Human Nature Threatens to Prevail over Self-Preservation, July 10, 2006
| By | NewsView  (Los Angeles, CA USA) - See all my reviews |
James Howard Kunstler, author of "The Long Emergency", stabs himself in the back by engaging in cultural bias and political divisiveness, as alluded to in other reviews. This is to be pitied for the value of the message should take precedence over the messenger. A house divided will fall, and that's exactly what will crumble over our heads if Americans cannot even agree that an energy crisis looms.
Innovation that remains untapped for lack of funding, public support and political foresight will not spare us the consequences of our collective procrastination. The precursors to growth are not the blind forces of capitalism operating in economic and moral isolation, but foresight (opportunity), necessity (need) and cooperation (agreement). Nothing worthwhile will materialize so long as we are more inclined to argue than put our collective heads together in search of energy and economy-preserving solutions.
In order to become successful progenitors of 21st Century free-market progress, a shared understanding must exist that holds that the march of progress not be inhibited by status quo energy, technology and lifestyle assumptions. Therefore, it is not necessary to agree on the timeline of peak oil, the cause of global warming, the precise outcome or the political slant of the author - it is only our willingness to adapt to change that history, our children and grandchildren if you will, shall remember. How successfully we are weaned off our oil dependency depends on how seriously we've prepared for the long emergency. Given that the average American saves less money than at any time since the Great Depression, clearly we are no longer a culture accustomed to saving for a rainy day.
Consider: How many people were prepared for Hurricane Katrina -- despite multiple warnings over the years by The National Weather Service, geologists, engineers, journalists and government officials, all of which confirmed that New Orleans is sinking even as the levies remain in disrepair? The point? Those who survive change are those who prepare, whereas those who scoff at those who build a proverbial ark in the middle of a desert, or dismiss those who prepare for famine by setting aside seven years of crops in the midst of plenty thrive. Reality defines itself; we cannot simply wish away anything and everything that threatens our complacency simply by attacking the messenger.
What do we gain, after all, by burying our collective heads in the oil shale? Even as formerly cost-ineffective methods of oil extraction take on a new attraction as crude demand skyrockets, there is no denying that world demand in China and India, in particular, will eventually exceed supply. Yet history -- human and ecological -- is fraught with examples that nothing lasts forever. Or had we forgotten that?
Make no mistake: Gas prices are not going to fall; they will increase to $10 a gallon and beyond over the next 20 years, and while this will make energy alternatives more economically viable, it will do nothing to alleviate one's immediate "transitional concerns" (health insurance, retirement needs, college tuition, etc.). Quitting our oil dependency cold turkey is not a tenable option, but this seems to be the path of least resistance: Do nothing until it is too late.
Human nature is generally resistant to change until it is forced upon us. The free market, likewise, is a reflection of human nature: If alternative energies are indeed viable -- as seemingly attested to in Sweden and Brazil -- where are the new-technology robber barons of the 21st Century, waiting in the wings to capitalize on new energy before someone beats them to it? Ah, but then therein lies the problem: It's not energy per se, but infrastructure -- the physical manifestation of force of habit -- that keeps us locked in step. Unless government and private industry partner for an energy and infrastructure overhaul -- as is the case in countries where 21st Century progress has been more forthcoming -- little will come of our new energy pipedreams, but for a few short-lived, proof-of-concept developments.
Suburbia sprung up during an era of plentiful, cheap real estate and government-subsidized highway development; likewise, the great railways of yesteryear sprung up before the advent of big rigs and personal automobiles. So too will we need to retool our entire 20th Century way of life in order to transition to 21st Century technology. The problem? Long before New Energy comes on line we will need a whole lot of old energy to get us there -- and that crude will cost us increasingly more to extract and refine -- which, in turn, increase taxes and inflation even as retirement benefits, affordable healthcare and Social Security, among other social safety nets, decline. Therefore, even if New Energy solutions presently exist, it does not yet appear that a miracle will spare us from disaster, and this is the argument that Kunstler makes.
Consider how difficult it is for government to fix potholes in a timely fashion, or for private industry to supply the demand for flu shots, or for homeowners to fork out the money to replace aging septic systems and sewer pipes before they pose a hazard. In fact, no unpleasant and costly task is earnestly attended to without necessity to drive home our motivation. Therefore, it is naïve to believe that 21st Century energy and transportation solutions will be forthcoming long before our individual livelihoods are harmed in some form or fashion. Rather, it will take personal and economic devastation, Kunstler implies, before society agrees on the whole that tangible solutions -- rather than abstract arguments -- are feasible. Unfortunately, one look at the hot and cold reviews on "The Long Emergency" testifies to the reality that the public are largely of the mindset that we have the luxury of debate rather than a urgency of self-preservation. Unless we heed Kunstler's rude wake-up call, ignorance is likely to prevail until undeniable economic circumstances force us to act.
In closing, whether or not you agree with Kunstler's politics is really beside the point. Human nature is generally resistant to change. Yes, we will adapt and innovation will answer the challenge -- eventually. But if the free market alone foresaw an answer it would have found a way to profit from it by now, yet it has not and likely will not until every last drop of viable crude has been extracted and refined. Let's hope wiser minds stop quibbling over details so that the Big Picture is attended to long before The American Dream is dashed.
Innovation that remains untapped for lack of funding, public support and political foresight will not spare us the consequences of our collective procrastination. The precursors to growth are not the blind forces of capitalism operating in economic and moral isolation, but foresight (opportunity), necessity (need) and cooperation (agreement). Nothing worthwhile will materialize so long as we are more inclined to argue than put our collective heads together in search of energy and economy-preserving solutions.
In order to become successful progenitors of 21st Century free-market progress, a shared understanding must exist that holds that the march of progress not be inhibited by status quo energy, technology and lifestyle assumptions. Therefore, it is not necessary to agree on the timeline of peak oil, the cause of global warming, the precise outcome or the political slant of the author - it is only our willingness to adapt to change that history, our children and grandchildren if you will, shall remember. How successfully we are weaned off our oil dependency depends on how seriously we've prepared for the long emergency. Given that the average American saves less money than at any time since the Great Depression, clearly we are no longer a culture accustomed to saving for a rainy day.
Consider: How many people were prepared for Hurricane Katrina -- despite multiple warnings over the years by The National Weather Service, geologists, engineers, journalists and government officials, all of which confirmed that New Orleans is sinking even as the levies remain in disrepair? The point? Those who survive change are those who prepare, whereas those who scoff at those who build a proverbial ark in the middle of a desert, or dismiss those who prepare for famine by setting aside seven years of crops in the midst of plenty thrive. Reality defines itself; we cannot simply wish away anything and everything that threatens our complacency simply by attacking the messenger.
What do we gain, after all, by burying our collective heads in the oil shale? Even as formerly cost-ineffective methods of oil extraction take on a new attraction as crude demand skyrockets, there is no denying that world demand in China and India, in particular, will eventually exceed supply. Yet history -- human and ecological -- is fraught with examples that nothing lasts forever. Or had we forgotten that?
Make no mistake: Gas prices are not going to fall; they will increase to $10 a gallon and beyond over the next 20 years, and while this will make energy alternatives more economically viable, it will do nothing to alleviate one's immediate "transitional concerns" (health insurance, retirement needs, college tuition, etc.). Quitting our oil dependency cold turkey is not a tenable option, but this seems to be the path of least resistance: Do nothing until it is too late.
Human nature is generally resistant to change until it is forced upon us. The free market, likewise, is a reflection of human nature: If alternative energies are indeed viable -- as seemingly attested to in Sweden and Brazil -- where are the new-technology robber barons of the 21st Century, waiting in the wings to capitalize on new energy before someone beats them to it? Ah, but then therein lies the problem: It's not energy per se, but infrastructure -- the physical manifestation of force of habit -- that keeps us locked in step. Unless government and private industry partner for an energy and infrastructure overhaul -- as is the case in countries where 21st Century progress has been more forthcoming -- little will come of our new energy pipedreams, but for a few short-lived, proof-of-concept developments.
Suburbia sprung up during an era of plentiful, cheap real estate and government-subsidized highway development; likewise, the great railways of yesteryear sprung up before the advent of big rigs and personal automobiles. So too will we need to retool our entire 20th Century way of life in order to transition to 21st Century technology. The problem? Long before New Energy comes on line we will need a whole lot of old energy to get us there -- and that crude will cost us increasingly more to extract and refine -- which, in turn, increase taxes and inflation even as retirement benefits, affordable healthcare and Social Security, among other social safety nets, decline. Therefore, even if New Energy solutions presently exist, it does not yet appear that a miracle will spare us from disaster, and this is the argument that Kunstler makes.
Consider how difficult it is for government to fix potholes in a timely fashion, or for private industry to supply the demand for flu shots, or for homeowners to fork out the money to replace aging septic systems and sewer pipes before they pose a hazard. In fact, no unpleasant and costly task is earnestly attended to without necessity to drive home our motivation. Therefore, it is naïve to believe that 21st Century energy and transportation solutions will be forthcoming long before our individual livelihoods are harmed in some form or fashion. Rather, it will take personal and economic devastation, Kunstler implies, before society agrees on the whole that tangible solutions -- rather than abstract arguments -- are feasible. Unfortunately, one look at the hot and cold reviews on "The Long Emergency" testifies to the reality that the public are largely of the mindset that we have the luxury of debate rather than a urgency of self-preservation. Unless we heed Kunstler's rude wake-up call, ignorance is likely to prevail until undeniable economic circumstances force us to act.
In closing, whether or not you agree with Kunstler's politics is really beside the point. Human nature is generally resistant to change. Yes, we will adapt and innovation will answer the challenge -- eventually. But if the free market alone foresaw an answer it would have found a way to profit from it by now, yet it has not and likely will not until every last drop of viable crude has been extracted and refined. Let's hope wiser minds stop quibbling over details so that the Big Picture is attended to long before The American Dream is dashed.
Last edited by the author on Nov 16, 2006 5:49 PM PST
Truth Seeker says:
An excellent and well-informed review. The writer should author his own book on the subject. He (?) succinctly restates the book's thesis without its depressive pesssimism, as well as analyzing the reasons for other reviewers' impassioned diatribes. In fact, the process of this global human experiment hangs in the balance - there are new and obscure but brilliantly inventive energy technologies in existence, but the "market" ignores them. Investors will fund only those which they believe will make them money, such as ethanol or oil sands, both of which have a very doubtful future since both require vast inputs of energy and water, another depleting resource. Guru Thomas Friedman (NOT one of my own favorite writers, but one may still quote him) calls such investors "The Herd" and has little regard for their intelligence, just as this reviewer has a low opinion of human foresight and self-preservative caution, (viz. his example of New Orleans.)
I agree with the reviewer in this: ONLY our collective discomfort will goad us (and our corporations and politicians) to abandon fanciful dreams of obscene profits in the energy markets in favor of the realities of survival. Whether we will wisely change our past patterns of behavior before we are forced to, as some rabid anti-Kunstler reviewers maintain we will, or not, as Kunstler and this reviewer maintain, is the question which will determine our future. The answer will largely determine whether we are today embarked on the Mayflower or on the Titanic. I personally agree with Kunstler and this reviewer - I believe there are icebergs ahead, and the navigators do not even have binoculars (neither did the lookouts on the Titanic) - but while the Titanic disaster saw a shocking loss of life, many people made it into the few lifeboats available, and such an accident has never happened again. Our species is marvelously creative, and blessed with a healthy lust for life. We will survive.
I agree with the reviewer in this: ONLY our collective discomfort will goad us (and our corporations and politicians) to abandon fanciful dreams of obscene profits in the energy markets in favor of the realities of survival. Whether we will wisely change our past patterns of behavior before we are forced to, as some rabid anti-Kunstler reviewers maintain we will, or not, as Kunstler and this reviewer maintain, is the question which will determine our future. The answer will largely determine whether we are today embarked on the Mayflower or on the Titanic. I personally agree with Kunstler and this reviewer - I believe there are icebergs ahead, and the navigators do not even have binoculars (neither did the lookouts on the Titanic) - but while the Titanic disaster saw a shocking loss of life, many people made it into the few lifeboats available, and such an accident has never happened again. Our species is marvelously creative, and blessed with a healthy lust for life. We will survive.
No comments:
Post a Comment