Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [energyresources] It's All a Matter of Interpretation

Expand Messages
  • bfleay@iinet.net.au
    Jay You are so dogmatic. There are many patterns in our genes , including working and cooperating together for common ends. We would not be the species we
    Message 1 of 28 , Feb 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Jay

      You are so dogmatic. There are many "patterns in our genes", including
      working and cooperating together for common ends. We would not be the
      species we are without this capacity.

      Brian Fleay


      >>Jay, the dieoff.com guy, says Liberalism is dead. In light of the
      >>following definition, I don't think so. I am a liberal that also has
      >>hope because miracles are just occurrences that happen unexpectedly.
      >
      >Liberalism (so-called democracy, individual freedoms, etc.) will give way to
      >authortian forms during the next decade. If one looks at today's news, one
      >can see that it's already under way: Germany is already moving to the Right,
      >France to the Left, Israel to the Right.
      >
      >The hallmark of Liberal governments is "non-government". That is, they were
      >designed to "facilitate and mitigate" economic development by the private
      >sector. They were never designed to do the kind of economic planning that
      >would be required to avoid the worst (see, for example, PROJECT
      >INDEPENDENCE).
      >
      >I expect a new generation Hitlers and Stalins to come to power as Liberal
      >societies inevitably degenerate into anarchy due to fossil fuel depletion.
      >
      >When faced with the choice between freedom and security, nearly everyone
      >will choose security (I am certain it is genetic).
      >
      >When faced with the choice between the unruly mob and a Hitler (whose
      >malevolence is still unknown), nearly everyone will choose Hitler (after
      >all, he WAS voted into office).
      >
      >It happened almost exactly a hundred years ago, it will happen again -- AND
      >for exactly the same reason: "the utopian endeavor of economic liberalism to
      >set up a self-regulating market system".
      >
      >"By the end of the seventies the free trade episode (1846-79) was at an end;
      >the actual use of the gold standard by Germany marked the beginnings of an
      >era of protectionism and colonial expansion... the symptoms of the
      >dissolution of the existing forms of world economy -- colonial rivalry and
      >competition for exotic markets -- became acute. The ability of haute
      >finance to avert the spread of wars was diminishing rapidly... For another
      >seven years peace dragged on but it was only a question of time before the
      >dissolution of nineteenth century economic organization would bring the
      >Hundred Years' Peace to a close... The origins of the cataclysm lay in the
      >utopian endeavor of economic liberalism to set up a self-regulating market
      >system." -- Karl Polanyi
      >
      >Jay -- www.dieoff.com
      >--------------------------------
      >"In the end," says the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's parable,
      >"in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
      >'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"
      >
      >
      >
      >Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
      >Drop me a note at t1r@...
      >
      >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Lawrence B. Crowell
      ... This is an aspect of an old debate, nature vs nurture. The recent announcement that the human genome contains only 32,000 genes is somewhat telling. It
      Message 2 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        At 12:40 PM 3/1/01 +0800, bfleay@... wrote:
        >Jay
        >
        >You are so dogmatic. There are many "patterns in our genes", including
        >working and cooperating together for common ends. We would not be the
        >species we are without this capacity.
        >
        >Brian Fleay
        >
        >

        This is an aspect of an old debate, nature vs nurture. The recent
        announcement that the human genome contains only 32,000 genes is somewhat
        telling. It is likely that how these genes are expressed in consort
        results in an emergent complexity much as the recursive execution of a
        simple algorithm can lead to a fractal geometry of enormous complexity.
        Further, as any organism is subjected to influences of the environment,
        there is then adaptive modifications to how genes are expressed.

        In one sense Jay's stance tends to be overly deterministic. Jay's
        statement amounts to a sort of fatalism: we are destined to do such and
        such or to experience this or that. There are rather few cases in nature
        where this occurs. If you cross the event horizon of a black hole you are
        indeed fated to reach the internal singularity and be ripped to shreds
        (including the elementary particles you are composed of). However, whether
        or not we experience Jay's dieoff or the extent to which it occurs is a
        matter of probability.

        The universe is more stochastic than it is deterministic. In fact
        stochastic behavior and fluctuations are at the foundation of statistical
        mechanics and thermodynamics.

        Lawrence B. Crowell

        For one moment your mind was open to an infinite number of possibilities.
        The exploration that awaits you is ... charting the unknown possibilities
        of existence.
        Q on Star Trek

        ~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~

        Lawrence, in a book now long out of print, G. Tyler Miller, Jr. said that the possible combinations in ten rungs of DNA is somewhere in neighborhood of 10 to the 124th power. I think he then gave meaning to that great number by saying that there may be 10 to 74th power atoms in the universe, and there were not 10 to the 75 power.

        Was Miller any where near right in these numbers? And if so, doesn't it say that our dinking around at the genetic level can be stumbling in a minefield of absolutely incredible complexity and potentially disasterous circumstance?

        ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
      • Jay Hanson
        ... cooperating together for common ends wasn t one of the choices. Indeed, not one person on this list -- including you -- has posted a plausible scenario
        Message 3 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          >Brian Fleay:
          >
          >You are so dogmatic. There are many "patterns in our genes", including
          >working and cooperating together for common ends. We would not be the
          >species we are without this capacity.

          "cooperating together for common ends" wasn't one of the choices. Indeed,
          not one person on this list -- including you -- has posted a plausible
          scenario showing how such a utopian future could unfold. It's amounts to a
          belief in Santa Claus.

          Given the choice: unruly mob OR an unknown Hitler, nearly everyone will
          choose Hitler. It's happened before, it will happen again. It's genetic
          (propensity to act in certain ways).

          It's also genetic to believe in Santa Claus:

          "Precisely what we believe is immaterial; what matters is the kind of
          behavior it generates. This is why humanity is characterized by such
          astonishing diversity in its belief systems. As far as our genes are
          concerned, we can believe that the universe is driven by an overweight fairy
          on a green cheese bicycle provided that such belief effectively coerces us
          into adopting genetically advantageous behavior in all matters of
          evolutionary consequence, such as feeding, mating, nurturing, bonding, and
          protecting family, tribe, and territory." p. 186, THE SPIRIT IN THE GENE:
          Humanity's Proud Illusion and the Laws of Nature, by Reg Morrison, Lynn
          Margulis; Cornell, 1999; http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0801436516

          That doesn't mean everyone believes in Santa Claus. For example, I don't.

          Jay -- www.dieoff.com
        • Jay Hanson
          ... No, it s not fatalism . No one on this list has posted a plausible scenario -- or any scenario for that matter -- showing how anarchy and Hitler could be
          Message 4 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            >In one sense Jay's stance tends to be overly deterministic. Jay's
            >statement amounts to a sort of fatalism: we are destined to do such and
            >such or to experience this or that. There are rather few cases in nature

            No, it's not "fatalism". No one on this list has posted a plausible
            scenario -- or any scenario for that matter -- showing how anarchy and
            Hitler could be avoided.

            If you have a plausible scenario, let's hear it. But don't insult me by
            asking me to subscribe to your childish belief system.

            Jay -- www.dieoff.com
          • weaseldog2001@yahoo.com
            You re agreeing with Jay, though you don t know it. If we didn t have this internal drive, that is provided by our genes, we would not be successful. That is
            Message 5 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              You're agreeing with Jay, though you don't know it.

              If we didn't have this internal drive, that is provided by our genes,
              we would not be successful. That is most important to genes, is
              reproduction of genes. You and I are the product of a long line of
              successful genes.

              The fact that when hungry and thirsty, we will trade our freedom for
              three hots and a cot, is a fact of our survival instinct.

              It takes shear force of will and self imposed training to overcome
              these impulses.

              How many Gandhis do we have on this NG anyway? How many do we have in
              our general population. Who would let their children starve to death,
              rather than become slaves?

              Jack Dingler

              --- In energyresources@y..., bfleay@i... wrote:
              > Jay
              >
              > You are so dogmatic. There are many "patterns in our genes",
              including
              > working and cooperating together for common ends. We would not be
              the
              > species we are without this capacity.
              >
              > Brian Fleay
              >
              >
              > >>Jay, the dieoff.com guy, says Liberalism is dead. In light of the
              > >>following definition, I don't think so. I am a liberal that also
              has
              > >>hope because miracles are just occurrences that happen
              unexpectedly.
              > >
              > >Liberalism (so-called democracy, individual freedoms, etc.) will
              give way to
              > >authortian forms during the next decade. If one looks at today's
              news, one
              > >can see that it's already under way: Germany is already moving to
              the Right,
              > >France to the Left, Israel to the Right.
              > >
              > >The hallmark of Liberal governments is "non-government". That is,
              they were
              > >designed to "facilitate and mitigate" economic development by the
              private
              > >sector. They were never designed to do the kind of economic
              planning that
              > >would be required to avoid the worst (see, for example, PROJECT
              > >INDEPENDENCE).
              > >
              > >I expect a new generation Hitlers and Stalins to come to power as
              Liberal
              > >societies inevitably degenerate into anarchy due to fossil fuel
              depletion.
              > >
              > >When faced with the choice between freedom and security, nearly
              everyone
              > >will choose security (I am certain it is genetic).
              > >
              > >When faced with the choice between the unruly mob and a Hitler
              (whose
              > >malevolence is still unknown), nearly everyone will choose Hitler
              (after
              > >all, he WAS voted into office).
              > >
              > >It happened almost exactly a hundred years ago, it will happen
              again -- AND
              > >for exactly the same reason: "the utopian endeavor of economic
              liberalism to
              > >set up a self-regulating market system".
              > >
              > >"By the end of the seventies the free trade episode (1846-79) was
              at an end;
              > >the actual use of the gold standard by Germany marked the
              beginnings of an
              > >era of protectionism and colonial expansion... the symptoms of the
              > >dissolution of the existing forms of world economy -- colonial
              rivalry and
              > >competition for exotic markets -- became acute. The ability of
              haute
              > >finance to avert the spread of wars was diminishing rapidly... For
              another
              > >seven years peace dragged on but it was only a question of time
              before the
              > >dissolution of nineteenth century economic organization would bring
              the
              > >Hundred Years' Peace to a close... The origins of the cataclysm lay
              in the
              > >utopian endeavor of economic liberalism to set up a self-regulating
              market
              > >system." -- Karl Polanyi
              > >
              > >Jay -- www.dieoff.com
              > >--------------------------------
              > >"In the end," says the Grand Inquisitor in Dostoevsky's parable,
              > >"in the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
              > >'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
              > >Drop me a note at t1r@b...
              > >
              > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            • weaseldog2001@yahoo.com
              Changing the course of events that are determined by the motions of billions of individuals, requires that you overcome and redirect the energy of billions of
              Message 6 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                Changing the course of events that are determined by the motions of
                billions of individuals, requires that you overcome and redirect the
                energy of billions of individuals.

                A single individual is chaotic and unpredictable. A city is easier to
                understand and make mathematical predictions from. When you consider
                a city, then you ignore the motions of any randomly chosen individual.

                Our course is determined by the accumulated actions of billions of
                people. This makes the outcome determinalistic.

                This is true for the universe as a whole. The structure of the Milky
                Way does not change appreciably in the face of super novas and the
                collapse of stars into black holes. Even when these dramatic events
                occur, our models of the Milky Way, remain relatively unchanged.

                Jack Dingler

                --- In energyresources@y..., "Lawrence B. Crowell" <lcrowell@s...>
                wrote:
                > At 12:40 PM 3/1/01 +0800, bfleay@i... wrote:
                > >Jay
                > >
                > >You are so dogmatic. There are many "patterns in our genes",
                including
                > >working and cooperating together for common ends. We would not be
                the
                > >species we are without this capacity.
                > >
                > >Brian Fleay
                > >
                > >
                >
                > This is an aspect of an old debate, nature vs nurture. The recent
                > announcement that the human genome contains only 32,000 genes is
                somewhat
                > telling. It is likely that how these genes are expressed in consort
                > results in an emergent complexity much as the recursive execution of
                a
                > simple algorithm can lead to a fractal geometry of enormous
                complexity.
                > Further, as any organism is subjected to influences of the
                environment,
                > there is then adaptive modifications to how genes are expressed.
                >
                > In one sense Jay's stance tends to be overly deterministic. Jay's
                > statement amounts to a sort of fatalism: we are destined to do such
                and
                > such or to experience this or that. There are rather few cases in
                nature
                > where this occurs. If you cross the event horizon of a black hole
                you are
                > indeed fated to reach the internal singularity and be ripped to
                shreds
                > (including the elementary particles you are composed of). However,
                whether
                > or not we experience Jay's dieoff or the extent to which it occurs
                is a
                > matter of probability.
                >
                > The universe is more stochastic than it is deterministic. In fact
                > stochastic behavior and fluctuations are at the foundation of
                statistical
                > mechanics and thermodynamics.
                >
                > Lawrence B. Crowell
                >
                > For one moment your mind was open to an infinite number of
                possibilities.
                > The exploration that awaits you is ... charting the unknown
                possibilities
                > of existence.
                > Q on Star Trek
                >
                > ~~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Comment ~~~~~~
                >
                > Lawrence, in a book now long out of print, G. Tyler Miller, Jr. said
                that the possible combinations in ten rungs of DNA is somewhere in
                neighborhood of 10 to the 124th power. I think he then gave meaning to
                that great number by saying that there may be 10 to 74th power atoms
                in the universe, and there were not 10 to the 75 power.
                >
                > Was Miller any where near right in these numbers? And if so, doesn't
                it say that our dinking around at the genetic level can be stumbling
                in a minefield of absolutely incredible complexity and potentially
                disasterous circumstance?
                >
                > ~~~~~ EnergyResources Moderator Tom Robertson ~~~~~~
              • Roger Baker
                ... Brian, et al, It is true that humans have many compassionate behaviors wired-in genetically and the intelligence to solve problems of human cooperation
                Message 7 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  >Jay
                  >
                  >You are so dogmatic. There are many "patterns in our genes", including
                  >working and cooperating together for common ends. We would not be the
                  >species we are without this capacity.
                  >
                  >Brian Fleay


                  Brian, et al,
                  It is true that humans have many compassionate
                  behaviors wired-in genetically and the intelligence to solve problems
                  of human cooperation like global warming. In theory at least, but the
                  evidence is meager.

                  The problem is our dominant institutions are all designed to push us
                  in the wrong direction for the sake of short term-profit and to
                  resist all efforts to the contrary until the train heads off the
                  cliff.

                  Even if the World Bank and WTO were to disappear, would still leave
                  intact all the many laws and culture in the USA dedicated to
                  defending the rights of capitalism and its social economic and
                  physical infrastructure to keep expanding at the rate of interest on
                  borrowed money. A rate which is the functional basis for the whole
                  economic system; a rate far more rapid than the earth's environment
                  can sustain.

                  By and large politicians do not focus on the advice of credible
                  warnings by experts; they are concerned in the USA with getting
                  enough money, and very largely corporate money, to get elected to
                  their next term. The same thing is true in our Texas legislature or
                  worse as I see when I fight the Texas road-building lobby. Energy
                  warnings and global warming warnings don't faze this crowd. They very
                  willingly adopt the thinking of the (mostly corporate) lobbyists who
                  give them the money to get elected even if their rational thinking
                  may consul them otherwise.

                  But the systematic subversion of rational thought does not stop
                  there. There is a giant advertising industry dedicated to maintaining
                  consumerist behavior on the part of everyone with money to spend;
                  much more than in the past both the rich and poor are programmed to
                  associate happiness with spending money on products to gain happiness.
                  (A recent Brainfood post by Jay outlined the basic principles that
                  shield the social machinery of this whole political machine).

                  The total grip of this energy-guzzling materialist ideology on public
                  consciousness is so strong that the spell can be broken to allow a
                  rational re-evaluation of basics only when the system crashes.

                  But this re-evatuation tends to unleash other basic instincts like
                  hunting for human scapegoats (usually with a different race religion
                  or economic status). Note that much or most of the reporting on
                  energy problems in California focuses on the giant energy companies
                  robbing the public of the cheap energy that Californians deserve, and
                  that when justice is served there will be cheap electricity without
                  blackouts again and that global warming doesn't even figure into all
                  this.

                  Since the goodness of infinite economic expansionism is so imbedded
                  in all our laws and institutions and lifestyle assumptions, this by
                  itself guarantees that the train will probably get to the edge of the
                  cliff before the seriousness of the situation is widely appreciated
                  and a rational re-evaluation becomes a possibility. But then we will
                  be looking everywhere for human scapegoats more than flaws with our
                  institutions.

                  My best hope for now is that there will be an neo-religious
                  anti-scientific backlash such as the one we are now starting to see
                  in Europe centered on food problems like mad cow and foot and mouth
                  disease and genetic engineering. Such trends would be greatly
                  accelerated if the existing institutions fail to deliver the goods.
                  Here's an interesting and appropriate link:

                  http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5956-2001Feb28.html

                  Religion, given enough time, can topple even the most powerful
                  institutions if it has a core basis of partial truth that offers a
                  simple explanation for complex problems. The followers of Jesus
                  Christ undermined and finally ruled the Roman Empire. -- Roger
                • solartex@webtv.net
                  Dear Jay Hanson, Over and over again, versions of a plausible scenario for using enough incoming solar energy for living within deeply reduced, yet
                  Message 8 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Jay Hanson, Over and over again, versions of a "plausible
                    scenario" for using enough incoming solar energy for living within
                    deeply reduced, yet reasonable,
                    standards of living have been proposed here. Loose talk of "anarchy" and
                    "Hitler" drown out many such scenarios. Of those that break through,
                    there are two brick walls they hit:
                    (a) you have a bully pulpit, believe deeply in your "dieoff"
                    predictions and keep grinding away, defending them, and (b) many
                    will not accept reductions in lving standards. The TV-trained consumer
                    is convinced that she/he is entitled to limitless energy and anyone
                    suggesting they do not have such rights are characterised as the enemy,
                    or "tree-huggers."
                    Still, many of us have studied deeply the alternative visions of
                    the likes of Carson, Schumacher, Henderson, Lovins and even, more
                    recently, the Odums, and we see comfortable soft landings ahead.
                    Different, but comfortable, with more rational habitats, smaller, slower
                    cars and mass transit, vegetarianism and alternative energy production
                    using proven, labor-intensive, locale-specific, diffuse solar
                    technologies. These are not "childish belief systems." but widely-held
                    views and practices proven in the field.
                    So it will not be number-studded fact sheets that point the way to
                    simplified living with incoming solar energy. They will be common sense,
                    localized shifts that anyone, even you, Jay, can understand. Take some
                    time to look at these proposals. There are thousands of them.
                    We deeply appreciate your calling attention to the depletion of
                    oil, etc. So, having done that, would you please give the appropriate
                    alternatives your blessing?
                    Thank you.
                    Newton SanAntonio/Houston
                  • weaseldog2001@yahoo.com
                    Hrmmmm, Roger, looks like you and I are neighbors... I agree with everything. Just don t thing that a religious backlash would be reasonable or desirable.
                    Message 9 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Hrmmmm, Roger, looks like you and I are neighbors...

                      I agree with everything. Just don't thing that a religious backlash
                      would be reasonable or desirable. Science isn't good or evil anymore
                      than clothes or money are good or evil. It's simply a tool.

                      Why clothes? Many people have been strangled to death with shoelaces,
                      belts and scarves, this proves clothes are evil, right?

                      A situation where baptists hunt and kill catholics for their views on
                      breeding, doesn't strike me as anymore constructive than killing
                      everyone with a Phd.

                      But you're right, when people get hungry enough, they'll hunt and kill
                      people who are different first. Just like the members of the Donner
                      party killed and ate the indians first.

                      Jack Dingler

                      --- In energyresources@y..., Roger Baker <rcbaker@e...> wrote:
                      > >Jay
                      > >
                      > >You are so dogmatic. There are many "patterns in our genes",
                      including
                      > >working and cooperating together for common ends. We would not be
                      the
                      > >species we are without this capacity.
                      > >
                      > >Brian Fleay
                      >
                      >
                      > Brian, et al,
                      > It is true that humans have many compassionate
                      > behaviors wired-in genetically and the intelligence to solve
                      problems
                      > of human cooperation like global warming. In theory at least, but
                      the
                      > evidence is meager.
                      >
                      > The problem is our dominant institutions are all designed to push us
                      > in the wrong direction for the sake of short term-profit and to
                      > resist all efforts to the contrary until the train heads off the
                      > cliff.
                      >
                      > Even if the World Bank and WTO were to disappear, would still leave
                      > intact all the many laws and culture in the USA dedicated to
                      > defending the rights of capitalism and its social economic and
                      > physical infrastructure to keep expanding at the rate of interest on
                      > borrowed money. A rate which is the functional basis for the whole
                      > economic system; a rate far more rapid than the earth's environment
                      > can sustain.
                      >
                      > By and large politicians do not focus on the advice of credible
                      > warnings by experts; they are concerned in the USA with getting
                      > enough money, and very largely corporate money, to get elected to
                      > their next term. The same thing is true in our Texas legislature or
                      > worse as I see when I fight the Texas road-building lobby. Energy
                      > warnings and global warming warnings don't faze this crowd. They
                      very
                      > willingly adopt the thinking of the (mostly corporate) lobbyists who
                      > give them the money to get elected even if their rational thinking
                      > may consul them otherwise.
                      >
                      > But the systematic subversion of rational thought does not stop
                      > there. There is a giant advertising industry dedicated to
                      maintaining
                      > consumerist behavior on the part of everyone with money to spend;
                      > much more than in the past both the rich and poor are programmed to
                      > associate happiness with spending money on products to gain
                      happiness.
                      > (A recent Brainfood post by Jay outlined the basic principles that
                      > shield the social machinery of this whole political machine).
                      >
                      > The total grip of this energy-guzzling materialist ideology on
                      public
                      > consciousness is so strong that the spell can be broken to allow a
                      > rational re-evaluation of basics only when the system crashes.
                      >
                      > But this re-evatuation tends to unleash other basic instincts like
                      > hunting for human scapegoats (usually with a different race religion
                      > or economic status). Note that much or most of the reporting on
                      > energy problems in California focuses on the giant energy companies
                      > robbing the public of the cheap energy that Californians deserve,
                      and
                      > that when justice is served there will be cheap electricity without
                      > blackouts again and that global warming doesn't even figure into all
                      > this.
                      >
                      > Since the goodness of infinite economic expansionism is so imbedded
                      > in all our laws and institutions and lifestyle assumptions, this by
                      > itself guarantees that the train will probably get to the edge of
                      the
                      > cliff before the seriousness of the situation is widely appreciated
                      > and a rational re-evaluation becomes a possibility. But then we will
                      > be looking everywhere for human scapegoats more than flaws with our
                      > institutions.
                      >
                      > My best hope for now is that there will be an neo-religious
                      > anti-scientific backlash such as the one we are now starting to see
                      > in Europe centered on food problems like mad cow and foot and mouth
                      > disease and genetic engineering. Such trends would be greatly
                      > accelerated if the existing institutions fail to deliver the goods.
                      > Here's an interesting and appropriate link:
                      >
                      > http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5956-2001Feb28.html
                      >
                      > Religion, given enough time, can topple even the most powerful
                      > institutions if it has a core basis of partial truth that offers a
                      > simple explanation for complex problems. The followers of Jesus
                      > Christ undermined and finally ruled the Roman Empire. -- Roger
                    • Jay Hanson
                      ... True! And the problem is that world views and belief systems are mostly hardwired by age 25 (as I recall, there was a scientific study using a PET
                      Message 10 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >Changing the course of events that are determined by the motions of
                        >billions of individuals, requires that you overcome and redirect the
                        >energy of billions of individuals.

                        True! And the problem is that "world views" and "belief systems" are
                        "mostly hardwired" by age 25 (as I recall, there was a scientific study
                        using a PET machine to actually watch brain biology). So the only way to
                        change these billions of people is before they reach age 25.

                        How many people have critical facility developed by years of on-the-job
                        training (engineering), the time (ten years?), the money, and the desire to
                        subject themselves and their society to a ruthless scientific critique (how
                        many David Humes?)? A thousand worldwide? Five hundred? Less?

                        Jay
                      • weaseldog2001@yahoo.com
                        And I though Judy Garland was dead. Jack Dingler ... and ... many ... consumer ... enemy, ... of ... slower ... production ... widely-held ... to ... sense,
                        Message 11 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                        • 0 Attachment
                          And I though Judy Garland was dead.

                          Jack Dingler

                          --- In energyresources@y..., solartex@w... wrote:
                          > Dear Jay Hanson, Over and over again, versions of a "plausible
                          > scenario" for using enough incoming solar energy for living within
                          > deeply reduced, yet reasonable,
                          > standards of living have been proposed here. Loose talk of "anarchy"
                          and
                          > "Hitler" drown out many such scenarios. Of those that break through,
                          > there are two brick walls they hit:
                          > (a) you have a bully pulpit, believe deeply in your "dieoff"
                          > predictions and keep grinding away, defending them, and (b)
                          many
                          > will not accept reductions in lving standards. The TV-trained
                          consumer
                          > is convinced that she/he is entitled to limitless energy and anyone
                          > suggesting they do not have such rights are characterised as the
                          enemy,
                          > or "tree-huggers."
                          > Still, many of us have studied deeply the alternative visions
                          of
                          > the likes of Carson, Schumacher, Henderson, Lovins and even, more
                          > recently, the Odums, and we see comfortable soft landings ahead.
                          > Different, but comfortable, with more rational habitats, smaller,
                          slower
                          > cars and mass transit, vegetarianism and alternative energy
                          production
                          > using proven, labor-intensive, locale-specific, diffuse solar
                          > technologies. These are not "childish belief systems." but
                          widely-held
                          > views and practices proven in the field.
                          > So it will not be number-studded fact sheets that point the way
                          to
                          > simplified living with incoming solar energy. They will be common
                          sense,
                          > localized shifts that anyone, even you, Jay, can understand. Take
                          some
                          > time to look at these proposals. There are thousands of them.
                          > We deeply appreciate your calling attention to the depletion
                          of
                          > oil, etc. So, having done that, would you please give the
                          appropriate
                          > alternatives your blessing?
                          > Thank you.
                          > Newton SanAntonio/Houston
                          >
                          >
                          > >In one sense Jay's stance tends to be overly deterministic. Jay's
                          > >statement amounts to a sort of fatalism: we are destined to do such
                          and
                          > >such or to experience this or that. There are rather few cases in
                          nature
                          >
                          > No, it's not "fatalism". No one on this list has posted a plausible
                          > scenario -- or any scenario for that matter -- showing how anarchy
                          and
                          > Hitler could be avoided.
                          >
                          > If you have a plausible scenario, let's hear it. But don't insult me
                          by
                          > asking me to subscribe to your childish belief system.
                          >
                          > Jay -- www.dieoff.com
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
                          > Drop me a note at t1r@b...
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                        • Lawrence B. Crowell
                          ... Frankly, I have no plan. A peacable transition may simply occur on its own without any master plan. One of the remarkable things that did recently
                          Message 12 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 05:58 AM 3/1/01 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
                            >>In one sense Jay's stance tends to be overly deterministic. Jay's
                            >>statement amounts to a sort of fatalism: we are destined to do such and
                            >>such or to experience this or that. There are rather few cases in nature
                            >
                            >No, it's not "fatalism". No one on this list has posted a plausible
                            >scenario -- or any scenario for that matter -- showing how anarchy and
                            >Hitler could be avoided.
                            >
                            >If you have a plausible scenario, let's hear it. But don't insult me by
                            >asking me to subscribe to your childish belief system.
                            >
                            >Jay -- www.dieoff.com
                            >

                            Frankly, I have no plan. A peacable transition may simply occur on its own
                            without any "master plan." One of the remarkable things that did recently
                            occur is that the Soviet Union ended without some KGB group or other
                            fanatics taking over and threatening the whole world. After all a
                            sufficiently desparate group eager to hold onto power could have held the
                            whole world hostage with thousands of nuclear missiles.

                            Lawrence B. Crowell

                            >
                            >
                            >Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
                            >Drop me a note at t1r@...
                            >
                            >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >

                            For one moment your mind was open to an infinite number of possibilities.
                            The exploration that awaits you is ... charting the unknown possibilities
                            of existence.
                            Q on Star Trek
                          • weaseldog2001@yahoo.com
                            I can see how the downfall of the Soviet Empire was good for the US and a few other nations, but who would benefit from the downfall of all nations? Once the
                            Message 13 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I can see how the downfall of the Soviet Empire was good for the US
                              and a few other nations, but who would benefit from the downfall of
                              all nations?

                              Once the Soviets sell all they have to sell, and other nations become
                              to poor to provide subsidies, what will be their future? Whatever it
                              is, the current list of rich nations will drop to that point in record
                              time when the tankers can't afford to burn fuel to get the crude
                              overseas.

                              I must be missing something here. What is it that I don't know about
                              the happiness and well being of the Russian people? Hrmmm, I work
                              with a few who came here to escape Russia, maybe I should ask them why
                              they left such a wonderful country?

                              Jack Dingler

                              --- In energyresources@y..., "Lawrence B. Crowell" <lcrowell@s...>
                              wrote:
                              > At 05:58 AM 3/1/01 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
                              > >>In one sense Jay's stance tends to be overly deterministic. Jay's
                              > >>statement amounts to a sort of fatalism: we are destined to do
                              such and
                              > >>such or to experience this or that. There are rather few cases in
                              nature
                              > >
                              > >No, it's not "fatalism". No one on this list has posted a
                              plausible
                              > >scenario -- or any scenario for that matter -- showing how anarchy
                              and
                              > >Hitler could be avoided.
                              > >
                              > >If you have a plausible scenario, let's hear it. But don't insult
                              me by
                              > >asking me to subscribe to your childish belief system.
                              > >
                              > >Jay -- www.dieoff.com
                              > >
                              >
                              > Frankly, I have no plan. A peacable transition may simply occur on
                              its own
                              > without any "master plan." One of the remarkable things that did
                              recently
                              > occur is that the Soviet Union ended without some KGB group or other
                              > fanatics taking over and threatening the whole world. After all a
                              > sufficiently desparate group eager to hold onto power could have
                              held the
                              > whole world hostage with thousands of nuclear missiles.
                              >
                              > Lawrence B. Crowell
                              >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
                              > >Drop me a note at t1r@b...
                              > >
                              > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              > >
                              >
                              > For one moment your mind was open to an infinite number of
                              possibilities.
                              > The exploration that awaits you is ... charting the unknown
                              possibilities
                              > of existence.
                              > Q on Star Trek
                            • Jay Hanson
                              ... By plausible scenario I mean a believable, scientifically consistent, step-by-step plan (including political, economic, technical, and biophysical
                              Message 14 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >Dear Jay Hanson, Over and over again, versions of a "plausible
                                >scenario" for using enough incoming solar energy for living within
                                >deeply reduced, yet reasonable, standards of living have been
                                >proposed here.

                                By "plausible scenario" I mean a believable, scientifically consistent,
                                step-by-step plan (including political, economic, technical, and biophysical
                                assumptions), to get from where we are today, to a sustainable society
                                without massive death and suffering along the way.

                                No one on this list has provided such a scenario. I have never hear of one.
                                Until shown otherwise, I have no alternative but to conclude such a scenario
                                is literally impossible.

                                What I DO get is Alfred E. Newman throwing some chunk of hardware at me and
                                telling me to have faith that everything else will be just fine because
                                people are naturally "nice" to each other. Not only is such a "nice" view
                                against the science, it's against my personal political experience, and even
                                against a casual sampling of the news:

                                "More than 75 people have been slaughtered -- some beheaded and their heads
                                carried around -- in savage ethnic bloodshed on Indonesia's portion of
                                Borneo island, local officials and media said today."

                                What happened 100 years ago? Why did 100 million people die untimely deaths
                                in the last 100 years? "The origins of the cataclysm lay in the utopian
                                endeavor of economic liberalism to set up a self-regulating market system."

                                The key word here is "utopian" 1. ideal: belonging to or typical of an ideal
                                perfect state or place. People are genetically biased to ignore the "real
                                world" and believe in the "ideal" because it make the "feel good".

                                That's what caused the "cataclysm" 100 years ago: people were unable to rise
                                above their genetic programming and see the world for what it really is --
                                and that's why we are at a "dead end" today.

                                If the global Plutocrats (whomever they are) are unable to face the reality
                                of our present crisis, then economic chaos, political anarchy, and new
                                incarnations of Hitler become inevitable.

                                Jay -- www.dieoff.com
                                ------------------------------
                                p. 165, THE DARK SIDE OF MAN: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence, by
                                Michael P. Ghiglieri; Perseus, 1999;
                                http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/073820076X

                                "Chimp social structure would be unique were it not for humans acting
                                similarly. This is no coincidence. By most taxonomic criteria, chimps and
                                humans are sibling species. Overall, chimp society is not only extremely
                                sexist -- with all adult males dominant over females -- but also xenophobic
                                to the extent of killing all alien males, many infants, and some old females
                                who enter their territory. To some readers, my use of the word war may seem
                                too strong to describe what male kin groups do. But systematic, protracted,
                                deliberate, and cooperative brutal killings of every male in a neighboring
                                community, plus genocidal and frequent cannibalistic murder of many of their
                                offspring, followed by usurpation of the males' mates and annexation of part
                                or all of the losers' territory, matches or exceeds the worst that humans do
                                when they wage war.

                                "Wild chimps reveal the natural contexts of territoriality, war, male
                                cooperation, solidarity and sharing, nepotism, sexism, xenophobia,
                                infanticide, murder, cannibalism, polygyny, and mating competition between
                                kin groups of males -- behaviors that have evolved through sexual selection.
                                Also significant is the fact that none of these apes learned these violent
                                behaviors by watching TV or by being victims of socioeconomic handicaps --
                                poor schools, broken homes, bad fathers, illegal drugs, easy weapons, or any
                                other sociological condition. Nor were these apes spurred to war by any
                                political, religious, or economic ideology or by the rhetoric of an insane
                                demagogue. They also were not seeking an 'identity' or buckling under peer
                                pressure. Instead, they were obeying instincts, coded in the male psyche,
                                dictating that they must win against other males." [p. 176]

                                "The central 'truth' of sociologists is that nature, especially that of
                                humankind, is nice and that people are designed to do things that, all in
                                all, favor the survival of their species. Hence people could never be
                                equipped by nature with instincts to kill other people. This idea comes
                                from the Bambi school of biology, a Disneyesque vision of nature as a
                                collection of moralistic and altruistic creatures. It admires nature for
                                its harmony and beauty of form and for its apparent 'balance' or even
                                cooperativeness. It admires the deer for its beauty and fleetness, and it
                                grudgingly admires the lion for its power and nobility of form. If anything
                                is really wrong with us, it explains, it is a sociocultural problem that we
                                can fix by resocializing people. It is not a biological problem.

                                "Nature, however, is actually a dynamic state of recurring strife of
                                relentless competition, dedicated predators and parasites, and selfish
                                defense. The deer owes its beauty and fleetness to predators such as
                                mountain lions, which kill the clumsiest and slowest deer first; to
                                competitors for food; and to competition between males to mate. Without
                                predators, deer would not only lack fleetness; they would lack legs
                                altogether. They would be slugs oozing from one plant to another. Yet even
                                if these deer-slugs were the only animals out there, natural selection would
                                favor the evolution of faster and more aggressive deer-slugs and would favor
                                any other trait that made them superior competitors against each other.
                                This would include the killing of one deer-slug by another in situations
                                where it boiled down to kill or die.

                                "Moreover, the power and noble visage of the lion (or of the family cat or
                                dog, for that matter) rest entirely on natural selection having shaped not
                                only a fleet predator and efficient killing machine but also a very violent
                                competitor against its own kind in situations where the options were
                                narrowed to exclude or kill, or else kill to survive or reproduce." [p. 179]
                              • Lawrence B. Crowell
                                ... What I am saying is that things could have been a whole lot worse. In the whole craziness of the cold war we twice brushed with world war. The first was
                                Message 15 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 08:03 PM 3/1/01 -0000, weaseldog2001@... wrote:
                                  >I can see how the downfall of the Soviet Empire was good for the US
                                  >and a few other nations, but who would benefit from the downfall of
                                  >all nations?
                                  >

                                  What I am saying is that things could have been a whole lot worse. In the
                                  whole craziness of the cold war we twice brushed with world war. The first
                                  was in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis (a situation that was the result
                                  of utter stupidity on both sides), and in 1991 when the USSR fell apart. I
                                  worked within the intelligence community at that time in signals and
                                  encription/decription, and from the inside things were frankly quite nerve
                                  racking when that all went down.

                                  My view of the universe is that it is highly stochastic (quantum mechanics,
                                  statistical mechanics, chaos theory). Jay can not accurately state that a
                                  Hitler is inevitable. He can impose a probability distribution where that
                                  instantiation has some probability, and then from this Bayesian prior make
                                  certain statements about possibilities in the future. I am not stating
                                  that Jay's future assessment is wrong, in fact I must sadly report I find
                                  it likely to be maybe 50% probable or more, but at this time it is just
                                  that: a probable future event and not a certainty.

                                  Lawrence B. Crowell



                                  For one moment your mind was open to an infinite number of possibilities.
                                  The exploration that awaits you is ... charting the unknown possibilities
                                  of existence.
                                  Q on Star Trek
                                • weaseldog2001@yahoo.com
                                  I see your perspective. My perspective is from the point of view that the Soviet Empire has not finished falling. That they have a ways to go yet. The US
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I see your perspective. My perspective is from the point of view that
                                    the Soviet Empire has not finished falling. That they have a ways to
                                    go yet. The US and other nations have helped cushion them in the
                                    interest of national security. When we let loose the line, they'll
                                    fall further.

                                    All that is required to get another Hitler type, is for people to get
                                    hungry and believe someone who tells lies. A Hitler type is a
                                    pathological liar, who preys on the wants and needs of the people.

                                    Had Germany not been faced with diminishing resources, it is very
                                    possible that the death camps would never have been built. It was
                                    only the diminishing resources and the need to please the voters, that
                                    led to building the death camps. A leader who will do anything and
                                    tell any lie, in order to please the public, is the most dangerous
                                    type to have in hard times, but the kind that people are most likely
                                    to vote for. These tend to be very pleasing people, face to face.

                                    Jack Dingler

                                    --- In energyresources@y..., "Lawrence B. Crowell" <lcrowell@s...>
                                    wrote:
                                    > At 08:03 PM 3/1/01 -0000, weaseldog2001@y... wrote:
                                    > >I can see how the downfall of the Soviet Empire was good for the US
                                    > >and a few other nations, but who would benefit from the downfall of
                                    > >all nations?
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > What I am saying is that things could have been a whole lot worse.
                                    In the
                                    > whole craziness of the cold war we twice brushed with world war.
                                    The first
                                    > was in 1962 with the Cuban missile crisis (a situation that was the
                                    result
                                    > of utter stupidity on both sides), and in 1991 when the USSR fell
                                    apart. I
                                    > worked within the intelligence community at that time in signals and
                                    > encription/decription, and from the inside things were frankly quite
                                    nerve
                                    > racking when that all went down.
                                    >
                                    > My view of the universe is that it is highly stochastic (quantum
                                    mechanics,
                                    > statistical mechanics, chaos theory). Jay can not accurately state
                                    that a
                                    > Hitler is inevitable. He can impose a probability distribution
                                    where that
                                    > instantiation has some probability, and then from this Bayesian
                                    prior make
                                    > certain statements about possibilities in the future. I am not
                                    stating
                                    > that Jay's future assessment is wrong, in fact I must sadly report I
                                    find
                                    > it likely to be maybe 50% probable or more, but at this time it is
                                    just
                                    > that: a probable future event and not a certainty.
                                    >
                                    > Lawrence B. Crowell
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > For one moment your mind was open to an infinite number of
                                    possibilities.
                                    > The exploration that awaits you is ... charting the unknown
                                    possibilities
                                    > of existence.
                                    > Q on Star Trek
                                  • solartex@webtv.net
                                    Jay Hanson, you are hard to please. Let s try a bigger picture: For 3 million years - up until the late 1700s, humankind grew to over 700 millon, with almost
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Jay Hanson, you are hard to please. Let's try a bigger picture:
                                      For 3 million years - up until the late 1700s, humankind grew to
                                      over 700 millon, with almost no coal or oil. Then we grew like crazy. At
                                      over 6 billion today, obviously we must scale back sharply to do without
                                      oil. It will be hard to do, after 200 years of a very rich "free lunch"
                                      of fossil fuels. Nobody denies that life without them will be
                                      challenging, but could we have so utterly lost our 3 million year coping
                                      skills in just 200 years!? Answer, please!
                                      Many of us know we can reduce everything - numbers, individual
                                      size, the sprawl of food production, habitat and asphalt. It will be
                                      hard for some, less hard for others. Some of us look at it as a test, to
                                      use what we learned during our fat, free-lunch years. Will we ever have
                                      it so fat again? Probably not, but we might as well try to do as best we
                                      can. What have we got to lose? That is a _plausible scenario_, is it
                                      not? With many positive spinoffs? All the political, social and
                                      technological instututions (and communications!)are in place. All that
                                      is lacking is a massive expression of public will. Can you deny that,
                                      Jay?
                                      It would be helpful if brains like yours were thinking of solutions
                                      instead of repeating "No you can't,No you can't!" demanding detailed
                                      blueprints and
                                      over and over invoking the ghost of Adolf Hitler!
                                      ( ... a book from the 1970s that might satisfy your requirements,
                                      called
                                      _Muddling Toward Fugality_ by geologist Warren Johnson.)
                                      Meanwhile, all of us have more important work to do than moving
                                      you off your Velikovskyan perch. I respect and admire you, Jay, but your
                                      feet seem to be in concrete, up there. Newton
                                    • weaseldog2001@yahoo.com
                                      I agree that this is difficult to explain. Perhaps their rigid social and political order made it easier to accomplish this? I would like to understand it
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        I agree that this is difficult to explain. Perhaps their rigid social
                                        and political order made it easier to accomplish this? I would like
                                        to understand it better.

                                        I don't know how the world could break down peaceably. And as I've
                                        said, I'm not certain the ex-Soviets have seen the worst yet.

                                        Jack Dingler

                                        --- In energyresources@y..., "Lawrence B. Crowell" <lcrowell@s...>
                                        wrote:
                                        > At 05:58 AM 3/1/01 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
                                        > >>In one sense Jay's stance tends to be overly deterministic. Jay's
                                        > >>statement amounts to a sort of fatalism: we are destined to do
                                        such and
                                        > >>such or to experience this or that. There are rather few cases in
                                        nature
                                        > >
                                        > >No, it's not "fatalism". No one on this list has posted a
                                        plausible
                                        > >scenario -- or any scenario for that matter -- showing how anarchy
                                        and
                                        > >Hitler could be avoided.
                                        > >
                                        > >If you have a plausible scenario, let's hear it. But don't insult
                                        me by
                                        > >asking me to subscribe to your childish belief system.
                                        > >
                                        > >Jay -- www.dieoff.com
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > Frankly, I have no plan. A peacable transition may simply occur on
                                        its own
                                        > without any "master plan." One of the remarkable things that did
                                        recently
                                        > occur is that the Soviet Union ended without some KGB group or other
                                        > fanatics taking over and threatening the whole world. After all a
                                        > sufficiently desparate group eager to hold onto power could have
                                        held the
                                        > whole world hostage with thousands of nuclear missiles.
                                        >
                                        > Lawrence B. Crowell
                                        >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
                                        > >Drop me a note at t1r@b...
                                        > >
                                        > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        > >
                                        >
                                        > For one moment your mind was open to an infinite number of
                                        possibilities.
                                        > The exploration that awaits you is ... charting the unknown
                                        possibilities
                                        > of existence.
                                        > Q on Star Trek
                                      • Jay Hanson
                                        ... There is no such thing as 3 million year comping skills . Read some of the dozens of evolutionary psychology books I have recommended. Over and out. Jay
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          >For 3 million years - up until the late 1700s, humankind grew to
                                          >over 700 millon, with almost no coal or oil. Then we grew like crazy. At
                                          >over 6 billion today, obviously we must scale back sharply to do without
                                          >oil. It will be hard to do, after 200 years of a very rich "free lunch"
                                          >of fossil fuels. Nobody denies that life without them will be
                                          >challenging, but could we have so utterly lost our 3 million year coping
                                          >skills in just 200 years!? Answer, please!

                                          There is no such thing as "3 million year comping skills". Read some of the
                                          dozens of evolutionary psychology books I have recommended. Over and out.

                                          Jay
                                        • Perry Arnett
                                          Nobody denies that life without them will be ... our 3 million year coping ... allow me, please... a quick look at present Sierra Leone, Angola, or Nigeria
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Nobody denies that life without them will be
                                            > challenging, but could we have so utterly lost
                                            our 3 million year coping
                                            > skills in just 200 years!? Answer, please!

                                            allow me, please...

                                            a quick look at present Sierra Leone, Angola, or
                                            Nigeria should be a self-evident answer to your
                                            question;
                                            just transfer that behavior to Wall Street when
                                            the lights go out - for good.

                                            as long as Jay (the 2" x 4") keeps hitting people
                                            between the eyes, he's doin' alright

                                            Perry in Utah


                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: <solartex@...>
                                            To: <energyresources@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Cc: <jay@...>
                                            Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 16:42
                                            Subject: RE: [energyresources] It's All a Matter
                                            of Interpretation


                                            > Jay Hanson, you are hard to please. Let's try a
                                            bigger picture:
                                            > For 3 million years - up until the late
                                            1700s, humankind grew to
                                            > over 700 millon, with almost no coal or oil.
                                            Then we grew like crazy. At
                                            > over 6 billion today, obviously we must scale
                                            back sharply to do without
                                            > oil. It will be hard to do, after 200 years of a
                                            very rich "free lunch"
                                            > of fossil fuels. Nobody denies that life without
                                            them will be challenging, but could we have so
                                            utterly lost our 3 million year coping
                                            > skills in just 200 years!? Answer, please!
                                            > Many of us know we can reduce everything -
                                            numbers, individual
                                            > size, the sprawl of food production, habitat and
                                            asphalt. It will be
                                            > hard for some, less hard for others. Some of us
                                            look at it as a test, to
                                            > use what we learned during our fat, free-lunch
                                            years. Will we ever have
                                            > it so fat again? Probably not, but we might as
                                            well try to do as best we
                                            > can. What have we got to lose? That is a
                                            _plausible scenario_, is it
                                            > not? With many positive spinoffs? All the
                                            political, social and
                                            > technological instututions (and
                                            communications!)are in place. All that
                                            > is lacking is a massive expression of public
                                            will. Can you deny that,
                                            > Jay?
                                            > It would be helpful if brains like yours
                                            were thinking of solutions
                                            > instead of repeating "No you can't,No you
                                            can't!" demanding detailed
                                            > blueprints and
                                            > over and over invoking the ghost of Adolf
                                            Hitler!
                                            > ( ... a book from the 1970s that might
                                            satisfy your requirements,
                                            > called
                                            > _Muddling Toward Fugality_ by geologist Warren
                                            Johnson.)
                                            > Meanwhile, all of us have more important
                                            work to do than moving
                                            > you off your Velikovskyan perch. I respect and
                                            admire you, Jay, but your
                                            > feet seem to be in concrete, up there.
                                            Newton
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            > Your message didn't show up on the list?
                                            Complaints or compliments?
                                            > Drop me a note at t1r@...
                                            >
                                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                            http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            >
                                            >
                                          • weaseldog2001@yahoo.com
                                            My grandparents grew up during the depression. I got to know many people who had the same outlook they did. They were self sufficient, disliked having anyone
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              My grandparents grew up during the depression. I got to know many
                                              people who had the same outlook they did. They were self sufficient,
                                              disliked having anyone do anything for them, and were every willing to
                                              do anything that had to be done, when it had to be done. They told
                                              many stories about how hard their grandparents lives were. And told
                                              us many times how good things had become. Said it with pride.

                                              I don't know anyone like them today. 200 years is long enough to
                                              forget.

                                              Jack Dingler

                                              --- In energyresources@y..., solartex@w... wrote:
                                              > Jay Hanson, you are hard to please. Let's try a bigger picture:
                                              > For 3 million years - up until the late 1700s, humankind grew
                                              to
                                              > over 700 millon, with almost no coal or oil. Then we grew like
                                              crazy. At
                                              > over 6 billion today, obviously we must scale back sharply to do
                                              without
                                              > oil. It will be hard to do, after 200 years of a very rich "free
                                              lunch"
                                              > of fossil fuels. Nobody denies that life without them will be
                                              > challenging, but could we have so utterly lost our 3 million year
                                              coping
                                              > skills in just 200 years!? Answer, please!
                                              > Many of us know we can reduce everything - numbers, individual
                                              > size, the sprawl of food production, habitat and asphalt. It will be
                                              > hard for some, less hard for others. Some of us look at it as a
                                              test, to
                                              > use what we learned during our fat, free-lunch years. Will we ever
                                              have
                                              > it so fat again? Probably not, but we might as well try to do as
                                              best we
                                              > can. What have we got to lose? That is a _plausible scenario_, is
                                              it
                                              > not? With many positive spinoffs? All the political, social and
                                              > technological instututions (and communications!)are in place. All
                                              that
                                              > is lacking is a massive expression of public will. Can you deny
                                              that,
                                              > Jay?
                                              > It would be helpful if brains like yours were thinking of
                                              solutions
                                              > instead of repeating "No you can't,No you can't!" demanding
                                              detailed
                                              > blueprints and
                                              > over and over invoking the ghost of Adolf Hitler!
                                              > ( ... a book from the 1970s that might satisfy your requirements,
                                              > called
                                              > _Muddling Toward Fugality_ by geologist Warren Johnson.)
                                              > Meanwhile, all of us have more important work to do than
                                              moving
                                              > you off your Velikovskyan perch. I respect and admire you, Jay, but
                                              your
                                              > feet seem to be in concrete, up there. Newton
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > >Dear Jay Hanson, Over and over again, versions of a "plausible
                                              > >scenario" for using enough incoming solar energy for living within
                                              > >deeply reduced, yet reasonable, standards of living have been
                                              > >proposed here.
                                              >
                                              > By "plausible scenario" I mean a believable, scientifically
                                              consistent,
                                              > step-by-step plan (including political, economic, technical, and
                                              biophysical
                                              > assumptions), to get from where we are today, to a sustainable
                                              society
                                              > without massive death and suffering along the way.
                                              >
                                              > No one on this list has provided such a scenario. I have never hear
                                              of one.
                                              > Until shown otherwise, I have no alternative but to conclude such a
                                              scenario
                                              > is literally impossible.
                                              >
                                              > What I DO get is Alfred E. Newman throwing some chunk of hardware at
                                              me and
                                              > telling me to have faith that everything else will be just fine
                                              because
                                              > people are naturally "nice" to each other. Not only is such a
                                              "nice" view
                                              > against the science, it's against my personal political experience,
                                              and even
                                              > against a casual sampling of the news:
                                              >
                                              > "More than 75 people have been slaughtered -- some beheaded and
                                              their heads
                                              > carried around -- in savage ethnic bloodshed on Indonesia's portion
                                              of
                                              > Borneo island, local officials and media said today."
                                              >
                                              > What happened 100 years ago? Why did 100 million people die untimely
                                              deaths
                                              > in the last 100 years? "The origins of the cataclysm lay in the
                                              utopian
                                              > endeavor of economic liberalism to set up a self-regulating market
                                              system."
                                              >
                                              > The key word here is "utopian" 1. ideal: belonging to or typical of
                                              an ideal
                                              > perfect state or place. People are genetically biased to ignore the
                                              "real
                                              > world" and believe in the "ideal" because it make the "feel good".
                                              >
                                              > That's what caused the "cataclysm" 100 years ago: people were unable
                                              to rise
                                              > above their genetic programming and see the world for what it really
                                              is --
                                              > and that's why we are at a "dead end" today.
                                              >
                                              > If the global Plutocrats (whomever they are) are unable to face the
                                              reality
                                              > of our present crisis, then economic chaos, political anarchy, and
                                              new
                                              > incarnations of Hitler become inevitable.
                                              >
                                              > Jay -- www.dieoff.com
                                              > ------------------------------
                                              > p. 165, THE DARK SIDE OF MAN: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence,
                                              by
                                              > Michael P. Ghiglieri; Perseus, 1999;
                                              > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/073820076X
                                              >
                                              > "Chimp social structure would be unique were it not for humans
                                              acting
                                              > similarly. This is no coincidence. By most taxonomic criteria,
                                              chimps and
                                              > humans are sibling species. Overall, chimp society is not only
                                              extremely
                                              > sexist -- with all adult males dominant over females -- but also
                                              xenophobic
                                              > to the extent of killing all alien males, many infants, and some old
                                              females
                                              > who enter their territory. To some readers, my use of the word war
                                              may seem
                                              > too strong to describe what male kin groups do. But systematic,
                                              protracted,
                                              > deliberate, and cooperative brutal killings of every male in a
                                              neighboring
                                              > community, plus genocidal and frequent cannibalistic murder of many
                                              of their
                                              > offspring, followed by usurpation of the males' mates and annexation
                                              of part
                                              > or all of the losers' territory, matches or exceeds the worst that
                                              humans do
                                              > when they wage war.
                                              >
                                              > "Wild chimps reveal the natural contexts of territoriality, war,
                                              male
                                              > cooperation, solidarity and sharing, nepotism, sexism, xenophobia,
                                              > infanticide, murder, cannibalism, polygyny, and mating competition
                                              between
                                              > kin groups of males -- behaviors that have evolved through sexual
                                              selection.
                                              > Also significant is the fact that none of these apes learned these
                                              violent
                                              > behaviors by watching TV or by being victims of socioeconomic
                                              handicaps --
                                              > poor schools, broken homes, bad fathers, illegal drugs, easy
                                              weapons, or any
                                              > other sociological condition. Nor were these apes spurred to war by
                                              any
                                              > political, religious, or economic ideology or by the rhetoric of an
                                              insane
                                              > demagogue. They also were not seeking an 'identity' or buckling
                                              under peer
                                              > pressure. Instead, they were obeying instincts, coded in the male
                                              psyche,
                                              > dictating that they must win against other males." [p. 176]
                                              >
                                              > "The central 'truth' of sociologists is that nature, especially that
                                              of
                                              > humankind, is nice and that people are designed to do things that,
                                              all in
                                              > all, favor the survival of their species. Hence people could never
                                              be
                                              > equipped by nature with instincts to kill other people. This idea
                                              comes
                                              > from the Bambi school of biology, a Disneyesque vision of nature as
                                              a
                                              > collection of moralistic and altruistic creatures. It admires
                                              nature for
                                              > its harmony and beauty of form and for its apparent 'balance' or
                                              even
                                              > cooperativeness. It admires the deer for its beauty and fleetness,
                                              and it
                                              > grudgingly admires the lion for its power and nobility of form. If
                                              anything
                                              > is really wrong with us, it explains, it is a sociocultural problem
                                              that we
                                              > can fix by resocializing people. It is not a biological problem.
                                              >
                                              > "Nature, however, is actually a dynamic state of recurring strife of
                                              > relentless competition, dedicated predators and parasites, and
                                              selfish
                                              > defense. The deer owes its beauty and fleetness to predators such
                                              as
                                              > mountain lions, which kill the clumsiest and slowest deer first; to
                                              > competitors for food; and to competition between males to mate.
                                              Without
                                              > predators, deer would not only lack fleetness; they would lack legs
                                              > altogether. They would be slugs oozing from one plant to another.
                                              Yet even
                                              > if these deer-slugs were the only animals out there, natural
                                              selection would
                                              > favor the evolution of faster and more aggressive deer-slugs and
                                              would favor
                                              > any other trait that made them superior competitors against each
                                              other.
                                              > This would include the killing of one deer-slug by another in
                                              situations
                                              > where it boiled down to kill or die.
                                              >
                                              > "Moreover, the power and noble visage of the lion (or of the family
                                              cat or
                                              > dog, for that matter) rest entirely on natural selection having
                                              shaped not
                                              > only a fleet predator and efficient killing machine but also a very
                                              violent
                                              > competitor against its own kind in situations where the options were
                                              > narrowed to exclude or kill, or else kill to survive or reproduce."
                                              [p. 179]
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or compliments?
                                              > Drop me a note at t1r@b...
                                              >
                                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                              http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                            • Tom Robertson
                                              In the following, Newton ask Jay to give his blessing to the appropriate alternatives. I don t know one way or the other about Carson, but some of us are
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                In the following, Newton ask Jay to give his blessing to "the appropriate
                                                alternatives."

                                                I don't know one way or the other about Carson, but some of us are
                                                plumb full of the social wish myths conferred by Schumacher,
                                                Henderson, and Lovins.

                                                All I know at this time, and being somewhat expert in the area,
                                                is that once your leave Campbell/Laherrère and the other fossil
                                                fuel experts, the world of sure knowledge about what works in the
                                                energy arena becomes very foggy. And as you come down the
                                                concentration curve, toward the solar PV and ethanols, things
                                                really get uncertain.

                                                The bottom line is that I will not speak for Jay, but I sure as
                                                whatever am not in the "blessing business." I simply want to know
                                                what is most likely to work.

                                                It ain't rocket science, simply good personal intellectual
                                                hygiene.

                                                Tom Robertson

                                                -----Original Message-----
                                                From: solartex@... [mailto:solartex@...]
                                                Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 1:51 PM
                                                To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                                                Subject: RE: [energyresources] It's All a Matter of
                                                Interpretation


                                                Dear Jay Hanson, Over and over again, versions of a "plausible
                                                scenario" for using enough incoming solar energy for living
                                                within
                                                deeply reduced, yet reasonable,
                                                standards of living have been proposed here. Loose talk of
                                                "anarchy" and
                                                "Hitler" drown out many such scenarios. Of those that break
                                                through,
                                                there are two brick walls they hit:
                                                (a) you have a bully pulpit, believe deeply in your
                                                "dieoff"
                                                predictions and keep grinding away, defending them, and
                                                (b) many
                                                will not accept reductions in lving standards. The TV-trained
                                                consumer
                                                is convinced that she/he is entitled to limitless energy and
                                                anyone
                                                suggesting they do not have such rights are characterised as the
                                                enemy,
                                                or "tree-huggers."
                                                Still, many of us have studied deeply the alternative
                                                visions of
                                                the likes of Carson, Schumacher, Henderson, Lovins and even,
                                                more
                                                recently, the Odums, and we see comfortable soft landings ahead.
                                                Different, but comfortable, with more rational habitats, smaller,
                                                slower
                                                cars and mass transit, vegetarianism and alternative energy
                                                production
                                                using proven, labor-intensive, locale-specific, diffuse solar
                                                technologies. These are not "childish belief systems." but
                                                widely-held
                                                views and practices proven in the field.
                                                So it will not be number-studded fact sheets that point the
                                                way to
                                                simplified living with incoming solar energy. They will be common
                                                sense,
                                                localized shifts that anyone, even you, Jay, can understand. Take
                                                some
                                                time to look at these proposals. There are thousands of them.
                                                We deeply appreciate your calling attention to the
                                                depletion of
                                                oil, etc. So, having done that, would you please give the
                                                appropriate
                                                alternatives your blessing?
                                                Thank you.
                                                Newton SanAntonio/Houston


                                                Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or
                                                compliments?
                                                Drop me a note at t1r@...

                                                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                              • Tom Robertson
                                                Nor is make a wish Tinkerbelle Tom Robertson ... From: weaseldog2001@yahoo.com [mailto:weaseldog2001@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:38 PM To:
                                                Message 23 of 28 , Mar 1, 2001
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Nor is "make a wish" Tinkerbelle

                                                  Tom Robertson

                                                  -----Original Message-----
                                                  From: weaseldog2001@... [mailto:weaseldog2001@...]
                                                  Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 2:38 PM
                                                  To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
                                                  Subject: [energyresources] Re: It's All a Matter of
                                                  Interpretation


                                                  And I though Judy Garland was dead.

                                                  Jack Dingler

                                                  --- In energyresources@y..., solartex@w... wrote:
                                                  > Dear Jay Hanson, Over and over again, versions of a "plausible
                                                  > scenario" for using enough incoming solar energy for living
                                                  within
                                                  > deeply reduced, yet reasonable,
                                                  > standards of living have been proposed here. Loose talk of
                                                  "anarchy"
                                                  and
                                                  > "Hitler" drown out many such scenarios. Of those that break
                                                  through,
                                                  > there are two brick walls they hit:
                                                  > (a) you have a bully pulpit, believe deeply in your
                                                  "dieoff"
                                                  > predictions and keep grinding away, defending them, and
                                                  (b)
                                                  many
                                                  > will not accept reductions in lving standards. The TV-trained
                                                  consumer
                                                  > is convinced that she/he is entitled to limitless energy and
                                                  anyone
                                                  > suggesting they do not have such rights are characterised as
                                                  the
                                                  enemy,
                                                  > or "tree-huggers."
                                                  > Still, many of us have studied deeply the alternative
                                                  visions
                                                  of
                                                  > the likes of Carson, Schumacher, Henderson, Lovins and even,
                                                  more
                                                  > recently, the Odums, and we see comfortable soft landings
                                                  ahead.
                                                  > Different, but comfortable, with more rational habitats,
                                                  smaller,
                                                  slower
                                                  > cars and mass transit, vegetarianism and alternative energy
                                                  production
                                                  > using proven, labor-intensive, locale-specific, diffuse solar
                                                  > technologies. These are not "childish belief systems." but
                                                  widely-held
                                                  > views and practices proven in the field.
                                                  > So it will not be number-studded fact sheets that point
                                                  the way
                                                  to
                                                  > simplified living with incoming solar energy. They will be
                                                  common
                                                  sense,
                                                  > localized shifts that anyone, even you, Jay, can understand.
                                                  Take
                                                  some
                                                  > time to look at these proposals. There are thousands of them.
                                                  > We deeply appreciate your calling attention to the
                                                  depletion
                                                  of
                                                  > oil, etc. So, having done that, would you please give the
                                                  appropriate
                                                  > alternatives your blessing?
                                                  > Thank you.
                                                  > Newton SanAntonio/Houston
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > >In one sense Jay's stance tends to be overly deterministic.
                                                  Jay's
                                                  > >statement amounts to a sort of fatalism: we are destined to do
                                                  such
                                                  and
                                                  > >such or to experience this or that. There are rather few
                                                  cases in
                                                  nature
                                                  >
                                                  > No, it's not "fatalism". No one on this list has posted a
                                                  plausible
                                                  > scenario -- or any scenario for that matter -- showing how
                                                  anarchy
                                                  and
                                                  > Hitler could be avoided.
                                                  >
                                                  > If you have a plausible scenario, let's hear it. But don't
                                                  insult me
                                                  by
                                                  > asking me to subscribe to your childish belief system.
                                                  >
                                                  > Jay -- www.dieoff.com
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or
                                                  compliments?
                                                  > Drop me a note at t1r@b...
                                                  >
                                                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



                                                  Your message didn't show up on the list? Complaints or
                                                  compliments?
                                                  Drop me a note at t1r@...

                                                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                                  http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                                • Yves Bajard
                                                  Dear colleagues: At 04:23 PM 28/02/01 -1000, Jay Hanson , in response to someone s (I cannot keep track of who it was) profession of faith as a liberal,
                                                  Message 24 of 28 , Mar 2, 2001
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Dear colleagues:

                                                    At 04:23 PM 28/02/01 -1000, Jay Hanson , in response to someone's (I cannot
                                                    keep track of who it was) profession of faith as a liberal, provided a
                                                    copy of a paper by .Elizabeth Martinez and Arnoldo Garcia, titled "What is
                                                    "Neo-Liberalism"? A Brief Definition Updated: February 26th, 2000.

                                                    With all due respect to Jay and the persons who wrote this paper, I would
                                                    propose that this paper does not provide a definition of "neo-liberalism",
                                                    but a description of some of its effects on society.

                                                    I am quite ready to provide a definition, would you be interested, that
                                                    would focus on what it is rather than what it results in.. Yet, thsi
                                                    discussion group's purpose is not a discussion of economics, but of energy
                                                    issues.

                                                    Therefore, I invite also interested people to join, if they want
                                                    a discussion group on the subject we are just opening at
                                                    ncfsecon@yahoogroups.com

                                                    For clarity, I append below the text of the initial invitation:

                                                    Best regards


                                                    Yves Bajard
                                                    ============================================================================================
                                                    Description This group aims at giving to people concerned with the
                                                    uncertainty that pervades our vision of the future, a place where they
                                                    can, jointly with others, explore how and why, in spite of the growing
                                                    stress society is both creating and faced with, the socio-economic system
                                                    providing goods and services to the persons who can afford them, is
                                                    deadlocked into a probably very destructive position. They will also be
                                                    given a chance to examine the role of "leverage-holders" and their cadre,
                                                    down to the lowest managers, most of whom may be unaware of the probable
                                                    effects of what they do and of how they do it. This will address also the
                                                    issue of wants, needs, and ways to cater to them, based on disputable
                                                    premises that are not really put into question. More about the theme of
                                                    this group is provided in
                                                    http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/ncfs/econ.html. (not yet on the Web)


                                                    The group's findings and conclusions will be summarized on the Web at
                                                    <http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/problematique/econ.html>, and used through
                                                    the whole process of learning about threats to our common future and ways
                                                    to manage them.

                                                    Learning jointly about this subject and also learning about ways to apply
                                                    the findings to current global problematique (see
                                                    <http://www.islandnet.com/~ncfs/problematique/global_problematique.html>)
                                                    is the focus of this group.

                                                    Participants will practise and learn if need be, methods of complex
                                                    thinking, amplified logic,etc.., within a context of expanded scientific
                                                    thinking. This group's rule is to learn in a partnership of equals, as part
                                                    of several groups, all working within the general framework of the global

                                                    Persons of no other qualifications than common sense and concern for the
                                                    common good are invited to join by applying to
                                                    <ncfsecon-subscribe@egroups.com> and also by sending to <ncfs@...> an
                                                    outline of their background and possible contribution to the group.
                                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.