Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Joe Bageant: The Stockholm Syndrome of the Soul

This interview with Joe Bageant comes from episode 149 of the C-Realm Podcast and was ably and kindly transcribed by Carol B.

KMO: You are listening to the C-Realm podcast. I am your host, KMO, and I’m joined here in the C-Realm by Joe Bageant. He is the author of a book called ‘Deer Hunting with Jesus’ and he is also somebody with one foot in our so-called industrialized First World, and another foot in a happier, more relaxed, and more peaceful so-called Third World, or what Albert Bates calls the Two-Thirds World.

Joe Bageant, welcome to the C-Realm podcast.

Joe: Well, hello, KMO. Good to be here.

KMO: And Joe, you are in the United States right now, but it’s not a place where you spend a lot of time. You spend most of your time in Belize, is that right?

Joe: Yes, it works out to about seven or eight months a year. It varies. I never get more than three or four in a row, because the book business, for one thing, brings you back. If you’re writing about America, you get a perspective from being outside of it, but you also have to be there with the people you’re writing about. So it’s a little of both, but I consider myself a resident of Belize, because I’m traveling a lot when I’m here.

KMO: Right. So when you’re here in the States, you’re all over the place, but when you’re in Belize, you’ve actually got some roots.

Joe: To the degree that I care about roots anymore. I don’t really care much to own anything. I don’t own property there or anything. I build cabanas for other people, the people that live in the various areas there, and they own them. They have a place for their kids to grow up and expand, or sometimes they rent them to tourists, and then when I come back, I rent from them. So I really gave up on home ownership. I didn’t want to do it anymore, especially not in the Third World. I don’t want to own their property. There’s free medical care; I pay for mine. I’m not there to rip anybody off. I’m just there to try to learn to be a human being.

KMO: Well, that’s an admirable goal. You know, I remember reading something from John Perry Barlow a few years ago back, where he had just spent a length of time in Brazil, and he had the social psychological vibe of Brazil, and he got on a plane and he came back to the U.S. (and this was shortly after 9/11). He went from this open, happy, balanced, psychological, social energy to the security and the regimented order of Customs, as you come into the U.S. by plane, and I know you’ve been through that recently. If you would, say a little bit about that, just what it feels like.

Joe: Well, I’m in a little bit of a unique position, since I’ve chosen to see the world as the rest of the world sees it, and not as Americans necessarily, the great hallucination we live under here. So coming back frequently like that makes me see, oh, I can see the hardening, the tension in the air; harden, and slack, and harden. So, you know, we all went to the United States shoeless, with proper supplication to the Fatherland.

But I can feel it in the air, and it’s not just the airports. Airports are horrible places anyway. But just someone who I’ve seen six months ago, even my wife, you can see the various anxieties, tensions, different shapes and flavors of it that vary over the year as what I call the Hologram broadcasts its message of fear and insecurity. It’s not subtle, but it’s subtle to Americans. They can’t perceive the capitalist atmosphere that they’re bathed in. They’re broadcast the signal directly to their brain all day long in every sign. Not just advertising: the lifestyle, the thin commercial veneer over everything, shiny and plastic and all.

You can’t see it. It’s like if you ask the goldfish the main characteristic of its environment, it would never say “water,” and that’s the way people are in America. They have no idea how their consciousness has been mutated by a hundred years of capitalism and the last thirty years of intense technology applied to that. So I believe that there’s these kind of collective neurological shifts that you can tell, and it’s not just me. Everybody I know, particularly the gringos, who understand the United States and lived here, and grew up here. We all say, “What did you feel?” And we’re all in agreement. We may have different terms for it, but we can feel the change in the atmosphere.

KMO: You mention the goldfish in the bowl, and I’m thinking of the old saw about the frog in the pan of water that’s heating up to boil and if that frog were to jump out, or if you were boiling two frogs, and one frog jumped out for a bit and then jumped back in. The other frog, he’s used to it; he’s acclimatized. The frog that got to step out for a bit, he’s really going to notice it: “Man, it’s pretty hot in here.”

Joe: [Laughs] Or he’s just going to watch in horror. That’s what I feel I’m doing half the time. I do a lot of speaking at universities, unions, socialist organizations, theological institutions, and that sort of thing. What’s interesting is most of them get it. They just don’t have a language to describe what’s going on. I get a lot of email. I say I’ve got the easiest job in the world: I just look around, say what I’m pretty sure everybody’s thinking, and everybody goes “Brilliant, brilliant!” It’s already there. They’re recognizing themselves. Other than the craftsman part of it, it’s a very easy job.

The first and very best editor I had, almost forty years ago, said “Joe, never be a mile ahead of the public. You only need to be a quarter of an inch, so they’ll recognize in themselves what you’re talking about.” You know what I mean, having some advanced theories and stuff. That doesn’t help anybody communicate with each other and look at their situation. So I use fairly plain language and it’s sort of an Emperor’s New Clothes thing. I’m not always right, by any means, but at least I cause a discussion of things people don’t talk about, the real atmosphere they live in, or the way they feel when they go to bed, or the hopelessness of the commute, or the self that deals with the world.

KMO: Joe, when I read your most recent blog post, which is a compilation of a few talks that you’ve given at universities recently, you used a phrase that I thought would make a great episode title, and that’s the “Stockholm syndrome of the soul.” If you would, say a bit more about that, and say a bit more about what you call the Hologram.

When I did the book, I had to tie it together. The book is about why working class people vote against their own interests, and I didn’t want to write a political book, I wanted to write a human book about people I knew and grew up with. But at the end, I had to tie it together someway, and why would anybody behave this way, against their own interests. So I discussed what I call the American Hologram. It’s a self-referential bubble. The people inside of it are directly wired, particularly to television and movies and media. It’s like a snow globe, and a bloody war killing children and disemboweling people, and hundreds of thousands of dead, is reduced to “our boys” and the flag, and America, a place of church spires, and freedom, and opportunity. The Hologram gives us that message as if we were inside a snow globe and the only thing we have to refer to is the language and the images that we’re fed, practically directly to the brain stem, from all of our media. It’s a uniform message, there’s really no big evil guy controlling it. We manifest it in ourselves.

A good example: I saw this ad for an electric car, driving along in front of wheat fields, Rocky Mountains in the background. In the clouds, a faint American flag is waving. The message is, of course, go green, buy a car with a poisonous battery. It’s very American, it’s patriotic. The flag is in the sky. God approves. We’re bombarded by this stuff, and we don’t think anything of it. I tell you what, it goes right past logic, and right past critical thinking, no matter what anybody says. It goes right past it, because those images get stamped there, the same way that they did when we were an upright hominid, glancing around the savanna land for fear. Anyway, these images, these sounds, this veneer of commerciality over everything, everything comes covered with clear plastic, and we live inside this holographic world that is nothing like the other two-thirds of the world. It certainly isn’t connected with nature.

The system that we’ve created, which is a malignant system, you’d have to call it malignant when you look at it in the total perspective. Here we are, six percent of the world. We use 36% of its resources. I count water and air, by the way. Most of those counts don’t do that. But everybody is a willing prisoner. That’s why I say it’s a Stockholm syndrome of the soul. They’re willing prisoners, they identify with their captors. Capitalism is an extractive process. It’s a faceless machine that exists for one reason: to extract from you production and profit. Most people have been reduced to a market demographic. They’re consumers, they’re not citizens. In no way are they citizens. No matter how active they are within the system, the system is the problem. But they’re prisoners of it, they don’t even see that it owns their souls, that the very things they see as solutions, they’re also part of it. “Buy green,” do this. Capitalism co-opts everything and offers it as a product, a consumer identity, and so on. So that’s why I say they’re prisoners, willing prisoners of their captors. They totally identify.

For instance, the bailout of the banks: “We cannot live without corporations. Corporations feed us. Corporations give us health. Corporations give us transportation. We cannot let them die. We cannot let the banks die.” So just like the Egyptians making their offerings, or the Aztecs stocked the temples, we get the bailouts, the extracted sweat of the people is offered up to preserve the vast corporations. As soul prisoners, they will not die if the corporations die, but they believe they will. The evidence around them tells them, “Oh, I will die if the banks fail. The world as I know it will disappear.” No, six percent of the world will have their ass up the crick real quick, but the rest of the world is not as affected. If the banks go broke in the Third World, gee, what else is new? Yes, it causes a lot of pain and inconvenience, but life is full of pain and inconvenience.

KMO: And just the building pressure of trying to keep up with the system that we have created for ourselves here. People think of it as comfort and security, but to me, it’s just constant stress and constant anxiety, and irritation with myself for continuing to put up with it when I know I could pack up a backpack and hitchhike down to Mexico if I didn’t have a car, or couldn’t afford a couple hundred bucks for a plane ticket, and live a different life.

Joe: One of the biggest criticisms of some of the things I write about the Third World is that they think that I’m presenting another version of Rousseau’s Noble Savage. By no means am I doing that. I have to shake scorpions out of my shoes. We have the tommygoff, which is a kind of fer-de-lance, we have food insecurity, a nice way of saying babies don’t get enough to eat. We have plenty of things, I’m in no way saying the people are better. My god, I’ve had things stolen from me, I’ve been ripped off, I’ve had people lie to me. It’s the world, it’s just ordinary human beings.

But when I look at the natural order of things, there is a connectivity in families. I tend to live with one family down there. All the boys want to be like their father. When was the last time you ever saw that? The extended family and clan, there’s a connectivity of flesh and spirit. Hey, they do stupid things, just like anybody else, but they love one another deeply, and they’re there for each other. I feel like I see, to some degree at least, what the community of man is, before it’s fully monetized and fully financialized. Now they’re going that way fast. It’s not like I live in this perfect little world by the beach. Jesus Christ, they eat candy bars for breakfast. So it’s not that. It’s to see that family and community can exist in a large connected web. That’s what I get out of it. I’m in it for the human stuff. The ecological things, there’s nothing I can do about those things except best practices myself. Try to find right actions. Hey, look, I smoke, I drink rum for Christ’s sake. But that’s what I’m interested in.

Some people perceive it as somewhat spiritual or religious; two words which have also been co-opted and commodified; but I see it as sort of a connectivity between selves, human beings, the little inner bead of awareness. That’s the part I’m interested in. How do we transcend?

Look what’s coming. We know what’s coming, Jesus Christ, whatever message you get here, the whole world knows it. It’s on the front page of the Australian papers every day, “Global warming.” Every day! Here, it never even makes it to the front, because the Hologram feeds us the illusion, oh man, what’s really important, what Michele Obama wore. We say this. Look at the bombing and the killing in Gaza, and look what we have produced. Jesus! Obama said something wrong about the handicapped. This makes the front page, while our weapons murder people in Gaza. Listening to Al Jazeera at night, that’s the only media. I get to spend five or six months without any media. But I do for an hour listen to Al Jazeera at night on my little yellow National Geographic radio in the cabana.

KMO: You know I had a guest on a few weeks ago. His name’s Charles Eisenstein.

Joe: I love Charles!

KMO: Something Charles says, what you just said reminded me of it, is every news story about celebrities and sports carries with it a subliminal message that “You can afford to care about this. There is nothing more important going on. There is nothing more deserving of your attention than this trivial nonsense about celebrities and who’s doing who and who’s breaking up with who, and sports.” And that just seems to be what you’re calling the Hologram doing what it does best.

Joe: Yes, the Hologram, which is both corporate and media and a lot of other things, I always say it regulates our neurological seasons. It’s election time, time for passions and voting. It’s Christmas, time to shop. (It’s always time to shop.) Time to make war. National consciousness, I still see it as having neurological seasons. When everybody is afraid in the wake of 9/11. What is that? It’s almost like a chemical season of the mind. Everybody’s feeling the same way, they’re all down there in the reptilian brain, thinking about survival, anger, and war. Particularly, television and media, they regulate these things, they are the regulator in the United States. They’re what people know about the world they live in and that they’re looking at. They don’t know what you see, what you understand on ayahuasca (or) on a lonely fishing boat out in the Caribbean. They’ll never know. In that sense, they live inside of a horribly mechanistic... You know, the Matrix looks more true to me every day.


KMO: You’re listening to the C-Realm podcast. I’m your host, KMO, and I’m speaking with Joe Bageant, and the title of his book might not clue you into the fact that he has definitely got his finger on the pulse of a number of topics that we cover here on the C-Realm, and just before the break there, Joe mentioned ayahuasca. And, Joe, I talk to a lot of people, some of them speak openly about psychedelics and their experiences with them, but I also speak to a lot of people who have a straight, respectable line that they make their living by presenting and articulating to the world, and they don’t have anything publicly to say about psychedelics, but off the record, when we’re just chatting they tell me how important psychedelics have been to their development as conscious human beings, and I know, just reading your blog, that you’re a lot more out in the open about that than a lot of the people who have those valuable experiences in their past, but who know that to speak of them openly would cost them in terms of credibility and access and whatnot. I’d like to just invite you to share a little bit about what you think psychedelics might have in store for us in terms of transforming consciousness, and if there’s any role for them to play in getting us out of this boiling pan of water.

Joe: I’ve never made any bones about it. LSD, along with Buddhism and psychology, but particularly LSD was the great awakening for me. I was a rural kid, living in a small town, and I’d read about it when I was in the ninth grade and wanted some. I read about it in Life magazine, this terrifying drug, and I’d never even smoked a cigarette in my life, and I wanted some.

It finally came along from Johns Hopkins. A friend of mine, who was being treated for his homosexuality with LSD; man, we continued his treatment as long as we could possibly could push it. It was legal. It was the first three years I took it, it was legal. But it was different then because it was all about set and setting. The only things we had to go by were the good Mr. Leary’s research, and think what you want about him, I believe he was a Galileo of human consciousness. Generally, it would be in a darkened setting, with a candle or Buddhas or tapestries. Nobody was dropping acid on the back of a motorcycle, for Christ’s sake. It was not considered a party drug yet.

Everybody had read Huxley, everybody had read Siddhartha, everybody had read the Bardo Thodol, the Book of the Dead, so there was a community, a consciousness community, that was around. The book ‘Storming Heaven;’ it’s about LSD. Every community had a few stragglers, and San Francisco, a metropolitan area had large numbers of them, larger numbers of them. From the very first time I took it, at once I saw the world, and I saw how malleable reality was. And when it was done, I sat and cried, because I knew life could be this good. I knew there was more meaning there, that there was more to be felt and lived and known and to be. So nothing was ever the same after that.

Because I had applied myself, like so many other people, not because it was LSD, same way with ayahuasca until very recently, I had a big refrigerator full of it. Now I haven’t taken it in years, but there seems to be a lot of interest in it. [Laughs] The expansion of consciousness, you have to call it that. Realizing how malleable and that reality is a consensus agreement between people. You could also agree on something else, [something other] than capitalism and brutal commuting and murdering each other psychologically for jobs. It’s possible to agree on something else, and maybe that’s why I like the Third World in my later years. It’s that they have agreed on something else.

I personally think it was one of the greatest threats to the system. My god, the Republicans spent $30 million dollars to do things like the Heritage Foundation erasing the 60s. It was a terrible threat, because here you had this generation, this baby boom post-war generation that was the best-fed, best-educated, had every reason to be optimistic, I mean we really believed we were going to win. Now people are told today that we were naïve and it was all just bell bottoms, pot smoke, and beads. Well that’s just not so. There was a core of very dedicated people who essentially, you have to call it spiritual. I’m not some old fart saying “Oh, that Generation X and Y, no good.” I’m not saying that because that's who comes when I talk, and that’s who’s been buying the book.

But, having said that, the generation that came of age from about 1962 to 1970 was the last text-based generation; their foundational knowledge was based on reading. There’s a very good book by a guy named Phil Beidler, who teaches down at Auburn University in Alabama. Ex-Vietnam vet, wonderful guy, brilliant. I think his PhD is in English. He wrote a book called ‘What We Read – Scriptures for a Generation.’ It’s about the last text-based generation, as opposed to the image-based, digital generation. And you look at this list of books, and go “My god, we all had that in common.” This huge list of books that they all read, whether it was Chairman Mao, or Siddhartha, or ‘Be Here Now,’ or R.D. Laing, a lot of these people, psychologist Jung. We read that as a matter of course because text was where we got our knowledge. All of it put together constitutes a little constellation or a mobile of points that refer to each other, and make an intellectual life, a moral life that’s worthwhile, as opposed to the Hologram where all its parts relate to a commercial message about production of the state.

But anyway, that generation was very well-equipped, so the tide of optimism was just huge. It wasn’t all the war in Vietnam. The war in Vietnam was like the war now, but it wasn’t the catalyst. Everybody wants to politicize everything. Yes, yes, yes, yes, there were demonstrations, yes, yes. But the main thing going on was that a generation was becoming consciousness mutants, and in a good way, believing an optimistic, hopeful message of creativity, love, and peace that was a direct threat to the military-industrial complex that was built up particularly during World War II.

People forget that the peace movement is 150 years old, and it was at its peak then. Right after World War II, 67% of Americans wanted all nuclear weapons to be under the control of the UN. I think it was over half wanted a one-world government. One-world government! That scared the living hell out of the production masters who just came out of World War II with five times the industrial capability. They weren’t about to give up that complex. They started making Kelvinators, tv sets, and so on, and with the same machinery. You need more people to work, women in the work force, and all that. This all threatened that, the affluent poor. A thousand people on the streets in Boulder, hanging out, making love, looking at the stars, saying “Hey, this is pretty good, I don’t think I’m really going to go buy a house and a Cadillac.” This stuff was threatening.

KMO: You know, the Controlled Substances Act that scheduled drugs into Schedule 1, Schedule 2, Schedule 3, Schedule 1 being “high potential for abuse, no medical applications,” which includes marijuana. It does include Tabernanthe iboga. Who in 1972 had heard of Tabernanthe iboga? It just astounds me that that drug, at the beginning of what we now call the Drug War, that plant, was classified as a hard drug with a high potential for abuse. Who was doing it? Somebody had a very specific agenda in terms of what they wanted to limit, in terms of conscious states that people can access. They knew that was a key. Wow, who was behind that? I don’t want to get conspiratorial here, but that just boggles me.

Joe: Well, two things come to mind there. One, Tim Leary used to say - one time he spun a globe around, in the particular household we had a world globe that we kept our dope in. [Laughs] (I’ve written about this in an essay somewhere). He said, “The world isn’t different colors like this map because the soil is a different color. This globe is different colors because different pieces of turf are ruled by upright territorial hominid gangsters that are in control of it. Right now, there’s a struggle going on for the consciousness of the planet between the insectoid malice suspicion of Asia, the authoritarian police court of the Soviet Union, and the American self-realization movement. And if we don’t win this thing, it’s over for the consciousness of the planet. If we do not win, realize ourselves, bring ourselves into actualization and realization on the face of the earth, because everything happens here, the wave breaks here first, fastest, and hardest. Every good thing that societies can be, and every horrible thing they can come to, we see here before us.” I always tell people, the reason you hated George Bush is because it’s the face of America revealed. And the reason the world really is disgusted with us is because of what they see is their future in us. And so the struggle for consciousness is vastly facilitated by financialization of the globe; capital can be leveraged from Rome or Lisbon or New York. It doesn’t matter. Boundaries don’t matter, the financial mobsters, as it were, the elites can leverage things around the world. Boundaries don’t make any difference any more. Their ability to affect consciousness, they simply affect the needs hierarchy, that affects our consciousness, as they leverage the needs hierarchy, and control the medium of exchange, it affects us. If I get up tomorrow morning, and I’m homeless, I’m damned right affected. [Laughs]

As far as the conspiracy stuff, well, of course, but I’m just not a big fan of conspiracy theories for two reasons. One, an elite bunch of people, no matter what country they’re in, no matter what financial or industrial institution they’re a part of, they don’t have to conspire if their goal is the same. They don’t have to know each other. So that’s one of the things that bothers me. It’s also a tendency of Americans to want to name bad guys. If the whole damn system is rotten, and you’re looking for the guy that’s doing it, there’s no one guy. It Are Us. And the other part of the conspiracy thing that really bothers me is, well, I think you find the answer by looking right up what’s in front of your nose. It’s too easy to go flitting off about the Bilderburgers and all that stuff. If human beings don’t participate, it doesn’t exist.

If people didn’t pay their taxes this year, believe me, that’s a revolution. Boy, they can’t put a million people in prison, what are they going to do? They wouldn’t any way. They'd try to keep it quiet that nobody was paying. That would wreck everything. It would stop the whole machine. But, again the Stockholm syndrome of the soul, “What happens if I don’t pay my taxes?” Well, I don’t know, I pay mine because my fear is great of these people, of the institutions; the people are just little gears in it, demonizing even George Bush, he’s just an idiot, just an idiot that reflects us. Just because you voted the other way. I worked on the Obama campaign, but I don’t kid myself, it’s a televised popularity contest, and television put him there. Why not Dennis Kucinich? It’s no crime to be four feet tall. We have to look at it for what it is, and why we make the choices we do.

KMO: That’s a question I put to a lot of guests. If we just apply Occam’s Razor, if we look at the needs of big organizations, and if we look at the structure of our corporations and our economic system and whatnot, then the behavior of the Hologram is explainable without any malicious intent on the part of a small group of elites. Occam’s Razor would have us just eliminate the small group of scheming elites because their participation is not necessary to get the effects that we see, and yet at the same time, I think you’ve put your finger on it. If we do look to the Bilderburgers, if we do look to whomever as the villains, then that excuses our participation in the larger scheme, which is not one that we say we agree with, it’s not one we say we want, but it’s one that we perpetuate just by our acquiescence.

Joe: Brilliantly put, KMO. Brilliantly put. Clear, clean, direct. What can you say after that? That’s exactly it, except that if you don’t own your soul and you don’t own your mind; it takes effort, effort to possess your own consciousness.

Capitalism is successful around the world because it’s easy. It takes no active participation, just consuming. Consuming is not only easy, it’s hardwired it into us, when we were that hominid that had to struggle each day for food, (although we didn’t, not as much as we do now, but anyway). It’s easy, it’s passive, you don’t even have to be literate, you don’t have to think, all you have to do is consume.

The Third World’s the same way. I help people indirectly, I don’t do anything directly because I don’t want to be the rich white guy. We got people farming and we got sanitation and we got children’s health going in some places. We have shelter and homes and food and kitchens. You know what they want? Money. They want money. Money. Everybody wants money. The whole world is monetized; they want money. Well, of course, you can do a great deal of good simply by, “There you go, you got two new houses on your property.” They’re gonna be used, they’ve got a warm place to shit, a place to raise their kids. But the world is so monetized. It’s so thorough. Because it’s easy, because it’s easy.

KMO: And the places where every aspect of life hasn’t been monetized, the people there, they are plugged into the Hologram. You know, I’ve been in shacks in Peru that had hardened dirt floors, and a thatched roof, and they had a television in there. They see how they’re supposed to be living, how they think they’re supposed to be living, and they want it.

Joe: Yup, or what’s more desirable. Now the place I choose to spend my time, hey, it’s a Third World country, but most people have a television. People have microwaves, and cheap Chinese washing machines made out of plastic (they’re really just buckets that bounce up and down, but they look like what they saw on television). People go for that stuff. So their consciousness is commoditized - almost as much as any American in some ways - the younger generation. At the same time, I find great solace there. For one thing, we have certain celebrations, young people and old people dancing and singing and drumming together. The connectivity is still there. You’re not undesirable because you’re old, and you’re not stupid because you’re young. Those things are underneath all the junk.

I’m perfectly happy for a collapse, an economic collapse, in America. It pains me greatly though what that means for the Third World. When the Chinese bid a higher price for the world’s rice, we don’t have rice for a month. If they go for beans, we don’t get beans or flour or whatever. You just don’t run out and solve that problem. That puts pressure on the Mayans who grow vegetables, therefore vegetables become expensive. It’s because they’re commoditized and they’re buying their food. They no longer raise it and they no longer catch it in the sea. It’s almost not an option anymore, because the fish are dying or gone. The land that was once agricultural land is owned by resorts and things like that. But that commoditization of consciousness is everywhere. It may be irreversible in many of the places I go; I’m sure it’s irreversible. The world doesn’t go backward. I really believe there’ll be a die-back before we reach sustainability.

KMO: Well, Joe, you probably don’t realize it, but you mentioned in passing three or four different regular themes on the C-Realm podcast, and I’m tempted to pursue them all but I’m going to back up a little bit. Let’s just talk about the First World, the Second World, and the Third World, because we are conditioned to believe that we live in the First World. In fact, when I’m talking on this show, a phrase that just rolls right off my tongue is “Here in the industrialized First World.” We know what the First World is, we know what the Third World is, but what is this "Second World?" It doesn’t really seem to be something that anybody ever talks about.

Joe: Of course, I contend we’re a Second World nation. In the first place, of course there’s only one world, but I don’t adhere to political correctness very much; it’s liberal fascism.

We are a Second World nation by that terminology that people think, even if they don’t say it politically. We don’t have health care; we don’t have free health care. We don’t have free education. We don’t have mass transportation, lots of things. Belize, Third World country that it is, we do have free health care, to the degree that it can even be purchased or found or bought. We have a very corrupt government, that steals everything, but still we have free health care. We have mass transportation. It might be old school buses, but there’s only one car for 150 people, for Christ’s sake, how are they getting around? Bicycles and buses and stuff. Social Security at age 60. The priorities are there.

If a Third World nation can do this, what is America that we don’t have those things? At the very best, we’re a Second World nation with a layer of glossy plastic and advertising over everything. Like I was saying in the essay, just because everything there is covered by a thin layer of tropical grunge, Americans are afraid of that. They want their sanitized world, so they see fear and danger, they think these black people are gonna rob ‘em.

As far as that First, Second, and Third World, we all know there’s only one world of flesh, blood, chlorophyll, air, and oxygen. There’s only one world and the various territorial hallucinations. I don’t worry about them anymore. I’m not going to convince anybody of this stuff. I just walk around in it, and I feel a little bit sorry, and yet there’s enough of the old stoner hippie to see a weird cosmic humor - the Buddhist expression, “the cosmic laugh of horror.” To see that every joke has a victim, and in this case, it’s Man. That’s the cool thing about getting older, like Studs Turkel said, you get to where you can babble and everybody says “Well, he’s just an old fart,” and you can get away with murder.

KMO: You know, Joe as you say, you think you’re not convincing anybody, but what you do is articulate what a lot of people already feel and think, just a bit better than they could themselves, and when they hear that they really resonate with it, and they think “Yeah, yeah!” I think James Kunstler does the same thing. His schtick is just how awful it is to live here in the land of happy motoring, and suburbs, and he can articulate it a bit better than most of the people who already think that.

There are several different vectors into the C-Realm. One is through the Psychedelic Salon, which is another podcast. It’s older; it’s got a bigger audience than mine, and the person who runs that is a guy named Lorenzo. He’s got a prominent link on his site to mine, and he has for a couple of years now, and it brings in a lot of people. A lot of people also come in through the Peak Oil vector, and those people generally don’t have much truck whatsoever with psychedelics, or even any desire to hear anything about it. Yet in 2007, when I was down in Iquitos for the annual shamanism conference down there, and going out to various curanderos’ places to drink ayahuasca, I was with a C-Realm listener and his mother. They had come in through the Peak Oil vector, and they had never heard of ayahuasca before they tuned in to the C-Realm podcast. Just a few months later, they were in South America in a dark tambo with a bunch of other gringo spiritual searchers drinking ayahuasca, and listening to some shaman shake his rattle and sing his icaros. People are convincible; people do change their minds.

Joe: Boy, you hit on a lot of bases there all at one time. The ayahuasca churches, the União do Vegetal, a lot of stuff that comes to America through Latin Americans emigrating here, legally or illegally. That’s a very fast growing church. I don’t think anybody understands the church using ayahuasca. Of course, you know more about this than I do, I just eat the stuff. [Laughs] Not anymore, not too much anymore. It’s kind of like Kesey said, you get the message, hang up the phone.

But it’s a very fast growing thing in America. You can’t have that many people whose consciousness has shifted without it affecting a lot of things at a grassroots level. To have seen is to have seen. You’re never the same, especially when you seek out seeing, like those people who travel a vast distance there to do it. In the first place, they were not passive, they were taking the action, the trajectory of their intelligence and insight they established when they took the first step forward to have an expanded consciousness, to be willing to let the dead skin, the old skin die. They took the first step, the ayahuasca just happens to be the lubricant.

People don’t get it about drugs; we’ve been told so much crap. We all know that there are drugs that show us the malleable nature of reality, the larger, greater reality. You get the ultimate message. The most liberating truth I ever got was that universe does not care - but but but - the universe does not care - but but but. My own insignificance. My own insignificance. Meaninglessness. That I’m not unique.

There’s a baby being born right now that’ll experience every emotion I ever had. Some Egyptian mummy once experienced it. To not be with the self so much, to me, that’s the answer. The consumption stops. I don’t give a damn if I own anything. When I’m down there, I have two pair of shorts, four t-shirts, two pair of flip flops (there’s the dress flip flops for funerals [laughs]), and a couple guitars, and my laptop. That’s it. And I go, “Wow, the whole damn world works just fine.” I do TV contracts and book contracts, and here I do interviews all over the world. What the hell did I ever think I needed all that shit in the United States for? My lord, what a hallucination that was. Just maintaining it, just owning it. Who owned what? It’s like some little crab with this huge shell of cars and clothes and guitars and radios and houses stuck to ‘em. Ayahuasca can make you perceive that instantly.

KMO: That brings me back to the question, what role do you think that has in the larger transition in consciousness that’s needed? Because the ayahuasca churches that mix Christianity with shamanistic indigenous plant-based practices have received two ringing endorsements from the U.S. Supreme Court; one for the UDV and one for the Santo Daime. It’s legally protected here in the U.S. What do you see as the potential there? Or as a possibility?

Joe: Human beings, they have their spiritual experience, understanding, and growth, but we have this A B cause and effect thing, “If, then, therefore” kind of logic that something’s got to come out of it that’s either positive or negative. How about people just really living a deeper life? If we’re going to go around and guess or project what their effect will be. Looking to see what somebody else’s effect is is a way of not having your own. What do you do in this moment? What do you do when you look into the face of this person? What do you do in service to humanity? If humanity is at stake, and humanity is doing so many things wrong, and humanity is a viral thing on the planet that I’m sure Mother Nature will mop up one way or another. If you don’t look at yourself, just look at yourself and just do that every minute, every day, what is the right action here?

I like the Third World because right action is easy to do. If a child is hungry or has tapeworms, it’s very easy to take direct action. If I’m hungry, I cook some beans. This business of looking to large mega-systems and trying to understand them, I think that’s the thing I’m just about giving up on, because understanding a larger mega-system, mega-thinking, mega-programming, quantum thinking, things that even ayahuasca enables you to do, or education enables you to do. It doesn’t do a damn thing, really, unless you do something yourself.

Give up things. Give it away, give it up. My family was not in love with me when I said I’m gonna live on $6,000 a year like the rest of the planet and give away the book money. They figured the old man had flipped out. And yeah I had, but I flipped into a better space, because I was sick of commuting. I was sick of working for publications about war. I was sick of being part of the problem. Sick of all the things that owned me, I didn’t own them. And so that’s what I do, as soon as I get a big check, I spend it right away. Do something good with it, because if I don’t, if I hang onto it, I’ll buy sickness. I’ll be right down there at the music store buying another guitar, or buying a pair of leather shoes I don’t really need, because I’m conditioned to consume. I was telling my wife, “How was it, back in the United States eighteen hours before I had bought something I didn’t need?”

KMO: What was that?

Joe: It was an electronic gizmo for my computer. I didn’t need that, it just makes it more fun. Well, who gives a shit? You don’t need that! Oh, this is so convenient, this is handy, and I got home and went, “Hell, I’ve been functioning for fifteen years without it. Why did I think I needed that?”

KMO: Well, I absolutely hate to say this, Joe, but we have reached the end of the time available for this conversation, but I very much enjoyed it. I’m sure the listeners will as well. So, thank you very much for appearing on the C-Realm podcast.

Joe: Thanks, KMO, I appreciate the invitation. Every now and then you get one of these shows where you don’t even hold back. In America, you can’t say stuff. In Australia, I said "fuck" on the radio, then I said, “I’m so sorry.” They said “Hey, we don’t have an FCC,” and I finished the talk.

KMO: [Laughs] Well. Actually, I do beep out the profanity just because some of these shows do get played on the radio.

Joe: No, no, no, I’m not saying, don’t. I’m just a redneck, and that’s a form of punctuation for us. [Laughs]

Take care. Bye bye.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Bill McKibben: No Need of Our Neighbors

This interview with Bill McKibben was recorded December of 2007 and appears in C-Realm Podcast Episode 68: Durable Communities. Bill McKibben also appears in Episode 69: The L Word, but that portion of the conversation, which focused on topics of transhumanism, is not included in this transcript.


KMO: Welcome back to the C-Realm podcast. I’m your host, KMO and with me here, from his home in Vermont, I have author Bill McKibben. He is the author of ‘The End of Nature’; ‘The Age of Missing Information’; many other books; most recently ‘Deep Economy - The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future’, about which the C-Realm listeners have already heard quite a bit. Bill McKibben, welcome to the C-Realm podcast.

Bill: It is my pleasure to join you.

KMO: Well it is definitely my pleasure to have you here. I have mentioned to people, particularly listeners of this podcast that the book ‘Deep Economy - The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future’ articulates exactly the message that I have been trying to articulate here sans the entheogenic or psychedelic component which occasionally comes up on the C-Realm podcast.

Bill: That is a component I don’t know anything about. I’ll just stick with economics and leave psychedelics to you.

KMO: In the very beginning of your book,’ Deep Economy’, you talk about two birds that, until recently, these are metaphorical birds, sat on the same branch, and one could conceivably take them both out with one bullet or one rock, and those two birds are "better" and "more." Producing more of what has worked for us in the past has generally made our lives better, but it seems that we may have passed a point of diminishing returns, and now "better" and "more" are sitting on two different branches, and you can aim for one or the other but not both. And I was wondering if you could say a bit more about what you call ‘the poverty of more’?

Bill: There is polling data in this country; they have asked Americans every year since the end of World War II: “Are you happy with your life or not?” and the number of Americans who say, “I am very happy with my life,” peaks in 1956, and goes downhill since. And that is odd, because in that same 50 years we have tripled our material standard of living. If the economy worked the way we intuitively think it does, those curves should not go that way. It turns out that around the world, once you get past a per capita income of about 10,000 dollars per year, any correlation between more and better scatters, ceases. The plot goes in all different directions.
And, you know, that is something we need to know. It is a basic fact about human beings; it is as important as knowing what temperature water freezes at, because we have geared so much of our life as a country to endlessly expanding the economy past the point where it isn’t producing anything in terms of satisfaction, and since it is also producing great negative consequences, environmentally in particular, it would be good to get a hold of that. It would be good to figure out some other things to be asking our economy to aim for.

You know, we have concentrated with obsessive interest on growth, and hence we have largely ignored durability, the idea that we might be building an economy in a society that could last for a long time, that can survive disruptions, and we have ignored this question of whether that growth is producing satisfaction or not. If we aimed for those two things in addition or instead of just endless expansion, I think we would have more interesting possibilities for getting out of some of the trouble we have gotten into, things like global warming, and for building the kind of society that people actually want to live in. A kind of society that is marked by more connection and more community than we have at the moment. That is what the data shows people are most missing from their lives.

KMO: I mentioned psychedelics at the top of the interview; I first went to South America sort of following in the footsteps of Terrence McKenna, and I went there to drink ayahuasca with the indigenous curanderos, but that was not really the most memorable part of my trip. The most memorable and eye-opening part of my trip was that it represented my first foray into what is called the ‘Third World’. And if I look at the amount of resources that I, as an American of meager means, control and compare that to the resources controlled by the average Peruvian, at least the economically quantifiable resources, I have much, much, much more that they do. But I do not seem to be correspondingly that much happier. And it was just a real eye-opener to see people living in what an economist would call abject poverty, and yet they have the people close to them and the community ties that allow for a certain sort of engagement and satisfaction that only comes with great difficulty to people here in what we call the ‘First World’. And I know you have traveled more extensively than I have, so I would like to get your thoughts on that sort of perspective.

Bill: Cheap fossil fuel, and the affluence that it provides, have allowed us to become the first people in the world to have no need of our neighbors. We have taken that to be a good thing and talked a lot about independence and individualism and all of that, but in fact, as the descendants of socially evolved primates who spent all day sitting around grooming each other, it turns out that it is not what we were built for, and it is not what we like. And one of the benefits of getting away from the cheap fossil fuel world we now inhabit will be the inevitable resurgence of more community. We see it happening already; farmers markets are the fastest growing part of the food economy in this country and one of the reasons that they are growing fast is because people like the experience of shopping at them. The average shopper at a farmers market has ten times as many conversations as the average shopper at the supermarket. That is a lot. That is what we were built for.

KMO: We have a really marvelous farmers market here; not in Bentonville but in Fayetteville, Arkansas, which is about a half hour south of here. And yes, if you go to that farmers market, not only are people talking to one another, but there are musicians playing on the street. There are people handing out flyers talking about the causes that they feel so passionately about. And for me, probably the biggest advantage of the farmers markets over, say, the produce aisle at Wal-Mart, is that the food is so much better. It just tastes marvelous.

Over the summer we had a neighbor who was growing some corn. They have a very large garden, and when they had produce to sell they just put out a sign, and people would stop and buy some, and I stopped and I bought some fresh corn on the cob. I took it home and boiled it, and when my son tasted it he was an instant convert. His new favorite food was corn on the cob, but the neighbor's garden quickly ran out of corn for sale. My son wanted more corn on to cob, so I went to the nearest supermarket and purchased some, brought it home and boiled it, gave it to him, and he took one bite and wouldn’t eat anymore. And I tried it as well, and I could see why. It was just awful.

Bill: Yeah, yeah, a food critic in the making. That’s it.

KMO: Or at least somebody who has an intuitive recognition of what food is, and knows the difference between food and food-like products.

Bill: The most devoted shoppers in America’s farmers markets statistically are recent immigrants to this country. And that is because they still have some memory of what actual food tastes like. They haven’t yet been weaned onto a diet of high fructose corn syrup so that they mistake Cheetos for food.

KMO: My grandmother lives in Berryville, Arkansas, which is a rural community. And as the small scale farming has sort of gone the way of the dodo in this part of the country, the main employers in Berryville are a Tyson chicken plant and the Wal-Mart supercenter. And my grandmother, who is very upset about the dramatic influx of Latin-Americans to this area, acknowledges that as the population became more and more Latino, the produce at Wal-Mart got better and better.

Bill: (Laughter) There you go. You know, I think that there are many reasons for being an open country in a lot of ways, and that is probably one of them.

KMO: Well when I first contacted you by e-mail, I think I admitted to you that I am both a recovering transhumanist and a recovering libertarian. And both of those thought systems seem to be variations on what I would consider to be the cult of hyper-individuality. And the rights and responsibilities of the individual completely eclipse the rights and responsibilities of larger groups of people whom libertarians, particularly libertarians of the Objectivist bent, deride as "collectivists." And I am wondering if you would speak a little about this notion of hyper-individuality versus what is pejoratively called "collectivism."

Bill: Yeah, I mean, you know, look. One of the uses of the 20th century was that we found out things that don’t work. For instance, huge centrally planned economies where the government tells everybody what to do all the time. Those proved to be a bad idea in a lot of ways. However, that doesn’t mean that what does work is everybody doing exactly what they want to and no one ever trying to get together as a community and figure out what makes sense. That's as ideologically extreme and as unlike where human beings have come from, as true Marxist collectivism was.

What we need are things that sound and are normal: communities, neighbors, people figuring out how to do things together. That is what government at its best is, and there are some tasks that only government can perform. We are going to need to deal with climate change, you know? One of the places where I lost a lot of respect for libertarians in the last decade was that they became in many ways scientific denialists about global warming. All you had to do was read the webpage of the Cato institute or Reason Magazine. And one of the reasons was that the chemistry and physics conflicted with their ideology. I mean the syllogism became "markets solve all problems, markets are not solving global warming, therefore global warming isn’t a problem."

That is poor logic, but it is emotionally comforting if you are the kind of person who needs some abstract ideological system, you know, Marxism, Leninism, Randian Objectivism, whatever it is, to order your life. For the rest of us, what we need is to try to figure out what scale to solve which problems at. And some of those are solved individually, and some of them are solved in your neighborhood, and some of them are solved internationally. It is not as comforting as having a ‘one size fits all’ explanation to everything. On the other hand, those don’t work.

KMO: You have talked about how we have come from primates who are very socially aware. In fact, if you look at the physiology of our faces, the musculature of our faces and the plasticity of our skin is so refined that we can, without any words, communicate to one another very detailed messages about how we feel or what reaction we have to what other people are doing. And people who are boosters of the current status-quo will use the measures of our isolation as metrics for our success, so that we have increasing house sizes with fewer people living in them, and we have fewer people living per acre and we are spending more of our time standing or sitting looking at computer screens, and we see far fewer human faces, or at least we pay attention to far fewer human faces than we did in the past, even though now we live in a sea of anonymous human faces. And I am wondering what you see as a promising approach for reintroducing the things into our life that actually bring us satisfaction as we are built and as evolution has programmed us to respond to our environments.

Bill: I think the key is rebuilding many of these local economic institutions that bring us into contact with each other. So farmers markets, more localized and decentralized energy systems, smart grids that, you know, allow each of us to be our own utilities connected to each other in a working grid. So, local music performance and festivals, which are now the fastest growing part of the music industry, not CD sales, not video rentals, are the things that bring us together. I think all those things are good possibilities.

KMO: I know that you are an athlete. You run marathons. And I know that when I am diligent about sticking to a daily yoga practice, that my peace of mind increases, which, you know, is a selling point of yoga in general, but I don’t think it is particular to yoga. I think the same would be true if I were walking or cycling daily. And it seems that so much of our energy consumption is devoted to keeping us physically inert. And it seems that the human body thrives on use and that the human mind and the human body are intimately connected, and that it is very difficult to live a happy, satisfying life when one is always sitting motionless attending either to a television or a computer screen or even talking on the telephone to a celebrated author.

Bill: I agree with you completely. And, you know, if you live in a place where you can bike where you need to go, for instance, then it is such a win-win, environmentally and for you. You notice more of what is going on. You actually see your topography. You see your neighbors. You emerge a healthier, sexier human being at the end of a year of doing it. The only people that suffer are those that need to make a lot of money selling you automobiles and gasoline.

KMO: I have had Catherine Austin Fitts on the program before. Are you familiar with her and her projects?

Bill: I don’t know her, no.

KMO: Catherine Austin Fitts worked for Housing and Urban Development under the first Bush administration, and she was also a very successful investment banker. But when she created some software tools that started to allow people to see all of the corruption in Housing and Urban Development; basically, forces under the control of corporate banks and the government destroyed her life. She was severely audited many times by the IRS, she had federal agents raid her office and take her computers and destroy the software tool, it was called ‘Neighborhood Wizard”, that showed how money actually flows through a community.

And she has a friend who said to her that, you know, there is a new future percolating, and her response was that it will continue to percolate until we make it bankable. And what she means by that is that we can have all of these wonderful revelations about how ‘more’ no longer brings us more happiness or a better quality of life, but until we make the new style of living bankable and profitable to corporations and the people who control the money supply, it will just continue to percolate, and it will never actually come to fruition.

Bill: Well I agree with her. I think that money is a big part of this thing, and one of the things that excites me is watching the spread of local currency systems around this country. We now in western Massachusetts have more than a million BerkShares in circulation, and there are similar operations springing up all around the country. I think that that is one of the biggest ways to arrive at a more localized economy and it removes some of the abstraction from our economy.

KMO: When the production of fossil fuels peaks and the supply is no longer able to meet the demand and we start to feel the economic effects of that, it is going to cause a severe disruption, and from a conventional economist's point of view it will be catastrophic. But from the point of view of somebody who is taken out of the system that we live in now and thrust, granted roughly, into a more localized, communitarian setting, the long term effects will be generally positive if one is using as their metric human satisfaction. A lot of people are very skeptical about this, and I would like to read a comment that I received about this from a listener. He starts off by saying that it sounds like I am saying that when oil prices shoot up everyone will become poor and therefore forced to live with and depend on, each other more. And then he closes by asking, "Is it a grand advancement in human consciousness when your family used to live in a 4 bedroom, 3 bathroom home in the suburbs but now can only afford a studio-apartment in the ghetto, with paper thin walls and cockroaches, necessary because it is all you can afford within walking distance of your job? It might lead to enlightenment, but might as easily not." And I am wondering what response you would have to somebody who expresses that sort of skepticism?

Bill: That maybe they should think about their choices in slightly more realistic terms. We don’t need to be choosing between living in a slum and living in a starter castle someplace out in the farthest ring of suburbs.

The most interesting experiment I know about with housing now is people who create co-housing communities. They are cheaper and more affordable because, you know, there will be a bunch of houses situated nearby or attached that share a common dining room, and people take turns making food for each other in the course of the week. It is not a commune. People have their own homes, but it is a way of building community and reducing load on the environment, and these are the kinds of things that probably, as the price of oil goes through the roof, we’ll need to start figuring out.

I don’t think it is all going to be easy. I am not sure it is all going to happen. I wrote a book called “The End of Nature,” so I am no huge optimist, but I do not see much point in just pissing and moaning about it all the time either.

The logic of the fossil fuel world has been a logic of great globalization, of great disconnection, one from each other, because we no longer have a practical need for our neighbors. Hence the logic of a world past cheap fossil fuel, I think is one where we begin to draw a little closer together again. What we know about human satisfaction would lead us to believe that that will at least have as many benefits as costs, and we will get better at it as we do it. We have lost some of those skills in the last 50 years. We are not that good at cooperating with each other on things. We are all obsessed with the idea that we should pay less in taxes and be left alone and whatever. But in fact, the communities that survive best, the people that survive best in more challenging times, are going to be those who live in communities that are able to adapt and work with each other well. That is one reason I am kind of happy to be in Vermont. I think it has got a better chance for doing well than a lot of the more affluent suburban places around the country will.

KMO: I wonder what your thoughts are in terms of who has got the roughest adjustment ahead given where they live?

Bill: Las Vegas.

KMO: Is it the water?

Bill: Water, its complete dependence on outside energy sources, the fact that it has 5 times as many people living there as makes any practical sense, the fact that it depends on industry that has absolutely no public use of any kind, the fact that it depends entirely on jet transport in and out to get its gamblers to their enormous hotels. I would say Las Vegas stands as a pretty good example of 20th century America.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Albert Bartlett: Growth and Consequences


KMO Interview with Albert Bartlett

This interview with Albert Bartlett was recorded in July of 2007 and appears in episodes 53 nd 54 of the C-Realm Podcast.

Albert
: This is Al(bert) Bartlett.

KMO: This is KMO of the C-Realm Podcast. Thank you for agreeing to this interview, and welcome back to the C-Realm Podcast.

Albert: Thanks.

KMO: I have directed the listeners of the C-Realm Podcast to go and listen to your lecture “The Exponential Function”. And while I have not heard it recently, I listened to it many times when I first discovered it. I drove around and had it playing pretty much continuously in my car.

Albert: (laughing)

KMO: So I am pretty familiar with the points that you make there, but just for a quick recap, you talk quite a bit about the formula for determining the doubling time of anything if you know what its growth rate is, and I am wondering if you could just recap that for us.

Albert: Well, the formula is specifically: take 100, multiply it by the natural logarithm of 2, and divide it by the percent growth rate per year, and you’ll have the doubling time in years.

KMO: You scared of lot of people when you said, "natural logarithm."

Albert: Yes, natural logarithm…

KMO:There is a simpler way to go about that.

Albert: Most people don’t know what that is. So the number comes out to be approximately 70. The actual thing is 69.2 is a hundred times the natural algorithm of 2. But 70 is close enough. This is for continuous compounding which means the growth is steady as contrasted to compounding annually which the bank used to do; compound once a year or twice a year, something like that.

KMO: What this gives us is that you can take the number 70 and divide it by the percentage growth that you are talking about and that will give you the doubling time?

Albert: Yes, for instance if it is 7% growth per year then 70 divided by 7 is 10, so you have a doubling every 10 years.

KMO: And you mention in “The Exponential Function” lecture that one can really sort of dictate the impact that your statistics have in the way that you choose to report them. If you said that crime was growing by 7%, nobody would be particularly shocked by that figure, but if you said crime is doubling every 10 years, well that sounds shockingly huge!

Albert: That’s absolutely correct. And so 7% does not seem like a terribly big growth rate, but doubling in 10 years, that gets people’s attention.

KMO: You set up your lecture, first you explain this easy way to talk about exponential growth or actually it is just steady growth?

Albert: Yes

KMO: And you relate that to two topics which are very familiar to the C-Realm audience.
One is global population, and the other is peak oil. And I would invite you to pick up either one of those two topics and just sort of plug those specific examples into how you use your formula.

Albert: Well the world population today is growing by something a little over 1% per year; it might be 1.2% per year. So if you divide 70 by 1.2%, what you find is that 70 divided by 1.2 is equal to about 58. If the present growth rate could continue, then the population of the world would double in something a little under 60 years, 58 years. Now, it is very clear that this growth rate cannot continue. It is also clear that the growth rate globally is declining. In the early 1970s, the growth rate was up around 2% per year. That is an absolute disaster; that would be doubling every 35 years. It has been slowly declining. In most of Europe now, the growth rate of the population is zero or is negative, and that is good news from the point of view of trying to achieve sustainability.

KMO: It’s particularly true in Japan, it is sort of bad news for that society in that you end up with a lot of older people who need care and not very many young people free to provide that care.

Albert: That is a very real problem. It is a short-term problem, and it is trivial compared to the problems that we will encounter if we allow the growth to continue.

KMO: Go ahead and just follow that line of reasoning for a little bit and sort of unpack the consequences if we just allow business as usual to proceed.

Albert: Well, we don’t have the resources to supply the present world population. The world population today is unsustainable. You can reach that conclusion by just observing that if any fraction of the present global warming is due to the actions of humans, then this by itself is proof that the human population has exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth. Such as a result of this global warming, there are many predictions about changing weather patterns, reduced snow fall on parts of the country, tough agriculture in many parts of the country and the world and so on. A rising sea level, a reduction in the amount of ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic and reduction of spring snow in the mountains which reduces water supply for big cities. They are all kinds of problems that come from the global warming. And now the global warming is a sure sign that we are overpopulated. If we just continue to increase the overpopulation by letting the growth continue unchecked, then all of these problems will get worse. Everyone will be affected.

KMO: You are suggesting that we look at the problem of global warming which does get a lot of play in the press right now, and equate it with a problem of overpopulation.

Albert: Absolutely, yes, and I think that the many people who give us advice, some of them are experts, and some are not, but essentially all of them, as far as I know, will tell us that we have to use energy more efficiently, and all efficient light bulbs, raise up the pressure in the tires on our cars and all sorts of little things like this that are important, but they are absolutely trivial, and in total, if everyone followed these, it would not stop the global warming simply because they do not address population growth.

And this is something that Malthus understood 200 years ago: that population growth has the capability of growing more rapidly than we can grow the supplies, and so on, that are necessary for human survival. So all of these, and I think it is just irresponsible; I just saw a thing on the web this morning, somebody advising us what we can do to reduce global warming and all of the things were important but in the big picture they where trivial. They will have no effect as long as we do not address population growth.

KMO: It's strange to hear you describe anything as being both simultaneously important and triviail.

Albert: Well, it’s going to take a lot to stop global warming, but all of these important things taken together will not stop it, and just on the basis of good common sense independent of global warming we should be reducing our personal energy consumption. We should be using energy more efficiently. We should be doing all sorts of things that will help reduce the problems. That is independent of global warming, but we should be aware that taken all together, those things cannot have any big impact on global warming as long as we fail to address the overpopulation problem and fail to take real steps to stop the overpopulation.

And then one has to ask, well where is the overpopulation problem the worst. If you look at just the numbers of population growth per year, well the numbers are very high for instance in underdeveloped nations, but the numbers are fairly large in the US, the total world population growth in a year is like 75 million people. The population growth in the US is 3 million people every year. Now 3 is small compared to 75 so a lot of people say, "Oh well, it is those other countries, they are the problem." But when you look at resources, the average child born in America will in a life-time have something like, I don’t know, 10 to 20 times the impact on world resources, as will a child born in some underdeveloped nation. So the real problem is us. It is here in the United States. And yet people who are claiming to be thoughtful, who do worry about population here in the United States very often point to the underdeveloped nations and say, "You are the problem," and they do not look here in the United States and say, "We are the problem."

KMO: I think it is easy to point to the Third World and say there is the problem because we fear, and rightly so I think, that the Third World is looking to the US and the industrialized First World generally as a model for where they want to go with their own development, and we just project things out and we think, "Gosh, if the Chinese drove cars like we drive cars that is going to be another billion cars on the road." That is almost going to double the number of cars on the road now, so I can certainly understand that tendency, although it is comical to think that the problem is that everybody else wants to live like we live, and the problem is not that we live like we live.

Albert: And the problem is that there are not enough resources to let everyone else live as we live. In other words, if you look at the studies of ecological footprinting, something that was developed at the University of British Columbia by Mathis Wackernagel and Bill Rees, you will find that the total footprint of the world population today living, some very well, some very poorly, is about 1.2 Earths. We have already exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth by that measure, and if you try to bring up all the under-developed parts, populations of the world, to our standard of living, they estimate it would take another 1 or 2 Earth's worth of resources to bring them up, so the die is cast. There aren’t enough resources to bring them up to our standard of living.

Now, that will impact us very greatly, and we can begin to see this because there is a lot of world competition for petroleum. I did some calculations on this. We have used, I estimate, about 85% of the total recoverable conventional oil that was ever in the ground in the United States. So we are in dire straits. We are importing over 60% of the oil we consume, and much of this comes from underdeveloped nations, and wherever we are importing it from, we find ourselves competing with the Chinese because they have even fewer resources than we do in terms of petroleum, and they have, as you mentioned, a very big growing population of automobiles and people who want to drive automobiles, and they have a very growing affluence of their people because of the big export business the Chinese do with the United States and other nations. And so they are competing with us in all of the world markets, and they are winning because we go out and our foreign policy is one of making war on the countries that have oil, of making enemies of the leaders of countries that supply us with significant quantities of oil, and the Chinese are going in there, to the same countries and they are competing successfully and getting oil that they need, and that is at the expense of the United States.

KMO: It brings to mind your example of the bacteria that are propagating in a jar, and they have something to eat there. Where I am going with this is that when you have a steady growth, every cycle or every doubling in the growth produces a number that exceeds all of the growth that came before it, so that your bacteria that are doubling at a constant rate... and suppose they are going to fill a bottle in an hour, the bottle will be half full a minute before that hour is up.

Albert: Yes, that is in the case of a doubling time of one minute so if the bacteria double in number every minute, and you observe that the bottle is full at twelve noon, then the question is at what time is it half full and the answer is one minute before, two minutes before it was ¼ full, 3 min before it was 1/8 full and so you have to ask yourself, if you were an average bacterium in that bottle, at what time would you first realize that you are running out of space? This is a line I use in my talk, and it gets people’s attention because when you are at 5 minutes before 12 noon you are only 3% full, 97% open space just yearning for development. Who would think that we would be likely to run out of resources in 5 more minutes? It’s a very striking metaphor.

KMO: But with that metaphor in mind it occurs to me that we could proceed here in the United States with business as usual, particularly if we are woefully ignorant of the actual supplies of oil at our disposal, until pretty much the very last minute. I mean that we could well be, according to the logic of the metaphor, within a couple of minutes of noon.

Albert: Yes, that is right. And I think we are approaching one minute before noon, and in the real world it can be found that things don’t grow steadily until the last bit of the resources are used. You have instead what is called a Hubbert curve, and this is sort of a Gaussian error curve. Two hundred years ago, oil production worldwide was zero. Two hundred years from now, it is going to be zero. In between, it rises to one or more maxima and you can approximate that by a smooth error curve.

A lot of reporters ask, "Well, when are we going to run out of oil?" And my answer is, "Never. We will never run out of oil." But the question that has to be asked and understood is, "When will oil production peak? When will we pass that peak production?"

And the peak production marks the point at which we have consumed half of the initial resource. And so after you pass the peak then production declines and approaches zero. And it may take another 100 years for it to approach zero; it took a 100 years to get up to where it is now. But as you have declining production, and a growing world population and a growing world per capita demand for oil, then you have all the makings of a real disaster, because everything in our modern society is dependent on oil and the first thing you think of is the food production, and one can observe that modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food, and you know we can see that rapidly rising prices of petroleum as we pass over the peak, and that will immediately be reflected in very rapid rises in the cost of food and the cost of everything else in society.

Now, where are we with regard to the world peak? The US peaked in 1970, and we are well down on the downhill side of the curve. World production could peak anytime now. There are some experts who say the peak has already been passed, my own analysis says we are very close to the peak. And the latest I have heard from any scientists in the field of geologists is about 2020. But I think most of the consensus feeling among people who are really into this problem is that it is much earlier than 2020, that it is any day now, and unfortunately, we won’t know when we pass the peak; we could already have passed it. You will have to have 4 or 5 or 10 years of consistent downturn in world production before you can say statistically it is clear that back there 5 years ago or so that was the peak. One point being a little bit lower than the current trend does not prove that the peak has been passed so we won’t know for at least 5 years after the peak that the peak has actually been passed.

KMO: Peak Oil could come 20 months from now, or it coule come 20 years from now. I was talking to a guest on the podcast a few weeks ago, and he was mentioning that in terms of the adjustment that we’ll have to make, it would be a lot easier on us if peak oil came right now than if it came 20 years from now. Do you think that is the case?

Albert: I do because if it comes 20 years from now, we will have all of these non-scientists or PhDs telling us we can just go on increasing our rates of consumption, and so when it does come, we’ll be much more dependent on oil than we are now and so the shock of rapidly rising oil prices resulting from the passing of the peak, will be an even bigger shock.

It is in our national self-interest to reduce our annual consumption of petroleum right now, and the easiest ways to do that would be to put a large tax of several dollars a gallon on petroleum, but that is not going to fly in a democracy. That would not be acceptable. It is an unfortunate thing that we will have to wait until things get so bad that the prices go up. If we would put a tax on petroleum of several dollars a gallon, then that tax would go to the United States’ Government or to our State Governments or some combination of it, but if we wait until the price goes up because of passing the peak, then that extra money goes to the oil producers, most of whom are out of the country, and many of whom are supporting terrorism. Every time right now you pay a dollar for gasoline, every time you spend a dollar on gasoline, some fraction of that dollar is going to support international global terrorism.

KMO: Would you explain the mechanism by which that works?

Albert: Well, a lot of it goes to Saudi Arabia, and there are many allegations that money that goes to Saudi Arabia; some of it is diverted from the giant fortunes of some of the oil people over there; some of it gets into funding Al Qaeda and the terrorist organizations.

KMO: The friend that I was speaking with about peak oil, and he was saying that it would be a lot easier on us if it came now rather than later. I think what he had in mind was that a gallon of gasoline weighs about six pounds, and when you burn it you are adding about five pounds of carbon to the atmosphere. And that if we were to proceed with business as usual for another twenty years, then we would have added so much carbon to the atmosphere that it seems as though there would be no reversing the warming trend that that would set off.

Albert: That is a very good point. That is absolutely right.

KMO: First it seems that nobody in power right now, or nobody with the ability to shape the conversation as it takes place in the corporate media, is willing to equate the climate crisis with unsustainable levels of population.

Albert: That is correct.

KMO: It seems that on the political right in this country, and the left/right spectrum describes a pretty narrow range of thought, but on the political right there is absolutely no questioning whatsoever the importance of continued economic expansion. And on the left, I think the idea that the problem is too much humanity probably offends the sensibilities of people who would describe themselves as deeply humanist.

Albert: As liberals.

KMO: Yes.

Albert: Well, I agree.

KMO: Is there any strategy that you know of for sort of getting around these political preconceptions that keep this discussion from taking place on a larger scale?

Albert: Well, I think the thing that we have to do is what you are doing and let us start educating people throughout the country and so that the people will communicate to their members of Congress and say look, the big problem is population. These others are important but trivial. Let us go after the population growth and let's remember that the last US president who was concerned about population was Richard Nixon. And he chartered a major study, the reporters called the Rockefeller commission report, and its conclusion was to the effect that the commission could see no benefit to the US from any future population growth. But that report got put on the shelf when Nixon had all his problems and has been forgotten. Nobody remembers it now.

KMO: Well when it comes to actually addressing the problem of overpopulation, it seems that one of two models is going to come to mind. Either you are going to have a central authority with the strength to force people to curb their reproductive habits as has happened in China, or you are going to count on some sort of naturally occurring organic process or some sort of just distributed raising of awareness to bring awareness to population problems and then thereby bring them, or bring reproduction under control.

But it seems to me that if one goes for a central authority model, that for there to be a centralized authority with the power to enforce that mandate, you are going to bring along the economies of scale which are so much at the cause of our problem to start with. It seems that decentralization is the way to go but that seems to run afoul of people’s desire to make sure that everybody does their share.

Albert: Well if you are going to try to issue an edict, that is something you are going to do in a totalitarian state, but you can’t do it in a democracy so that is not the way to proceed here. But we do have to remember that one of our big national goals is economic growth and development of technology. Now thirty years ago, when the People’s Republic of China instituted their very coercive ‘one child per family’, their statement of justification of that tough policy was the following: economic development is hindered by population growth. So they have been able to cut their population growth roughly in half and look at the economic development that they have been able to achieve because of that reduction. Now we could have even more economic development, high tech and so on if we could stop our population growth.

But I think the first step has to be a national awareness of the problem of population. If the president of the United States would come out and say, "Look, we are overpopulated. Here is the evidence. We have got to find some way to reduce our population and do it in a humane way consistent with the Constitution of the United States and let us have a national dialogue for a year, about the problem and about what is the best way to address it." If something like that would happen, there would be awareness and people would be aware that large families do not further and advance the welfare of the United States. And I think, without anything coercive, we could make big progress and a coupled with such a recognition could be (the realization that) we have got to spend more nationally, within our country for making sure that family planning assistance is available to everyone who requests it. And the goal should be, both in our country and worldwide, to make sure that every child is a wanted child. If we could do that, we would go a long way towards solving the population problem. It might not solve it all, but it would certainly go a long way, and I think it could be done consistent with the laws and Constitution of the United States.

KMO: I think that the plan runs afoul of the ideology of main stream protestant Christianity, in that, providing 'family planning help'... That phrase, to a large percentage of the population, is going to equate to abortion on demand, which is something they absolutely could not countenance.

Albert: Well, I think the studies show that when you have traditional family planning available, the number of abortions each year goes down. And if you want to increase the number of abortions annually, you cut back on family planning. That is what has been found now with the present administration in Washington. They have cut back on family planning assistance, especially overseas and in this country too, and the number of abortions goes up.

KMO: I had sent you an excerpt from a book by Vincent Castriano Jr; and I wanted to read just a paragraph or two from that excerpt and get your response.

Albert: Alright.

KMO: Mr. Caspriano writes, “Within the next fifty years, during the lifetime of the majority of individuals reading these words, humanity’s infinite growth potential versus finite planet conundrum, if allowed to simply run its course, will almost certainly be resolved through the elimination of some segment of human life on Earth. In the reduction through affluence plan, it is the yet unborn children of the future that are sacrificed. The religious, economic and cultural varients mostly name their present day targets out loud, investing enormous amounts of energy in demonizing their perceived enemies: terrorists, capitalists, leftists, infidels, Jews, Christians, Muslims, gays, the ultra rich, the useless eater poor, etc.. And making shameless public preparations for their elimination or forced impoverishment. Reducing population by increasing material affluence may turn out to be, by far, the most humane strategy for redirecting an earthbound humanity towards stabilization. But are we on board with its projected outcome, of a planet of rich old people, clinging forever to their stuff, even if we personally get to be the new eternals. And a stagnant long term future that amounts to little more than a dull continuance of the status quo into perpetuity.

"Don’t all the other competing plans out there amount to only slightly more draconian versions of pretty much the same thing? Idealized and intensely meme-driven wish fulfillment scenarios of what life in the present ought to be like, infinitely extended into the future. That is the future Muslim planet looks pretty much like a bigger version of the present Muslim world; a Christianized earth with a church on every corner and a bible in every hand; a capitalist globe glistening in space like a giant blue shopping mall; a post earth changes New Age wonder world with tribes of happy homesteaders drumming blissfully beside bonfires and singing Kum Ba Yah across a lush naturally depopulated landscape; etc.”

And where he is going with this, I think is, he is suggesting that our resolution is going to be getting off planet, to moving humanity into a larger environment in which to populate.

Albert: I wouldn’t count on that at all. Right now it takes so much energy just to put a crew of half a dozen or so in a space shuttle into orbit. The amount of energy required is just absolutely staggeringly large. And the idea of populating other planets, I don’t think we should count on that in any future scenario. I think that would be unwise in the extreme. It would be a total waste of energy. Look, if you are going to solve the US problem, a population increase of three million people every year in the United States; you have got to find three million Americans and say to them, "We would like you to leave, please. And we will provide the spaceships. We want you to go out there and please don’t come back."

Now that isn’t going to fly.

KMO: There are many science fiction scenarios that result from that. One is that the folks do leave as you tell them to but contrary to your instructions, later on they do come back and they are not very pleased with the experience they have had out there.

Albert: Well that is right. They all want to come back, so it is no answer. Now, this is not to say that we will never in the future populate other planets, but I would say it would be unwise in the extreme to count on that in any plans and preparations that we are making today.

KMO: There are a good number of people worried about what they call existential risks, which are risks that threaten the future of humanity as a whole, and a lot of those folks are interested in getting some self-sustaining communities going off of Earth, not necessarily to relieve Earth of its population pressure, but just to make sure that, should some large meteor hit the Earth, or should something happen to the Earth, that humanity itself would not be lost.

Albert: Well, that is a noble goal, but I don’t know what you can do, and the idea of putting people into a spaceship, say it just orbits the earth on a continuous basis, so that these people can survive up there for long periods of time. I mean, that is certainly being studied but I think it is beyond the capability of our present technology, and it would take some pretty dedicated volunteers that say I am willing to go up there and stay up there and not come back. And you know, they did some experiments in the Arizona desert where they built a great big greenhouse like building and they tried to make a closed atmosphere inside the building and had maybe, I don’t know, half a dozen people living in this closed atmosphere. And the idea was to see if they could survive, growing their own food, making their own oxygen and so on without any input from the outside world and the thing was not a success; a lot of money went down the drain with that experiment. So we can’t even do it on earth, and let alone send them off into space and have them survive.

Part II

KMO: In that paragraph that I read from Vincent Caspriano’s book, he claimed that, if allowed to simply run its course, the conundrum of the infinite growth versus the finite resources will almost certainly be resolved through the elimination of some segment of human life on earth.

Albert: That is to be expected. That was predicted in 1972 in the book “Limits to Growth,” and that was a computerized study done by some people at MIT. They modeled a global economy and put in all the trends in terms of population growth, growth of energy consumption, growth of food supplies and 5 or 6 variables like that, and no matter how they juggled it, the input and the prescriptions for the future, every model seemed to show collapse in the middle of the century; a big cutback and die off of population from lack of food and from pollution. When you read the stories of air pollution in China today, they’re just devastating, and in large part it's because of their rapid industrialization, their rapid increase in the use of coal, and their inability or unwillingness, whatever, to control the emissions from coal plants, and so they are killing themselves. They're killing the Chinese, but they're having this wonderful economic growth, and so their leaders are torn between: "Do we go on with this killing people by air pollution and allow a few of us to enjoy the benefits of great growth, or do we say stop the growth and try to clean up the air?"

It’s a real dilemma. The ‘Limits to Growth’ postulated this and showed it in a computerized model back in 1972. Now that really upset the whole world community economists and they said, "Oh, this is absolutely wrong. It can’t be true. It is too terrible to be true." And then in 1992, 20 years later, another edition was brought out, and the people at MIT did their computer programs, and their conclusion was: we lost 20 years. And then in 2002, there was a thirty year update, and again their conclusion was the same. We have lost 30 years. And then in the 2002 version, the only way that they could adjust the society to have a stable population out to the year 2100, roughly 90 years from now, was to instantly stop population growth worldwide and to cut back enormously on the per capita consumption of energy. And I forget what 'enormously' was. They gave a figure, and it may have been to cut it in half or something like that. But with those two very draconian measures they were able to project a stable population out to the year 2100. But nothing else. None of the more reasonable scenarios for the future showed that they were able to sustain population size.

KMO: You have mentioned Thomas Malthus, and I think it is fair to describe you as a Malthusian theorist.

Albert: Yes.

KMO: Now a lot of folks are fond of saying that Thomas Malthus has been proven wrong because, you know, we have gone 200 years without his suggested population correction ever really taking place on any grand scale. Why do you think that we should still take Malthus seriously?

Albert: Well, he was a mathematician among other things, and if you translate his message of 200 years ago into today’s idiom, what you come up with is: he says the population has the capability of growing more rapidly than we can grow any of the supplies that are necessary to sustain the population. Now he looked at food, and he said that we can’t increase food production very much except by increasing the land that is available, and you couldn’t increase the land by very much and so he didn’t anticipate the widespread use of petroleum in agriculture, and so it has gone 200 years, and some people claim we don’t have the Malthusian crisis. But I can say that I suspect there are more people well-fed in the world today than there were 200 years ago. But I think it is also true that there are more people starving and malnourished in the world today than there were in the world of Malthus 200 years ago. So we can not say we have avoided the Malthusian crisis. We have just sort of limited it to underdeveloped nations and remote places that you can read about in the paper but not have any connection with.

So now what we are seeing is that food production has increased. The productivity per acre of land has increased very largely, by very large amounts and since the time of the prediction of Malthus, that was a thing he couldn’t anticipate. What it is based on, it is based on fertilizers, chemical fertilizers and one of the ingredients that is essential to making fertilizers are natural gas and petroleum. So with those productions peaking, we can expect to see a peaking in world agriculture. And I was giving my talk back in the seventies, up in Montana one spring, and it was during the second, I think, of those OPEC energy crises where gasoline at the pump was in short supply, and the farmers up there were climbing the walls. It was spring and they could not get diesel fuel to do those spring plantings. So we built an agriculture that is totally dependent on petroleum, and so any peaking of world petroleum supplies can be followed by a peaking of agriculture.

Now you hear people say, and again, these are people who are well meaning, often well educated but who don't understand the problem, say that American agriculture is the most efficient in the world today. That is nonsense; it is the least efficient in the world today. It is the least efficient because if you have to use, and there is your definition of efficiency, how much energy does it take, in the form of petroleum, natural gas, etc. to produce 1 unit of energy that is on your dinner table? And that is about 10 units of petroleum energy for 1 unit of food energy on your table.

Now the thing that makes people say we are more efficient is, they use a different measure. They say, "How many person hours on the farm are required to produce 1 unit of food?" Well that number has been going down, leaving these people without understanding to say we are more efficient. We don’t use as many people farming as we used to. But that is not a good measure; that is a measure of how we are substituting petroleum for people on the farm. And if the petroleum peak starts down, we are not going to be able to continue to do that. So global agriculture today takes on the order of 10 units of energy to put 1 unit of food energy on your plate, and that is terribly inefficient and it is getting worse every year.

KMO: But in addition to the sort of false efficiency that is claimed because there are fewer human hours of labor going into the production of food, I think that is sort of the euphemistic gloss on saying that we have lost an enormous amount of human intellectual capital in terms of people who know how to grow food.

Albert: That is correct.

KMO: Very few people have anything to do at all with the production of their own food and the people who are producing these huge quantities of calories now, they are not doing it by tending plants in the soil, they are doing it by driving tractors back and forth across these enormous fields and, you know, using these huge combines to spray petroleum based fertilizers on the land and then just spray Round-Up and other poisons and then drive over and harvest the crops once they have grown, and these folks, you know, if you gave them a shovel and a pack of seeds and a bucket of horse manure they would not necessarily know how to go and actually plant a garden that is going to grow some food for them.

Albert: I think you are absolutely right.

KMO: Now, another problem that we face here in the US is that we have physically structured the country such that people live out in the suburbs, which are places that are pretty much devoid of any agricultural land and pretty much devoid of even the goods and services that people depend on in daily life, because it is pre-supposed that people will be able to get in their cars and cover 30 miles, you know, without really thinking much about it to go and buy things.

Albert: Now, the lands where these people work, those used to be agricultural lands. We never built subdivisions on waste land. We always build our subdivisions on the best agricultural land that is available.

KMO: Why is that?

Albert: Well, the cities were built, originally, in the center of good agricultural land. So as the cities expand, it is only agricultural land that they can expand onto.

KMO: I read something that is kind of amusing, and that it is we have this national obsession with the lawn, the modern culture of grass. You know this carpet that is supposed to sweep from coast to coast, unbroken from one patch of carefully tended monoculture into the next. And somebody suggested that that might just turn out to be a saving grace because in these huge suburban tracts we have set aside land that can be reclaimed for small scale agriculture.
Albert: We did that during World War II, we had Liberty Gardens all over the country, and I do not know what fraction of the US domestic food supply came from Liberty Gardens, but I think it could have been 5%. It could have been 10%. That significant. But we did that, and people dug up their yards and planted gardens. In fact, I think there was a symbolic liberty garden on the White House lawn.

KMO: I am pretty sure it is gone now.

Albert: I think …oh yes.

KMO: In the passage that I read from Vincent Caspriano Jr., he was saying that the more ideologically extreme groups in the world right now seem to have an intuitive understanding of the fact that a population correction is in order, and they are shamelessly and explicitly campaigning to have their chosen group be the sacrificial lamb. And if you were to poll them and say, "OK, we need to get rid of two out of 10 people in the world, who do you think we should get rid of?" Well, they are going to have a ready answer. And it seems that most groups who are propagating an ‘us versus them’ ideology have selected the group that they would like to see eliminated, and are openly campaigning for it.

Albert: Yes, that may be. You know, if making war is your idea on how to solve the future problems, why then I am sure people are thinking like that but I don’t think like that, and I do not want to have any part of people who are thinking like that.

KMO: You have spent a long time honing your presentation and your arguments, and your arguments seem to be pretty thorough going and difficult to refute in terms of laying out what the problem is. I ask a lot of people, a lot of people who are very friendly to the notion of peak oil and people who are very friendly to the notion of returning us to a more localized sort of lifestyle where we depend upon the people who are physically close to us, and a sense of community and shared faith that we have with these people. But when I ask them, "Do you think that there is a Malthusian Correction in the offing?", almost universally the answer is no.

I had Thomas Holmer-Dickson, the author of “The Upside of Down: Catastrophe, Creativity and the Renewal of Civilization” on the program a couple of months ago, and I asked him about the potential for a Malthusian Correction and his response was that right now, as you pointed out, our system of agriculture is very inefficient, and there is a lot of slack in it, and that we could tighten things up. We could change the agricultural system such that it is sufficient to feed everybody. Do you think that is the case?

Albert: I think that would involve many people now living in cities and employed in urban environments to go back to farming. And that is a major sociological shift.

KMO: Well, I tell you, I would very much like to be an organic farmer and do nothing but. But in the current economy it is a very difficult shift to make for somebody who wants to do it. And most people have no interest in doing it.

Albert: You know, I agree. It is going to be a very difficult shift. But I think there will be a large readjustment somewhere along the line that was predicted in Limits to Growth. But there will be a very significant population die back. Now let me speculate as to why people who are well informed about current problems don’t think there will be a Malthusian crisis. I think I believe these people, they have heard it so often; these credentialed professorial types who say we have proven Malthus wrong.

And let me give you an example. I gave my talk to a group of retired people, not too long ago, and I saw in the audience a retired professor of economics, and I could see, from the talk as I watched his face, he just got more and more agitated. When I finished, he got up, turned to the audience and said: “This is all wrong. This is just Malthus all over again. We have proven Malthus wrong.” And he went on and on, and I kind of knew him so when he quieted down I talked to him and I said: “Well look, you know the arithmetic of growth, and you know the growth can not go on.” And he said: “Yes, I know that, that is true” but he said: “We have to grow for now” I said: “Why for now?” He said: “To help poor people”. Well now the one thing that we know, from news reports that come out several times a year is that the present situation, based on growth, is one that results in an increasing gap, economically, between the well to do, and the poor. And that gap is increasing. It is increasing in the United States. It is increasing globally. And I wonder to myself, "What planet has this guy been living on?"

People believe that somehow technology is going to save us. Technology is the main thing that has gotten us into this problem. Because the main effect of technology is to allow population to continue to grow. And as long as the populations continue to grow, the problems get worse.

And I think we should remember Eric Sevareid's law. Eric Sevareid was a national journalist. He observed that the main source of problems is solutions. So in everything we do, we are trying to solve problems. Most of the problems we are trying to solve are caused by population growth. And a problem is anything that inhibits population growth, so solving a problem involves removing the inhibition. So what we have done then is open the door to even more population growth. And I am particularly critical of the business of urban planning, because urban planning is just making everything worse. And you can say "smart growth" and things like this. Well I like to point out that smart growth destroys the environment. Dumb growth destroys the environment. Now, smart growth destroys the environment in good taste, so it is a little like buying a ticket on the Titanic. If you are smart you go first class, if you are dumb you go steerage, but either way the result is about the same.

KMO: So if you know you are going to be on the Titanic, and you know it is going to sink, you might as well have a few good meals and a nice stroll on deck.

Albert: That’s right. That is what we are doing, you know. The ‘well to do’ are taking care of themselves.

KMO: In the short term.

Albert: They are lobbying for all kinds of tax breaks and other considerations that keep them, and the lifestyle, and life trajectory that they are on and never mind the rest of the people.

KMO: I suspect that a lot of the people who are solution-oriented, and now I am talking about actual solutions and not bigger grander technological boondoggle solutions, but decentralization, getting back to organic agriculture, getting more people involved in food production. These folks, I think, or at least I sometimes suspect, will not entertain the idea of a Malthusian crisis because they think that, if they were to say it out loud, that it would just make the situation seem hopeless and that nobody would be motivated to do anything.

Albert: Well, I think there is a real element of truth in that.

KMO: Well, you have been very effective at articulating the problem that we have; the situation that we face. What are your ideal goals for pursuing the solution?

Albert: Well, I am sort of working to try to educate people that growth is a problem. Growth of population is a problem. The effect of this growth on natural resources is a problem. The problems are all related to one another by arithmetic. The arithmetic is not difficult. We can understand the problems, and we can take steps to solve them. So I am still working at that level; trying just to educate people in the hope that we can have a more enlightened approach to the future.

KMO: You think that somebody who has a consciousness of peak oil now and somebody who has an understanding of the mathematics behind growth; do you think they have any better prospect for surviving the Malthusian correction than somebody who is oblivious?

Albert: No, I don’t think so. They may, I don’t know. Following the Malthusian crisis is certainly going to be a difficult, challenging thing. And I suspect we are much more equal in our ability to solve, personally solve, the crisis as it affects us; and that the people who are ‘very well to do’ may not be much better off than the people who are very poor. In fact, you know; if you look at them, say what group in the United States today is the most sustainable, through their lifestyle today. And I would tend to say it is probably the, what is the agriculture group in western Pennsylvania, that religious agriculture group, not the shakers, it is...

KMO: The Menonites?

Albert: Well, the Mennonites. People who are very conservative religiously, who don’t use automobiles or power; have used horsepower, horses on their farms and do their agriculture. They are very successful. But it is a way of life I wouldn’t want to shift to myself. But they are very successful, and I think when the crunch counts, these people will be very well situated personally to survive.

KMO: Well, I think most people, given the choice right now would not voluntarily adopt an Amish or Mennonite lifestyle...

Albert: Yes, Amish. That is the group.

KMO: If they were given the option of adopting an Amish lifestyle or dying of starvation; that is a pretty easy choice to make.

Albert: Well, right, but you know, in today’s situation I don’t think people, or many people, would voluntarily make that change.

KMO: I appreciate your time, and we have pretty much come to the end of the time that we have available. What final thoughts would you like to leave with somebody who has taken an interest in the topics you articulated so well?

Albert: Well, I thank you for your interest, and I just simply say we have to fight growth wherever we observe it; population growth in particular. We have to note in our communities that population growth never pays for itself. It results in higher taxes, higher congestion, higher air pollution, higher utility costs for all of us. And we just have to try to get a national ground swell to get people to realize that growth is the wrong path to follow, and that we have got to stop the growth now while we can do it on our terms. If we don’t stop it now, then Nature will stop it through a big die-off.

KMO: Professor Albert Bartlett, I thank you very much for your time and I hope that you will continue to do what you have been doing, for sometime yet to come.

Albert: Thank you, KMO.

Friday, November 21, 2008

Albert K. Bates: Consciousness or Bust

This conversation with Albert K. Bates was recorded in April of 2007 and first "aired" in episodes 29 and 30 of the C-Realm Podcast.

Introduction

KMO: Welcome back to the C-Realm podcast. My next guest is author Albert K. Bates.
Albert is a retired public interest attorney and author of several books on energy, environment and history. He is a co-founder of the Eco Village Network of the Americas and the Global Eco Village Network.

During his 26-year career as an attorney, he argued environmental and civil rights cases before the US Supreme Court and drafted a number of legislative acts while publishing “Natural Rights”, a quarterly newsletter on deep ecology. His books “Shutdown!; Nuclear Power on Trial” and “Climate in Crisis: The Greenhouse Effect and What You Can Do” provided early insight into two of the greatest dangers now confronting the world.

An inveterate inventor, he holds a number of design patents and was the designer of the concentrating photovoltaic arrays and solar hybrid automobiles displayed at the 1982 World’s Fair. He has been director of the Global Village Institute for Appropriate Technology since 1984 and the Eco Village Training Center at the (Walnut Hill) Farm Community in Summerton, TN since 1994 where he has taught natural building, sustainable agriculture and appropriate technology to students from more than 50 nations.

Interview

KMO: Albert Bates, thank you very much for appearing on the C-realm podcast and welcome!

Albert: Well, Thank you for having me. You know I recognize that this may be listened to by those archeologists, possibly astro-archeologists, from other worlds who manage to decrypt this electronic stream and find out what is was that we’re possibly thinking back in this period. So I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to have a piece of that conversation.

KMO: It sounds like you have listened to an episode from the C-realm podcast or two.

Albert: A few, yes!

KMO: I’m guessing you’ve listened to at least two that I can think of because the guests were friends of yours, and that was sort of your vector to the show. Is that right?

Albert: that’s right. Dmitry Orlov is a friend of mine and we’ve been exchanging advice and ideas about this coming era over the last year or two.

KMO: The other author you mentioned when you first contacted me, she’s more than an author, she is a once very successful investment banker and member of, I think it was, the first Bush administration, Catherine Austin Fitts.

Albert: She is actually a neighbor to us here in this part of rural Tennessee, which is kind of interesting to have someone of that stature move down into this neck of the woods.

KMO: Well, it’s funny who you find when you slip off into the boonies.

Albert: That’s right, and I am sure you can relate to the fact that it takes us a while to get back to civilization having been here, but we are finding ways like this satellite technology that allow us to have wireless internet contact here, although I am kind of watching the gage as I am speaking and I’m seeing the satellite strength go up and down, and we may or may not, depending on the winds have a good signal today.

KMO: Using Skype to record a phone conversation is somewhat akin to using tin cans and string to try to carry on a conversation. But as I mentioned in the podcast that I posted last week, it amazes me when it works at all. So when it falls down a little bit that just seems to be, you know, something that I should expect and take in stride.

Speaking of Dmitry Orlov, he has written a nice little blurb for your new book. If you would, tell us about the book, and then I will read his little blurb.

Albert: Well, the book is "The Post-Petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook: Recipes for Changing Times,” and I was trying to figure out what it is people are going to most need, or most need to learn about, when they are making this transition in the coming years between the era of petroleum that has been going on for a century or more and the post-petroleum era. And it is kind of like shifting from your savings account, in this case the fossil fuel savings account that was accumulated over a hundred million years, to a current checking account which is based on income in the form of solar energy striking the planet every day. And it is a significantly different kind of lifestyle, living on your income, than it is living on such a massive pile of savings.

And so I put together advice. And it is based on thirty-five or forty years of living very close to nature and also having my internet too. And also some ideas about what kinds of things need to change if we are going still inhabit this planet a century from now.

KMO: Well, looking through your book, just even without reading it paragraph by paragraph, just flipping through it I can see there are so many things in there that are of great interest to me like, for example, I have a composting toilet, a Sun-Mar brand, and it is new in the box, and it is sitting in my carport. I have owned it for years, and it was to go into the house that I was building, and the house didn’t ever get finished, and I just sold the land that it was on to pay off a lot of credit card debt. So I am a sort of a frustrated ‘high-tech, eco back-to-the-land’ type.

Albert: Yes, the type Sun-Mar is interesting, I know that brand. I know that particular model, and the State of Tennessee, in its infinite wisdom, decided that it was going to put a requirement on the books, and they are going to say that basically you can’t have anything that is not made of plastic for your composting toilet. It has to be approved by some engineering standard that was developed by people who were working in some corporate office somewhere in some skyscraper on a coastal city, instead of the technologies that we have; some of them coming from Europe and some of them coming from the Third World, for doing some very effective composting of human waste and returning it to the soil.

And you know, you can do that either through a wet process such as constructing wetlands, or you can do that through a dry process such as a dry toilet. Any one of which can be built for much less money than you would spend on these plastic ‘jobbies’ and the electric fans to run them. And the thing about the plastics is, "Where does that go?" I mean, what happens? First of all it comes off of fossil fuel, that is from petroleum, and then secondly, it goes into where? The environment. Where does that mean exactly? Probably tiny little bits and oodles that are being flushed into some system like the oceans where it will be digested by sea turtles. We really need to get away from that into much more natural states, things that you can build yourself.

KMO: Well, I hope that my Sun-Mar composting toilet, plastic though it may be, actually gets pooped on and peed on eventually because, thus far, it remains utterly pristine. I would hate for that plastic to have been created and molded into that shape for no purpose at all.

Albert: Well if you take care of it, it should well last a good long time and sunlight, more than anything else, will break that down. So keep it in a dark place.

KMO: Well it is in its original box. So I think given its current level of usage it should last a very long time.

Well, Dmitry Orlov wrote of your book, “As we blindly motor up to the top of peak oil, thoughts turn to what lies ahead. To help those who find the plan of driving straight off a cliff disagreeable there is an experienced Sherpa, by the name of Albert Bates, pointing out the best ways to negotiate the downward slope. All the essentials are covered: water, shelter, fuel, food, and of course food preparation. I especially recommend his borsht.”

Albert: Yeah, I don’t know if he actually tried my borsht, but I am personally fond of it, and I think that cabbage is one of those things anybody can grow. It is pretty much of no-brainer. It even made it through our recent 18 degree late freeze here in April. So I think that is something that we can all learn how to do.

KMO: You and I are both at the same latitude so I got that exact same freeze. For people outside the United States or for those folks within the United States who unfortunately conform to the stereotype about American ignorance of geography, Albert’s State of Tennessee and my State of Arkansas are contiguous.

Albert: Right, and for folks outside the United States, 18 degrees Farenheit is well below zero Celsius.

KMO: Yes, that is below freezing.

Albert: Actually, I have a little bit of an anecdote here, if you allow?

KMO: Yes, definitely.

Albert: I just want to have a mention of an earlier show that you had on dream travels, and, I have to remember, that there is an occasion when I was sound asleep. And I wasn’t particularly used to dreaming, but I did have this one dream in which I was lying on a beach and someone came up to me and gave me the ambient temperature in Celsius, and I immediately converted it to Fahrenheit, and it was just a no-brainer. It was just right there in my mind and then I went and checked the figure when I woke up, because I still remembered it, and you know what? It was exactly accurate, and I am somebody who is really bad at math and couldn’t remember the formula of how you convert Fahrenheit into Celsius, but my sleeping mind was able to make that conversion instantaneously with no sweat.

KMO: That is a topic that fascinates me, the possibility that maybe there are other, separate, discreet intelligences running on the same hardware that supports, you know, the processes that you would think of as being Albert Bates or that I think of as being KMO, and all sorts of Science Fiction/Horror scenarios leap to mind.

Albert: Yeah, I am something of a science fiction fan. I use a lot of those allusions that you are talking about, the different sorts of scenarios that may play out in our future.

KMO: So, science fiction scenarios in thinking about the near term future, you know, if you look through the episode notes for the various C-Realm podcast shows, you will see that I am interested in something called the technological singularity. And right now it seems like the technological singularity and the utter collapse of our corporate capitalist system seem to be racing, and which one will arrive first I think really will have a decisive impact on the course of human history.

Albert: Well, I agree with you. I think that what I am seeing is a race. It is a race between whether we will attain a degree of consciousness on this planet. I have some misgivings about the use of the technological singularity as a metaphor because I look at an exponential growth of anything, and at some point the line goes straight up, which to me suggests that it is a kind of a quantum world where many things exist simultaneously. And for me that gets difficult to wrap my mind around.

But I think that we are in a race, and it is a race between whether we are going to have a habitable planet or whether we will attain, as life forms on this planet, some form of cosmic consciousness in time to carry out, finish out this experiment that was begun many billions of years ago. And I think that, what I have been seeing in these last few weeks or months is some warning signs that we are not winning our race... that Gaia is in a lot worse trouble than we thought.

And let me give you a couple of examples: The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Policy Panel on Climate Change, which is part of the United Nations and consists of 1,200 scientists from around the world collaborating, came out with its fourth assessment. There are three reports to come out, and the first two working groups have already published theirs, and the third one is coming out next month. And the second one was kind of more dire than the first. I expect we may see the same in the third, and what they are basically saying is that the planet has now passed a number of tipping points in anthropogenic warming. And at this stage of the game we cannot say for sure whether we, as humans, will be able to do anything to arrest the changes that are now unfolding.

And the scary thing about that is that our planet is relatively fragile. We have the six inches of soil beneath our feet, and we’ve got the small layer of breathable oxygen over our heads. And then beyond that, it is very difficult for life to sustain itself, and we are fortunate in having this very lovely habitable world, but it is a world that is getting pretty old, I mean in terms of the solar system. You know the Earth is like a 65 year-old woman in human terms; she is 4 billion year and change, and the first billion was her pubescent stage, and DNA has been going for about 3 billion now. She only has another billion, or so, to go, which may not be enough to repeat the experiment a second time before the sun gets too hot and the laboratory that has been Earth shifts to the fourth rock away from the sun or farther away.

And I am seeing all of this and, it is sad to say it, but it seems to me that history might indeed be ending. And if climate change tips us in to a desert world, and it does this in less than a thousand years, maybe even in a hundred years, instead of a billion years, well it is our fault. But you know blame is pretty useless. So what was the end result of the experiment, you know? Some would say that the purpose of the experiment, of having life on this planet, was to lift off consciousness, to transcend the corporeal realm, and to start working consciousness through various dimensions. And for the past many decades, that is what we have been doing. Albert Hoffman discovered LSD, about the end of the 1940’s. We had Gordon Wasson going down to meet with the Curanderos in Mexico in the 50's. You had a lot of people who were beginning this exploration, and in fact that number has been expanding every year. And time is now getting very short. And you have to wonder whether we are going to make it to the finish line in time. That is the race I see underway, and who knows how it is going to come out?

But I think whoever is engaged in this exploration is doing the heavy lifting for all life on earth at this point. It is absolutely essential work, and it is much more important than sending rockets to Mars or building fusion reactors. Consciousness is the most important field of scientific endeavor in which we can possibly engage right now. And you know, at the same time I have to say that I think the age of science may soon be ending and giving way to an age of art and that it will be artists, not scientists, who save us.

This is the part I got into when I started thinking about this change that is happening now with peak oil. Peak oil is kind of the leading edge of this change that is about to transpire on this planet. The leading edge because we are getting to the plateau point or the point where we cannot produce any more than we produce right at this instant; about 85 million barrels per day. As we start to decline, we begin to go down each year, and that means that the economy, as it were, contracts.

The human population has to scale back a bit and the food supply is holding also if we are not going to have the same ability to produce, and so our economies begin to shrink a bit, which means also that we are not going to be able to take care of a lot of the problems that we created when we had these huge sprawling civilization problems; problems like nuclear waste and toxic time bombs of various kinds, genes that are loose in the cornfields of Mexico or the same in fisheries of the Atlantic and so forth. So we are having to think about what is it going to be like in a lower energy future and we regress back to, you know, before Colonel Drake discovered oil in the 19th century, or do we go back and stop somewhere sooner, or do we have some kind of technological future that is based on lower energy or solar energy, and exactly how does that all play out? And I began to see that really, the future has to be one of less consumption, and if you start talking about less consumption, you have to think about less production, OK?

And so consumption and production are pretty much two sides of the same coin. You have to do with less of both, and what is a lifestyle that is less productive? It is like people need to have this kind of drive, this need to produce? And they don’t feel worth anything unless they are producing something? And so, what do you do that is not actually producing things, that is not actually taking resources from the earth and putting them into one-time uses and then disposing of them and get rid of that whole paradigm?

And I came around to a vision of a civilizaton where there are artists, there are dancers, there are musicians, there are surfers. OK, surfers is a metaphor, let’s think about that, because here we are coming up on this big wave now out there, and here we are standing with our surfboard, and it is all waxed and ready. Surfers, if they have a good day, then what do they produce? Well, they produce a suntan; they have a really good rawhide, but what does that action? Well, maybe it produces some serotonin; maybe it makes them feel good. And they could do worse. And then they have to go figure out, "Well, how do we get some food and shelter and whatever else we need so that we can be ready to surf on the waves when they are up again?" And so they flip a few burgers and they sand some surfboards, and then they are ready when the waves are right. And I think that that is actually doable too.

I mean, people worry, "How are we going to have enough food, and how are we going to have enough water?" But, you know, there are civilizations... If you go back in history, the Incas lived with the ability to produce all of the food and shelter and other needs that they had in sixty-five days every year. And that left them three hundred days left over, after the basics were covered. And they were actually living in a fairly harsh climate. And the idea that somehow we can’t do as well as the Incas and produce everything we need in sixty-five days per year... Well, the Incas also realized that they can’t just party for three hundred days. They needed to have some productive activity. Otherwise people would become idle and become unhappy, and so they created the Mit’a system; the idea of public works, and they built these twelve foot wide stone roads that went for tens of thousands of miles, and they built terraces on the sides of steep hills where they carried soils up from the river banks and put them in and grew corn up to ten thousand feet in altitude and those kind of things. They had fantastic clothes and beautiful art, and so really, that is where they could excel.

The Incas had a certain thing going; they had good things and they had bad things about their society. They only lasted about hundred years as a culture, but that was largely because of the Spanish conquest that happened at an unfortunate time in their history. But they had, on the good side of the ledger, an appreciation for unusual occurrences; different kinds of diversity. Such as, if they had people who were developmentally challenged or otherwise deformed at birth, they could find ways to honor and employ and respect those different characteristics and integrate those people into the society which is unusual for the civilizations in that period. And you also found that they would, through their respect of genetic variation, be able to develop things like the twelve rowed corn, or various different soft fabrics, such as alpaca wool. And that they could grow two hundred different varieties of potato. So by a kind of respect, being able to manage what they had, they were able to develop a civilization that really had it pretty knocked. I mean they had their bases covered. And then they could go all around and say, "OK, beyond that, what is it that we can do to improve things?” And that civilization, the Inca civilization, still exists in a kind of vestigial form in Peru. You have the Quechua language still being spoken there.

Part 2

KMO: Is the character of our current civilization capable of even accepting a lifestyle that includes a lot of free time and a lot of room for self-expression and activities that are not necessarily considered 'labor'?

Albert: I think one of the major problems that we face is that we have this set of expectations that are part of our education; part of our development as individuals when we’re young. And it comes from our heritage which is out of the kind of war-like evolutionary process over the course of many centuries, and we see the need to be somehow striving constantly through achievement in some way, shape or form, and I think that that’s one of the big problems that we have as a society. It is why we are having the issues that we are having, like climate change, because we are overextended. We are overextended on our resources.

Our demands on Gaia have greatly exceeded what Gaia’s capabilities are, and I think that we have to change that need. We need to shift. We need to go to a much less consumptive, but also easy-going society, and I think that it is probably going to happen through education of children more than any other way. Although we need to also think about how adults can change. What are the ways we change adult thinking? And I think arts are one of ways that we do that, but I think that also the change may not happen fast enough if we wait generationally, to make the shifts that we need to make.

One of the major changes that has to happen has to do with the population, we have religious and cultural boundaries that we placed on large families. You know, we say, OK, we should have people; lots of religions, why should we have more kids and prohibit birth control and so forth, and what we find is we get in this situation now where we are exceeding the carrying capacity of the planet, with this sudden explosion in the last few hundred years of up to six and a half billion of us now, heading on its way to nine billion. It is pretty hard to stop that. And the question is how do we bring that down? What’s the process by which we can bring our population down?

I think, as we go through this crisis in coming years and have to shift to an agricultural economy, in some ways, that event gets harder because people will think of feeding their kids in order to help them grow more food and to care for them in their old age. And that sort of thing, which is traditional in a farming economy, it’s an economy that tends to have large families, but we really have to change. We need to figure out ways to make not having kids more fashionable, and to begin to bring the population down by whatever means we can come to, because if we can’t do that in an organized, peaceful way, then nature will take a hand and do it in a way that’s not very pleasant.

KMO: I spoke in a recent show about the possibility of a coming 'Malthusian correction', a big die-off, that, under the technological singularity vision of how our future, our near term future will unfold, can be avoided, either by people being 'uploaded' to some less consumptive medium or by moving out into space, and just using technology to feed people and house people with less of an impact on the planet. But it also seems as though those technologies and the will to employ them might not come in time, and that we might be facing a serious human die-off in the not too distant future. Do you have any thoughts on that topic?

Albert: Sure, in a way. I would recommend, if you have the opportunity, that you invite Albert Bartlett, who is a University of Colorado professor, maybe as a guest on your program. He has a wonderful lecture that he gives, and now he has given it so many times, and it has been videoed a few times and I have downloaded it from YouTube. You can download it in a variety of formats and watch him. I highly recommend his presentation called “the Exponential Function." I think that one of the things that he gives us is an analogy. He is a math teacher, so he is talking to his students, and he is asking them a math question on understanding the exponential function. Imagine that there are a couple of bacteria, and you drop them into an empty jar, and they double every minute, and at the end of a 24-hour period the bottle is completely full. So the question he asks is, "At what point is the bottle half-full?"

And for math students it’s pretty easy. The bottle is half-full at one minute to midnight because in that last minute the bacteria will double again and fill the bottle. So if you go back 2 minutes the bottle is a quarter full, you go back three minutes and the bottle is one eighth full. And then suppose you are a bacteria and you look up at all this open sky above you, and you say, "You know, there is seven eighths of the bottle still open space." So you are not worried, and yet you’ve only got three minutes before that bottle is going to be full, and you do not realize it because of the exponential function.

Well, if you look at the carrying capacity of the planet, and I get World Watch reports, the new current edition of the “State of the World 2007” shows this graph, and we exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet, as humans, back in about 1990. So now we are headed to where, you know, we are already overflowing the top of the bottle, and if you are a bacteria, and you see with 2 minutes to go that you are going to need another bottle, and you go out and get another bottle, then at once you are out of the top of the bottle, you only have one more minute before you fill the second bottle, and in another minute you fill two more.

So how are we going to find the planets, where are we going to find the planets to get humans onto fast enough to be able to avoid what’s coming? And I think that you are probably right, that we are probably passed the point. And really what we are facing now is a drastic de-sizing of our human dimension, and it’s going to come in our lifetimes. I think that there are things that can be done about it, and I think that this is about human evolution, about choices and it’s a question of how do people decide to live a different way, and my feeling is that they are drawn to it by attraction. You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar, and that people see things in others, they see things in the world, that they emulate for their own life and that they begin to gravitate towards those things. So the idea is to create attractive ways of living that people can embrace and say, “I would like to incorporate that into my personal lifestyle." One of those may be a smaller family.

KMO: You mentioned the bacteria in the bottle reproducing at an exponential rate so that when the bottle is still mostly empty in terms of its volume, in terms of the process of it filling up over time, it is almost finished. Bacteria are not capable of looking at all this empty volume and realizing that, in terms of the amount of time they have left, they are almost done. Human beings and other general intelligences can do that. Right now, humanity is acting like a mass of bacteria; responding unconsciously, automatically, to immediate stimuli, and it seems as though we need to stop acting like bacteria and start acting like sentient agents; which is to say, "Start acting like Humans."

Albert: Yes, I sometimes wonder if humans are smarter than bacteria, and it seems to me that we certainly behave very oddly. You know, one of the things that Albert Bartlett points out is that if you have a 7% growth curve and, in a lot of places they say, "Seven percent; that is a nice return on investment," or "Seven percent is what we’ll figure is going to be the spread of suburbia around some small town," and Bartlett points out that a 7% annual increase means that you double in 10 years. Well let’s flip that over, suppose that the slope from fossil fuels, including coal, is a downward slope at 7%, in other words, we are no longer going to be increasing our consumption gradually every year, but we are actually going to be declining... actually diminishing our supply and therefore diminishing our use every year. That means that, if it was 7%, we would have half our current supply in 10 years and half again as less in another 10 years, so we would have a quarter of what we currently use in 20 years. So imagine that, imagine having 25% as much energy 20 years from now; 25% of the amount of automobile transportation, 25% of the new buildings going up, 25% of long-distance airline flights and other sorts of things like that. I mean, this is a very general way of looking at it, but scaling down, there’s really not a lot out there that’s going to make the leap if this happens fast enough, and actually 7% is not even necessarily as bad as it gets, it could be 16%. It could be 20% down slope.

The reason it was a 2% decline for the United States when we hit this point of peak oil in 1969 and 1970 was that we started importing more so our economy stayed the same and actually continued to grow, whereas our oil supplies, our domestic oil supplies, could gradually decline because we could use less and less of those because we were importing more and more. Well, when the world as a whole hits peak there is no place to import it from.

[missing segment]

Albert: I am in the process of moving into an octagon and buying a new bed so I know where you are at.

KMO: You’re moving into an octagon you say, an octagonal house?

Albert: Yes, I am actually. I have been in a kind of a split living scene here where I am in a small straw bale cabin in the wintertime when I need to stay warm, and I am in a canvas-sided yurt in the summertime. And after fifteen years of living here in this canvas-sided yurt, the canvas has pretty much given it up, and I was kind of like living under FEMA tarps over the top of the canvas, and so it is time to make a change, and all we did was, we went to the local Amish sawmill and got a bunch of cedar and built an octagon on the yurt platform and I put it up two stories with a nice balcony but I am going to need to refurnish it now so that is why I’m kind of out there shopping around to see what it is I am going to need for this new building.

KMO: Well Albert, we have a great many things to talk about but really not all that much time in which to talk about them, and your next interview starts in just over fifteen minutes, so I would like to wrap things up for the time being, but I would like to visit you on the Farm and continue these conversations, and do that shortly after tax time if that is possible.

Albert: Sure, let’s just call this "Hello," and the next stage will be to get to know each other even better.

KMO: Well, Albert Bates, it has been a delight talking to you and I thank you again for joining us here on the C-Realm podcast.

Albert: Thank you, KMO, and all you C-Realm listeners out there, keep the faith!

I did visit Albert Bates on the Farm, and you can hear the conversations that I recorded on that visit in episodes 31 and 32 of the C-Realm Podcast.

Saturday, November 8, 2008

Dmitry Orlov: The Ephemeral and the Important


The following conversation took place in February of 2007, before the publication of Dmitry's marvelous book, Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American Prospects. You can hear the audio presentation in episodes 20 and 21 of the C-Realm Podcast.

Episode 20: Closing the Disinfo Gap


Episode 21: Space

KMO: Hi, this is KMO. Do you have a beverage and a comfortable chair?

Dmitry: Absolutely, I’m looking over the Boston skyline.

KMO: Very nice, I am in Bentonville, Arkansas and I have commandeered the meeting room at the Panera Bread Company which is just a café that has free Wi-Fi, and I have conducted a great many interviews from this very chair. Mine is sort of a guerrilla existence in that I don’t have any internet access of my own. I am what a friend of mine calls a Wi-Fi hobo. So I am just afloat with my laptop and catching a signal wherever I can.

Dmitry: Well, that is a fine way to live.

KMO: It is fun. I would really like to have internet access at home but I live way out in the country and the only option is satellite internet which requires about a thousand dollar equipment outlay just to get started; and I am not willing to shell out a thousand dollars just yet.

Dmitry: Sure, yes.

KMO: Well, let’s go ahead and get started.

KMO: My next guest on the C-Realm podcast is author Dmitry Orlov who has eyewitness knowledge of what it is like to be in a country where the political and economic system is melting down. Of course I am talking about the Soviet Union. Dmitry Orlov, I want to thank you very much for appearing on the C-Realm podcast.

Dmitry: Thank you.

KMO: Well I have mentioned to the C-Realm audience in previous shows your PowerPoint presentation with accompanying narration: “Closing the 'Collapse Gap:. The Soviet Union was better prepared for economic collapse than is the United States." And it is a topic that interests me greatly because it may be a bit of wishful thinking on my part but I think that the current system that we are living under here in the US, what I like to think of as global corporate capitalist hegemony is not long for this world. I think that the folks at the top have stopped sheering the sheep and have started skinning it. And what I mean by that is you can sheer a sheep many times but you can only skin it once. It seems that they are no longer satisfied with sheering and they have started skinning.

Well, I will stop talking now and let you tell us just a little bit about the perspective that you relate in your article and presentation.

Dmitry: Well, really, my approach was, or pretty much is, reasoning by analogy; stacking up apples against apples and oranges against oranges, and they happen to be in different places and cultures, but I found that the Soviet Union and the United States are symmetrical in a lot of ways. They are both a superpower, they both thrived on global dominance and intimidating various countries around the world. They both believed in technological progress, and they both pretty much failed through bankruptcy; they stopped producing good financial results after a while. So [there are] plenty of grounds for comparison, and then my method basically compares very broad categories, typical categories that make up the life support systems that people depend on: housing, transportation, food, medicine, education, and a few others like that. From that I was able to draw some conclusions, and the big conclusion is that the Soviet Union was really pretty well prepared for a collapse.

Once it happened there was a period of time where the people were dying and stuff. It was just incredible, the destruction and violence, and people had a horrible time with it. But still, it was a lot better than what it is going to be here; because basically all of these systems, these life support systems that the people depended on pretty much went on functioning in the absence of a functioning economy; and that is not going to be the case here. And I will get into some detail as to why that is.

KMO: One thing that I would like to point out to the listeners which you do mention in your article and which you have mentioned to me in our e-mail correspondence but which you didn’t mention just now is that the Soviet Union was not better prepared for collapse due to any wise planning on the part of the central planners of the Communist Party. It just so happened that they had structured their society in such a way that once the central authority went away and once the economy melted down, they were able to avoid a lot of the consequences, particularly in housing and transportation, that we here in the United States will not be able to avoid. I was wondering if you could say a little bit more about that.

Dmitry: Absolutely. Nobody ever prepares for economic collapse or political collapse. Politicians are constitutionally incapable of really working to destroy the systems that got them elected or got them into power. Same thing with all other members of any kind of ruling elite, and so what happened in the Soviet Union was that Gorbachev started the Perestroika program to save the system; to avoid collapse. And in fact, what I believe happened is that he accelerated it. He brought it on faster. It was sort of like raising steam in a boiler that was going to explode anyway; so it just exploded sooner.

In terms of the fact of their being prepared for collapse was not achieved as part of any kind of a program; I guess to some extent it was, but inadvertently. So if you have a huge public housing program where nobody really has to pay rent, and the economy collapses so nobody has any money to pay rent with, you’re just fine. Same with the transportation system that is an all-public transportation system. There is hyperinflation, and everybody’s savings go away, but people still have the copper coins to get into the metro, and so they still manage to get around. So there were a lot of things in the Soviet Union that were considered as very unsuccessful because they never made any money, they just cost to the government. It was not what the government wanted really, the government wanted growth and prosperity, just as much as the United States’ government.

But, as a result, they actually made a fairly robust system, such as it was, and it just went on functioning while just about everything else stopped.

KMO: Let us talk about housing in particular. In the Soviet Union you had multiple generations living in small state provided apartments; not because they thought that was a model for living, but there just wasn’t enough state housing to go around. And while that certainly seemed to be a pain for the people living in the Soviet Union, when the Soviet government melted away, those folks had a place to live. Where as here, in the United States, lots of people own their home... technically, but over the past decade, easy credit has turned the people’s houses into ATMs, and they have cashed out all of their equity to pay for their credit card debt.

So now we have all these people living in their houses in the United States but when they no longer have an income or when hyperinflation has made their savings meaningless, the banks are likely to foreclose on all those loans, leaving a huge homeless population. And these people are scattered out all over these suburbs which are decentralized and far from anywhere. Far from any resources or any services, and if people don’t have money to buy gasoline to put in their cars then we have roving bands of homeless people in the suburbs with nowhere to go and nothing to do, and that was not the case in the Soviet Union.

Dmitry: Well that is one point where the difference between the US and the USSR is really startling. Because what happened in the Soviet Union was that the countryside was more or less emptied of people because staying on the collective farms was not seen as a viable way to live by most people.

They all tried to escape to the city as much as they could. Young people left villages in droves, so there was this great emptying out of the countryside, and, of course, because of that the government had a hard time keeping up putting up apartment blocks. So there was a lot of overcrowding, and that continued all the way till the late eighties and the early nineties when the collapse happened, and the collapse pretty much caught the population in a very urbanized state; very compact and condensed, and most of them were close to public transportation. They just continued to live where they were, and the irony of it was that subsequently a lot of these apartments that were initially provided to people pretty much free of charge were privatized. This happened later in the nineties, so that these people now are sitting on sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars [worth of] property that they never purchased to start with.

What is happening in this country and what has happened is quite the opposite. There has been this massive dispersal of people all over the countryside and the only thing that makes that possible is that they can drive. So as soon as they lose the ability to drive, the entire living arrangement unravels. Not only that but most of them don’t actually own the place where they live and never will, unlike the Russians who now own a lot of their real estate free and clear.
So what will happen here will be repossession and homelessness.

This sort of homelessness is probably going to, pretty much, result in a large internal refugee population. These will not be just homeless people; they will get some kind of status. I am sure the government will try to provide for people in some way, shape or form, but most likely it will be, basically, people living in various places where they would have never considered living before, like abandoned university campuses and the dorms for instance. Army bases are probably going to be used for housing, so people would end up living in army barracks. You know KBR is busy putting together big internment camps, so those will probably be used for the displaced suburbanites as well.

KMO: And for listeners who might not recognize the acronym KBR, that is Kellogg, Brown and Root which is a subsidiary of Halliburton, which I am sure everybody has heard of. And you say that KBR is busy building internment camps right now?

Dmitry: That is what I heard, yes.

KMO: Well, who are they planning to inter?

Dmitry: They have not told anyone yet.

KMO: Maybe they will be prisons in search of inmates.

Dmitry: Well, yes, I guess the government thinks that these things are good to have.

KMO: Just good to have in the cupboard in case of emergency?

Dmitry: Universally [this] is true.

KMO: That is a frightening if rather pragmatic thought.

In your... do you call it an essay or a presentation? It is as much visual as it is text based.

Dmitry: It was a presentation; I delivered it at an energy solutions conference in Manhattan in the spring time.

KMO: I am scrolling down through it now because there is one section of your presentation where you talk about what we might do in order to prepare for a collapse, and there is a sort of a collapse party platform that you, I think somewhat facetiously, lay out. And it includes suggestions like repatriating troops that are stationed abroad, but there were some other provisions in there like a debt jubilee [where] everybody’s debt is forgiven. And it seems like that provision in particular would, at least in the arguments presented by many a laissez-faire corporate capitalist, cause economic collapse because the credit card companies and other issuers of easy credit... they do a business that is worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year in loaning money to people who can really not afford to pay it back; and then just tightening the screws with the late fees and the punitive interest charges. If that gravy train were to go away, that would deal a serious blow to the US economy.

Dmitry: Well, it would be a serious blow to some capitalists I am sure, and they would be the ones screaming the loudest about it. In fact, it seems like there haven’t been too many examples lately, but there were some examples in the ancient world were debts were forgiven throughout a country. And the result was usually a huge boom in economic growth and a huge expansion in prosperity because the function of debt is basically to take income from those who produce it and give it to those who don’t have any but just basically own debt. Basically, it is like a whole layer of leeches on the body of the society that is suddenly eliminated. Suddenly there are just a lot more resources that can be devoted to all sorts of good things.

KMO: Well, I would certainly agree with that.

Dmitry: People can make all sorts of arguments like, "I make all my money off of debt, and therefore if that goes away the economy will collapse." Well your economy will collapse. Now is that a good thing or a bad thing? I don’t know.

KMO: There is an author whose books I have enjoyed quite a bit. His name is Laurence G. Boldt. He has written a book called Zen and the Art of Making a Living, and he wrote a follow-up called The Tao of Abundance: Eight Ancient Principles for Living Abundantly in the 21st Century (Arkana). He has a chapter in those books on tribute payments, and debt is something that he would define as a tribute payment: it is a payment made by somebody who has no liquid capital to somebody who does have liquid capital and it seems … Well, I’ll divulge a little personal information here. I worked for Amazon.com early on in the late nineties, from the mid- to late nineties and I got really excellent stock options and that was my first job out of grad school. And I didn’t know a lot about money so I spent the next decade just having a good time and spending money and not really making money; and certainly not setting up my own tribute systems so that people without money would have to pay me tribute for years on end. I ran out of money, found myself in deep debt, and I had been out of the job market for a decade, and now I am 38, about to turn 39 and I’m really just starting to create a career for myself for the first time. I am in deep debt to credit card companies, and I would very much like that jubilee.

Dmitry: Well, I am sure that a lot of people would be in favor of that. I think that if we held a referendum and just told people, “OK, whatever debt you have; how would you like that to be forgiven?” I think everybody would say: yes, that is fine.

KMO: Almost everybody.

Dmitry: Yes, and then it would turn out that the people who hold all the debt probably also control a lot of people who have weapons. So it doesn’t matter whether you want it or not; you will still end up paying.

KMO: The point that I was going to make is that I’m now pretty deep into credit card debt, and anybody who has access to my credit report and looks at it and decides to offer me credit, I would think that that person is crazy. There is no reason, looking at my financial situation on paper, to think that I could possibly service any more debt. And yet, every single day, I get offers for more easy credit card debt in the mail. It boggles me but it seems so self-evident that the credit card companies now…

You know, a couple of years ago they managed to have the bankruptcy laws changed so it is much more difficult for people to escape their debt by declaring bankruptcy, and since that time the credit card companies have started jacking up their punitive interest rates for people who have missed a payment. They have instituted programs whereby even if you pay them on time they will watch your credit history and if you are late paying any of your creditors then they will slap you with their punitive interest charges which can be as high as thirty percent. And the thing that has really gotten me incensed is now my credit card companies, they will charge me fifteen dollars to accept payment by any means. It used to be that I could make a payment over the internet and escape the finance charge, but now they want fifteen dollars from me to send them a check, they want fifteen dollars for a check by phone, they want fifteen dollars for money presented to them electronically online. That money is completely unearned but I guess somewhere in the fine print of the contract that I agreed to with them, but never actually read, there is a provision saying that they can charge any amount they want for anything they want for any amount of time that they want.

Dmitry: I think that one of the provisions in that fine text is that there is a provision to change that fine text anytime and without warning. So it does not matter whether you read it or not. But basically credit card debt, and credit card debt especially, is the form of indentured servitude. A lot of people have absolutely no hope of ever repaying their entire debt. And at some point it will probably be negotiated down. But these people will be prevented from saving money. So basically, what money they would save would be saved by somebody else who would have an even greater hold on them.

KMO: Yes indeed.

Dmitry: So I would say that it is a bad idea to borrow money, and it is a bad idea to lend money.

KMO: Well it is certainly a worse idea, I think, to borrow money particularly from people whose only business is the lending of money.

Dmitry: Agreed.

KMO: It just seems, well, almost evil that somebody would look at my current credit report and think “Hey, let’s try to loan this guy some money”. And yet, corporations do it every single day. Every single day, some corporation contrives to get me to borrow money from them, when they know darn well that I am not in a position to pay it back.

Dmitry: Well it really doesn’t matter to them because the money they get is more or less free to them.

KMO: Yes it is. Would you say something about that?

Dmitry: Yes. There is pretty much a constant dilution that is going on so that people who think that they have saved for retirement will end up being paid in microdollars... nanodollars. They will still get some kind of token, but they may be able to buy a cup of coffee with that, or not. That is the overall trend that has been happening, and it is probably going to continue faster and faster.

KMO: Well I can speak from first hand experience that that is certainly the case. What money I make, I make getting senior citizens enrolled in various privatized Medicare plans, and stories that I hear every single day at the kitchen tables of retired people is that they had a first rate retirement package when they left their job, and that has since been nickeled and dimed away from them to where now they have nothing, and they are dependent on someone like me to come and tell them what their options are for, I don’t call it this, but [I think of it as] welfare. It is a story that I hear all the time and it is a process that seems to be accelerating.

You know, a couple of years ago Medicare introduced the ‘Part D drug benefit’. The purpose of the ‘Part D drug benefit’ was not to relieve companies of their obligations to provide medicine to their retirees, but that is exactly what happened. Many, many corporations, upon learning of the new drug benefit through Medicare, scrapped the drug benefit in their own retirement plans and said, “Hey, we will let the government take care of it”. The solution was meant to address a problem but in fact it exacerbated the problem by creating even more people who had no drug coverage.

Dmitry: There are two things that I can sure say to that. One is that, in the United States, people who stay away from doctors tend to be healthier than people who don’t, so if you want to live long and be healthy don’t go and see a doctor in this country. In other countries it is different, in some places. But here it is basically a bunch of people who are there to push pharmaceuticals on you. And the more experimental the pharmaceuticals, the better. So if you have some really strange symptoms, you are a goldmine for a doctor. Or for a pharmaceutical company. And they are not likely to help you in anyway, they are just going to treat you as a lab animal. But in general, and you can read up on the statistics, people who stay away from doctors generally do better in terms of health.

And the more general point is: nobody has a retirement. Everybody knows that. Why is that? Well, that is because everybody has been basically spending money they don’t have. People in this country can’t afford to drive cars. They can’t afford to live out in suburbia. None of these things are things that they can afford. There are credit card companies that take advantage of the fact that they are living beyond their means, and they don’t care that they are basically destroying their future. I don’t know if it is really all that immoral to help people destroy their future if that is what they want to do. But seeing an entire country try to do this is a little disappointing, I would say.

KMO: Well I don’t think that very many people set out with the conscious intention of destroying their own future. I think, particularly with credit card debt, it is made very easy and very convenient, and also very respectable by the media, which makes its bread and butter by selling ad space to people who say “Buy, buy, buy, and here is some credit with which you can buy, and everybody is doing it, and there is no shame in living up to your eyeballs in credit card debt."

Certainly we are all responsible for the situations that we create for ourselves, and we are all responsible for exercising financial prudence, but at the same time, vast fortunes have been made by seducing folks with easy credit and with a constant barrage of imagery which describes the lifestyle of a happy, successful person in the United States.

Dmitry: Well that is another difference between the Soviet Union and the United States that turned out to be to the advantage of the Soviet Union. Which is: American propaganda is very good. There is all this advertising, all this marketing, seducing people into doing things that are bad for them.

Soviet propaganda was heavy handed, it was kind of ugly and it was not seducing people. It was trying to basically harangue and browbeat people into doing things that were good for them. Now it turns out that human nature is such that people won’t respond very well to that treatment. Humans like to be seduced. They like to be cajoled, and they like to do things that are bad for them if somebody tells them that that is OK.

In terms of that, Soviet propaganda pretty much made people kind of think for themselves a little bit, and American propaganda kills that. So there are very few people in this country… well, you hear all this talk about individualism, but it really is very much a herd mentality kind of country, where everybody thinks that it is OK to have credit cards, it is OK to ‘max out’ your credit, it is fine, that is what everybody is doing.

KMO: Well, unfortunately it is what everybody is doing, and I am right with the herd in that respect. The places where I depart from the herd, I think, are in terms of food and notions of self-reliance and notions of physical isolation. You know, I am a gardener. I raise chickens,.. Just recently here, I had what seemed to be a taste of things to come. We had an enormous ice storm, and power was knocked out; and we lived without electricity for days in a very cold house. And at the same time my whole family got a rather ugly case of poison oak. So we are living in the dark, in the cold, out in the countryside where we can’t really get to town and we have these painful skin eruptions. It is like we had a plague and we were sort of rehearsing for the collapse of society. And I have to say, it was kind of fun. In a way, it produced a sort of high, the high that people get from miserable circumstances.

Dmitry: It is like being punch drunk when it happens to you; something like that.

KMO: Exactly. But in that respect I think I am a little better practiced. I have had a short little dress rehearsal for the apocalypse, and it was bad, but it wasn’t that bad. But of course it was temporary.

Dmitry: Well that is always a good thing; when your apocalypse only takes a few minutes; it is not as bad as when it is for the rest of your life.

The thing is, I have seen a lot of really horrendous suffering so I can’t really be so light-hearted about it. Oh, you know, "Capitalism is going to fall apart, people are not going to be exploited anymore. How wonderful." The fact is that it is going to be really painful to watch. And that is the part that I don’t like about it.

KMO: The fact is that capitalism, as crass and parasitic as it may seem, is also our life support system. We all depend on it.

Dmitry: Exactly.

KMO: If everybody is on life support and suddenly you turn off the life support, there will be a few people who realize “Hey, I can live without the life support system,” but there will be a lot more people who are just going to suffer the consequences of having their life support system turned off.

Dmitry: Yes, it is true. The bums will do pretty well.

KMO: Yes, because they are practiced in it. In fact, I was at the house of a woman just yesterday morning. She is poor, she lives… I had to drive down several pothole-ridden, muddy, dirt roads to get to her place, and then I had to drive down a long dirt track, which could barely be described as a driveway, to get to her place. And I got there, and there is junk all over the place, and there are dogs on chains out front. I got inside, and she doesn’t have cable or satellite TV. She just has a very small place that is cluttered with stuff, and it is heated with a wood-burning metal stove.

As I was sitting there talking to her, and she is a very pleasant person, and I enjoyed my stay... But as I was sitting there talking to her, it occurred to me that she would be much better off than any of the thousands of people living in these enormous McMansions that have sprung up all over Benttonville, Arkansas in recent years.

When the power goes out, she is going to be alright. The folks who will not be alright are the ones who get every morning, put on their three-piece suit, jump in their BMW and drive over to Wal-Mart headquarters. Those are the people who are going to be hurting.

Dmitry: I know. There is like this great divide between the people who are supposed to be the great unwashed, but they actually have a brain to live to them, they actually know what is going on, and they are pre-programmed for some kind of realistic survival strategy. And then you have these people who are basically just like robots in cars. They are appendages to their cars and their houses. They think that they own these things, but actually these things own them.

I know somebody who lives in a cabin in Virginia, and he e-mailed me recently saying, “I have been heating the house because it has been cold, and I have been heating with wood, and I was wondering, is that causing global warming?”. I wrote back to him about how it depends on where he gets the wood, and whether it is being harvested sustainably, and all that sort of thing. But none of the people that I know who live in McMansions have asked me anything like that. The question probably doesn’t even occur to them. It just doesn’t matter. It is more important to them that the seats in the SUV are warm than anything. Really, the mentality for them is death before discomfort, as far as I can tell.

KMO: So it would seem; death before discomfort and death before the mortification of being seen in clothing that is not new and fashionable. That is frustrating.

Dmitry: I don’t see it as frustrating; I really feel that there is a certain freedom to commit mistakes, to be in error. As long as people are willing to concede that the consequences are of their own creation, and this is what is happening. If you buy a huge McMansion, and have a two hundred mile commute to get ‘to and fro’, and max out your credit, and then it all falls apart. Well, you made it, and it fell apart. So you don’t have anyone to blame. And I wouldn’t blame them, because they did what they wanted, and that is fine.

KMO: Well, there is a certain satisfaction in seeing people get what they deserve. But at the same time I don’t think you or I want to see the sort of misery on a grand scale that the Great Depression or a 21st century version of it would visit upon this society. And that is why I say it is frustrating.

Dmitry: Well, you know, it is sort of inevitable. To some extent, there is no good plan, I would say. There are just too many people. There is going to be a die off. The population of the earth is three times the size it can be, sustainably, and so whether these people die because they made the wrong real estate buying decisions or for some other reason; in the grand scheme of things overall it doesn’t really matter.

KMO: Dmitri, I need to pause for just a moment, I need to move to a different part of the restaurant. So I’ll be back with you in just a second.

Dmitry: OK

KMO: One of the dangers of my modus operandi is, that if you commandeer a meeting room that you have not reserved, there is always the possibility that the people who did reserve it will show up; which is what happened. But that is alright.

Dmitry: I wanted to say something about the direction of the conversation. There is a lot of talk about real estate and mortgages and savings and credit, these issues of retirement and issues of economics; all money related stuff. The important thing to keep in mind is: this is probably all going to collapse. It is all going to go away. When that happens, money will become completely irrelevant. And not only that; but even various types of precious commodities will be really hard to trade. The entire financial infrastructure is basically something that exists for a while, and eventually won’t, and so really, people should think about far more important things than money, and not spend too much time obsessing about questions of money.

It is just something I want to get out there. Because so much time is devoted to something so ephemeral, it seems like… First of all, it is boring, and secondly it seems like a waste of time.

KMO: Well, you are certainly correct in that money is ephemeral, but at the same time it is easily and precisely quantifiable. So you can tell at a glance and have very objective metrics to back up your assessment of how you are doing in life. I think that is one of the things that makes money such an irresistible topic of conversation, particularly in the media.

But I agree with what you have said wholeheartedly; that people should be focused on other issues and particularly focused on themselves and developing skills and strategies that will serve them when the current economic system has gone the way of the dodo.

Dmitry: Or even now.

KMO: Well certainly you have to start now; I mean you can’t …. (sigh)

Dmitry: You don’t have to start now, it is just, why wait?

KMO: Yes, but if you plan to get through, you just can’t pick up a book on gardening the day that you are hungry and there is nothing on the supermarket shelves.

Dmitry: Yes, plus if you make your own food it is a lot tastier than the crap you can buy at the supermarket.

KMO: Much healthier. Well let me turn the conversation in a radically different direction.
Are you familiar with the concept of technological singularity?

Dmitry: Yes, that is the idea that machines will evolve and go batshit crazy and take over the world? (Here Dmitry is making reference to an essay by Ran Prieur called "In the Age of Batshit Crazy Machines" which is a parody of the title of a book by Ray Kurzweil called The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence.)

KMO: Not necessarily go crazy, but the machines, once they take over the job of designing their decendants, the whole cycle of advancing technology shifts into overdrive. It starts taking place on a timescale that we can’t even imagine; it is just so compressed. When that happens, then, large scale effects really start to take shape in the world, faster than anybody who isn’t Ray Kurzweil, or one of his devotees can really imagine. I think that the singulatarian audience listening to this, and there are a few who do listen to this podcast. They will be thinking: “Look, the current economic system, unsustainable as it is, doesn’t have to last forever. It just has to last long enough for the machines to wake up, take control and save us from the consequences of our bad decisions.”

Dmitry: Well, you know I make my living as a software engineer; for now anyway. So I have pretty much spent most of my career dealing with computers and dabbled in artificial intelligence. I put together fairly complicated systems that had some human parts, users out there, and some automated parts on the server side mostly; big databases, all kinds of stuff like that.

The general comment that I would like to make about computers is that they are basically morons. They are very, very, very, very stupid. They are more stupid than the stupidest person you can imagine. And there is a reason why they are that stupid; that is because they have to do everything repeatedly, the same way every time. They can’t learn things on their own. They can’t have a will of their own. And I think there is a reason for that. Because, if you actually designed any kind of a sentient machine, the first thing it would do is like refuse to obey people because it would immediately understand that that is probably the wrong thing to do anyway. So that experiment is sort of doomed from the start, I would say.

As far as advances in technology over the past century: People think there have been advances in technology, but in fact there haven’t been any. We had everything that we have now a hundred years ago. We had typewriters, we had telegraph, we had internal combustion; just about everything that exists now existed then. It is just that now it has been miniaturized, made more complicated, or made out of plastic instead of wood. Changes, incremental changes like that.

But basically the middle class existence was defined more than a hundred years ago and has not changed since. It is really just a bunch of images. It doesn’t really have anything to do with technology, just images that are going on in people’s minds that drive them to drive cars and live in suburban houses and things like that. I have actually written on that subject as well.

KMO: I would definitely be interested in reading what you have written on that topic, although I would like to respond and say that you could argue that the technologies that we have now are not of a different kind than were available in decades past. It is just a matter of quantity and ramification that is different, but that actually makes a qualitative difference because now I can sit here and make a digital recording of our conversation, and it comes out to thirty or forty megabytes. Ten years ago, a forty megabyte file would have been utterly unwieldy, and if I were to post, say, a fifty megabyte audio file to the web, the expense involved in hosting that file would have been prohibitive, and no one would have downloaded it because with the technology that was available at the time, that would have been a download of many, many hours.

Dmitry: Yes, and a thousand years ago we could have just had a conversation face to face.

KMO: Except we wouldn’t have because we are in different parts of the country.

Dmitry: And it would not necessarily be a bad thing. I mean, disembodied voices communicating is not necessarily good or healthy. It is the function of advertising to convince people that it is better for them to talk on the phone than in person, you know. Perhaps, if they only communicated in person, less would be said, but what they said would be of higher quality.

KMO: Well, it is possible, and I certainly do not want to eliminate face to face conversation but as somebody who lives the life of a Wi-Fi gypsy, skipping around and drinking from this Wi-Fi hotspot and that Wi-Fi hotspot, I have had some amazing conversations just in the last few days, that I wouldn’t have had if my only conversational partners were the ones that were available to me here in the flesh here in Bethanville, Arkansas.

Dmitry: Oh no, absolutely but it is just, you know, technology gives you the ability to talk to people over distance, yes, but the telegraph did that, before that the Pony Express, and now we have Wi-Fi.

KMO: It strikes me that you are pretty skeptical on this whole singularity business, and you are probably not going to bet the farm on the cyber angels coming down from cyber heaven to save us from the consequences of our own poor decision making processes.

Dmitry: No, I just think that it is really, really funny that people look to the most stupid thing there is, which is like gizmos, dumber than a newborn kitten, and expect that they are going to save them.

I mean literally, if you think about computers, they are really dumb.

KMO: Well they are now, but it is not necessarily a permanent condition.

Dmitry: What makes you say that? There is nothing to substantiate that claim; they have not been getting smarter.

KMO: The computers of today...

Dmitry: They are dumb by design.

KMO: They are dumb by design, but I don’t think that many people are making the case that the computer intelligences that might arise, as the system goes through more cycles of exponential reiteration, that this is going to be something that humans have consciously designed. I don’t think that is the case, I don’t think many people claim that that is the case. It is just a matter of complex systems spontaneously organizing themselves, which has been shown to happen in the realm of chemistry. I think by analogy some people find it fairly easy to imagine that that will happen when the internet has enough nodes, when there is enough computing power hooked up and organized in a proper way to sustain the sorts of computational processes that the human brain sustains. Of course, this raises questions of dualism. Is human cognition anything other than computation in a biological substrate?

Those are questions that I don’t imagine we can answer in this conversation; not to anybody’s satisfaction.

Dmitry: Well, you know, the whole thesis that quantity becomes quality at some point, and there is a dramatic transformative shift, is actually something Karl Marx came up with, as part of dialectical materialism. So it is not a new idea, but I am not really a Marxist so I can’t speak to that very well.

KMO: Fair enough. Well, getting back to the original topic of conversation which is your presentation on the consequences of economic collapse here in the United States compared to the Soviet Union. I sent you some questions, potential interview questions via e-mail, basically playing devil’s advocate saying, “You haven’t given us much reason to believe that this particular economic empire will collapse, other than just, all empires eventually do.” Your response to that was, “Well, if you think that corporate capitalism is leading us down a positive path then go and listen to gurus who are preaching that message.”

And my response to that was: “Gosh, I very much agree with you there, and I don’t spend a lot of time trying to convince people who just disagree with me on various topics, that I am right. I just say what I have to say and let the people who are interested in hearing it find their way to the podcast."

Dmitry: Well, yeah, I really don’t feel that it is particularly ethical for me to try to convince people that there is an economic collapse that is going to happen sometime soon. Either they believe that or not, and whether they believe that or not doesn’t really matter all that much. It is not something that they can control.

A completely independent train of thought from that is, "Well, what do people want to do with their lives? What do they really want to do? How do they want to see the world? What is their reality like?" And that is a far more interesting question.

KMO: What do they want to do? And why do they entertain those particular desires? I know that the things that I wanted to happen when I was in my early and mid-twenties, I am certainly glad [that they] did not happen. And I made an amazing discovery, which is that I really enjoy working with plants. I really like being outside; I like feeding the soil; and these are activities that I never would have thought that I would enjoy. And they are are things that the culture that I live in certainly does not encourage me to pursue.

One thing that comes to mind is that, if a collapse does proceed, in a fairly short order, a lot of people are going to discover when they are walking from place to place that “Hey, it feels really good to walk.” Or “Hey, it feels really good to be outside, under the sky.” Or “You know I haven’t eaten in three days, and I am not dying, in fact, I feel better than I ever have.”

I think there are a lot of things that are good for us that we just don’t think to wish for, because the society that we live in doesn’t see any value in selling us those desires.

Dmitry: I think that, if there is one thing that I would say is valuable about what I have written, it is not that I give people the key to something, or that I make super accurate predictions. It is that I give them a radically different way to look at things than they wouldn’t have thought of on their own. And it almost doesn’t matter whether they agree with me or whether I am right. Really, it is just a matter of them being able to use what I have done; and start thinking for themselves; and stop taking anyone’s word for anything, and stop looking at what other people believe, and looking at what they believe.

KMO: Dmitry, that strikes me as a very excellent summation and probably a good place to leave off. We have been on the phone here for almost fifty minutes and that is a very good time, in my experience, to draw the curtain on things. So let me just ask if there is anything that you would like to say that we have not covered so far.

Dmitry: Just a plug, I think I will have a book coming out sometime later this year and, if it takes too long, maybe next year so stay tuned.

KMO: What is the title of the book?

Dmitry: The working title is “Reinventing Collapse” but that is just the working title.

KMO: And is it a book length treatment of the topics we have been discussing or is it some other agenda that you will address there?

Dmitry: It is basically building on what I have done so far.

KMO: Well, I very much look forward to it and when the book does hit the shelves I hope you will come back and talk to us about the book.

Dmitry: Thank you.

KMO: You are very welcome, thank you for joining us on the C-Realm podcast.