels and movies don't make me go out and blow shit up.

How would collapse make me feel? Great.

That doesn't mean I should support it, that doesn't mean I should desire it, or be ambivalent about potential causes for it. You have three things that could realistically cause global human collapse, asteroid impact, super volcano, or global nuclear war. Everything else is dishonesty designed to sell books, rewilding seminars, and DVDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. You know, we agree on a lot more things than we disagree...
This is a great example. As you point out, there is alternative energy available. We also know that there are technologies for extracting and aggregating this energy that are workable.

The entire vision of the doomsayers is built around the idea that nothing can substitute for oil UNLESS it is a step in a negative direction. They liberally apply the economic concept of the substitution effect when they posit that when oil gets too expensive, people will do things like strip all the forests and cause ecological disasters, but when confronted with applying the same rules of substitution to more probable, positive alternatives like electric cars or deployment of wind and solar, they start sputtering about how evil economics have destroyed the world and claim that economic theory has nothing to offer.

http://www.economicswebinstitute.org/glossary/substitute.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. I think we agree that solutions are available, and workable here and now.
That is a significant area where we agree because it covers most of what we discuss here in E&E. Where we probably disagree is that I don't place much power for change in the hands of policymakers and global capitalism, and I think you might, at least more than me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. You keep referring to your sig like it means something. Do you have any idea
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 08:23 PM by NNadir
at all how much of earth's photosynthetic capacity is already devoted to human uses?

This kind of hand waving has been going on ad nauseum since the 1970's at least in popular parlance, although people, like Rickover, were referring to it as far back at the 1950's.

In fact, the point was well understood by Arrhenius in the 19th century.

It's garbage thinking. Industrial solar power will not be meaningful in the lifetime of anyone now living, although denialist talk about it has played a huge role in the observed energy technology inertia that has done so much to irreversibly damage earth's atmosphere, at least as far as mammals are concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kristopher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 08:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. It does mean something
But it isn't surprising you don't get it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=212015&mesg_id=212039

Isn't it great that FINALLY the Republicans are OUT the Dems are IN and the money to develop potential of solar won't be wasted on nuclear.

Really, isn't that great?

I think it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 09:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Who said anything about "industrial solar power" specifically?
I thought it was a statement about thermodynamics, and how, yaknow, human energy usage pales in comparison to, say, fucking algae: http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1013-fsu.html

It's simple fucking paper napkin physics, think dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuvuj Donating Member (874 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Not the dummies...?
"We got this."

The dummies don't have shit if they can't change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 04:53 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. I don't think the capitalists can, I don't think the elites can.
But I do think that individuals can, open source, open hardware, open technology. I think that once it takes hold it will go to much greater lengths than any sort of monetarily based market ever could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bhikkhu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 07:52 PM
Response to Original message
6. This is what its about to me:
Edited on Tue Sep-29-09 07:53 PM by bhikkhu
"Systemic collapse, in turn, has one overwhelming cause: world overpopulation."

Peak oil and peak phosphorous and whatever else are side-issues which underscore the main problem. I remember what the world was like 30 years ago. Maybe that makes me a crusty old doomer who's unlikely to change his mind, but I don't see any promise in technological solutions that simply allow the status quo to continue.

The status quo is destroying the planet, and I would like to think that our species could behave collectively in a different manner than bacteria in a petri dish. So far its not looking so pretty, and as we consume and expand our way to the edge some discussion of declining to a sustainable population would be nice to hear.

ed.: the inevitable spelling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wuvuj Donating Member (874 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-29-09 11:01 PM
Response to Original message
13. The Pope and the funnymentalists...
...would be proud? Are proud?


"American foreign aid, however, has always included only trivial amounts for family planning; the most powerful country in the world has done very little to solve the biggest problem in the world."

They will be convicted in absentia of crimes against humanity...by future generations..that may never exist.



















the most powerful country in the world has done very little to solve the biggest problem in the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
15. Have you ever considered that "resistance" to your ideas might come from facts and logic?
One of your weirdest rhetorical strategies is to constantly suggest that anyone who looks at the facts and trends and comes to a different conclusion from you is suffering from some kind of psychological resistance rather than simply coming to a different conclusion.

Have you ever considered what deep psychological processes might be causing you to "resist" thinking about the opposite conclusions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Ah, there you are.
All present and accounted for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 07:15 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Do you have a substantive answer?
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 07:33 AM by HamdenRice
Why would you couch disagreement with you as psychological resistance? My generally optimistic view of food production is based on close first hand observation of farming communities in pre-war Liberia, Sichuan and Naning provinces in China, western Transvaal, South Africa, and decades of reading secondary literature about food production throughout east and southeast Asia, Africa, Europe, North and South America and the Caribbean, as well as having and living with grandparents who were ultra-traditional horse and plow farmers in the south well into the 1960s. Generally those close observations and readings lead me to accept the predominant view that food production is highly elastic.

You may disagree with that view, which is fine. But I'm constantly puzzled by your insistence that views other than yours must be based on "resistance" rather than observation, study and logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 07:50 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. Disagreement with me is not resistance.
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 07:52 AM by GliderGuider
Refusing to even contemplate the possibility of collapse is due to resistance. If you do contemplate it and decide that it's not going to happen, then you might be right or wrong but there's no resistance to the idea itself.

This has nothing to do with me and my beliefs, and whether one disagrees with them or not. It has to do with how willing we are to look around us and contemplate all the potential implications of what we see.

On edit: The possible triggers of collapse go well beyond food production.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HamdenRice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. What makes you think that people who come to different conclusions
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 07:55 AM by HamdenRice
have not contemplated collapse and rejected it on the basis of factual and logical analysis? That seems to be what your first paragraph is saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 09:20 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. I make no such assumption.
Edited on Wed Sep-30-09 09:22 AM by GliderGuider
At least not any more. I used to think I had a lock on the Truth, but now I'm not so sure :-)

I'm just saying that if one feels that "sudden, large-scale, human-mediated change is simply not possible, and any such consideration is counter-productive" one might profitably look at why they feel that way.

To take it on myself, I used to think that any large-scale changes of social attitudes and behaviour regarding things like energy usage, consumption, overpopulation, and climate change were impossible, and anyone who asked me to consider the possibility was deluded. By examining my own resistance to that idea, I discovered that it had more to do with my own internal state than with any of the apparent facts I was using to justify my resistance. When I was able to recognize that, my inner state shifted, and opened the door to hope.

I do see a lot of reactive denial of the mere possibility that our actions could result in severe negative changes, and that's the sort of resistance I invite people to explore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joshcryer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. I think it's obvious that we have different concepts of "collapse."
I consider collapse to be the total or near total destruction of a society and its technology and its knowledge. Mayan collapse, very little was left of their society. Roman / Greek collapse, we got a bunch of stuff from their society, but a full picture isn't available. We can call those "collapse."

For human society and civilization to "collapse" more than 90% of it will have to die. More than 99% of the knowledge will have to be erased. The scenarios presented by "collapsists" are simply not viable causes for total societal collapse.

"Severe negative changes" are not the same as "collapse." No one here disputes that "severe negative changes" are on our horizon. I myself have been talking up the sea level rise data for weeks, if not months. This is very bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nederland Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. All present and accounted for?
What about little old me? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terry in Austin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #16
23. Woah, hey -- over here! Present!
Still going through Goodchild's piece -- he's always good for a thoughtful read.

I agree that "collapse" is kind of a trigger-word for a wide range of possibilities. It could use some calibration.

At the far end, you get Mad Max otherworlds like josh says he grooves on, to somewhere in the middle like Mayan collapse where everybody basically boarded up shop and went off to grow their own corn patches in the jungle, and on to the much less colorful situation in Russia, a bleak and tiresome affair that Dmitri Orlov describes, rightly IMO, as "collapse."

I don't think there's much use in reserving the word "collapse" strictly for the extreme visions of apocalypse. I suggest that the term would be meaningful enough as a synonym for "the point where things aren't working as reliably as we need."

You know, things -- where we have gas queues, frequent power outages, unpredictable water, leaky sewers, leaky gas mains, missed paychecks, empty shelves, ill-inspected meat, sour milk, spotty mail delivery, missed garbage pickups, deteriorating pavement, inflated currency, failing banks, increased barter, abandoned housing, schools closing, thin police coverage, poor fire protection, broken streetlights, broken traffic lights, fallen phone poles, lots of missing copper, hazardous bridges, haphazard airline flights, no trains, few buses, clogged emergency rooms, clogged Salvation Army centers, clogged public toilets, unsafe restaurants, plentiful urban campsites, and a vibrant upsurge in shady entrepreneurship.

A couple or three of these together, and it's probably not so dire. A dozen or so, and you're starting to talk real collapse.

It doesn't actually take a total stoppage of these things to make the difference between "working" and "collapsed," just a decrease below a certain threshold of reliability. We probably don't know exactly where that is until we cross it, but I'll bet we can make some pretty good guesses.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IrateCitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-30-09 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Hey! Why didn't I get an invitation to this affair?
Do I smell or something?

(sniff, sniff)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 10:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC