Comments on: Answering our Questions by Concrete Actions

By: Jones

Jones — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:47:23 +0000

I think Crocus has hit the nail on the head. Her ideas are also expressed by Richard Heinberg in ‘Powerdown’, a book about the choices and prospects we will face in a post-carbon world. Heinberg’s argument is partly based on the the assumption that collapse, in some form, is inevitable, and quite natural. However, the severity of the collapse (whether it is relatively quick and chaotic, or slow and ordered), is something that we can control.
He argues that we will continually face energy crises as oil prices continue to soar and supplies continue to diminish. Since our economy is almost entirely dependent on fossil-fuels, it is imperative that we make the necessary steps now to ease into the coming fossil-fuel shortage (as opposed to fly into it blind and unprepared).
Currently we are pushing for economic growth and demanding ever more amounts of energy, while slowly investing insufficient amounts in ‘renewable’ sources of energy. Furthermore, it is a rare event indeed, when a policy-maker suggests reducing the scale of the economy, and limiting our outrageous consumption patterns.
So the question remains: how do we prepare for foreseeable collapses, so that extreme crises are avoided?

By: crocus

crocus — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 19:11:52 +0000

â€œCan we escape the seemingly inescapable circle of collapses followed by reconstructions if we can foresee the factors that will most likely trigger a collapse?â€ I would argue that the answer to this question is no. I donâ€t think that we can escape the cycle as there will always be change, adaptation, collapse, reconstruction etc. I think it is possible to change our behaviour to extend the time it takes to reach collapse or alter our behaviour to facilitate certain collapses and avoid others. For example, perhaps to avoid major environmental collapse, we can facilitate a breakdown and restructuring of the current management frameworks that have led to the risk of environmental collapse. In this way we can use smaller breakdowns to abate one large, potentially catastrophic, collapse. These ideas are evident in Buzz Hollingâ€s paper that we read early on in the semester about panarchies and the adaptive cycle and, as Culture Kid mentioned, Thomas Homer-Dixon also touches on them. I donâ€t think that anyone would like to avoid collapse and re-genesis altogether, after all change is essential for progress and improvement. Rather it is the way that we meet future challenges and change our behaviours that will determine what will stand and what will fall.

By: Culture Kid

Culture Kid — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:35:58 +0000

The question, “Can we then restructure not to have to reconstruct?” is an important one. Thomas Homer-Dixon addressed the question in his book-plugging seminar earlier in the semester. In fact, his book, The Upside of Down, examines the potential for human creativity in societal reconfiguration prior to catastrophe (implying that we should learn from our histories). However, there are still people who do NOT adhere to the notion that climate change is happening. And if people will not acknowledge global change, how is societal restructuring in preparation for – and not in response to – disaster even possible? Environmental risk perception tells us that people will not act to preserve the environment if they do not recognize a threat to it. Thus if there is no collective collusion in the fact of global change, reformation of policies and livelihoods prior to catastrophe becomes almost impossible