Is there any point in fighting to stave off industrial apocalypse?

Here's a cheery exchange… (follow the link for much more…)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/aug/17/environment-climate-change

nt

...again?

Isn't this like the third time that modern civilization had only a few more years to go before total collapse? Not sure, it could be the fourth...

Here's a fun and funny website that lists end-of-time predictions, so of which date from the very beginnings of recorded history:

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/9941/index.html

Civilization collapse?! That's silly! Right, guys? We're good, right? I mean c'mon, it's our civilization -- it's modern. It can't collapse, right?

But it wouldn't ever totally collapse, though, like where we don't have Wal-Mart any more -- right?

:7

Have to give them credit, it sells quite nicely.

My views are much more in line with Kingsnorth in this bun fight. I understand exactly where he's coming from. Monbiot sounds very "bright green" in this exchange, while Kingsnorth has looked reality in the face and accepted it.

I believe Paul Kingsnorth is not being at all realistic.

Looking to history, I think the best we might realistically expect from the total collapse of society would be something akin to the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages">Dark Ages." After a period of anarchy, I think we would likely see some sort of feudalism.

I believe a future dystopia (as portrayed in the "Mad Max" movies for example) is much more likely than the utopia he foresees.


I think Monbiot is dead on. We need to do everything in our power to avoid an uncontrolled "crash," and sadly, it will take a level of political will our leaders have not (to date) exhibited.

arguments.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x206002

and this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x206133

You gotta love a man who takes a clear stand. I agree with them all, but I especially resonate with 2, 3 and 8.

What exactly does that mean? Does it imply that all of the progress we've seen over the last 200 years is actually a myth?

First of all, the word "myth" is being used here not in the sense of a fictional fairy-tale, but rather as "a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people."

In this case it means that our shared belief that progress is necessary, or necessarily good, is a defining element of our world view. In the same way, our shared belief in human centrality and separation from nature are defining elements of our world view, or part of our civilization's mythology.

*Society for Rehabilitating the Word "Myth"

Throughout history there has been the shared belief that society is on the verge of collapse.

It is a myth that you embrace with great vigor.

It's a narrative that defines my world-view, for sure. Of course there's plenty of historical evidence for it, just as there is for the myth of progress. It's not as widely shared, but it is gaining a greater constituency as the glaciers melt, the economy teeters and oil prices gyrate like a stripper on speed. This isn't your grandpa's Y2K or Heaven's Gate.

It certainly takes a fairly intense inner experience for someone to abandon the socially acceptable mythos and adopt one that's as actively, even violently, marginalized as this one. That doesn't mean this one is axiomatically right, but by the same token neither is yours. They're both just myths.

myth (noun)

1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

So you are basically admitting that your assertions are invented, imaginary, fictitious, unproven or false? An odd admission...

My usage in this context is closest to your (5) but without the "unproved or false" qualifier.

That semantic confusion is why I much prefer the word "narrative" to "myth" -- there's less confusion over whether the story is necessarily "true" or not. The truth of such a narrative is much less important than its usefulness to the person who subscribes to it.

The truth of such a narrative is much less important than its usefulness to the person who subscribes to it.

I would completely disagree. The truth of the narrative is precisely what determines its usefulness to the person who subscribes to it. For example, if a society embraces a myth that there is a benevolent being way up high in the sky that will care for their every need, the people of that society are totally fucked if it turns out to not be true. I mean, who would take the time to grow food, make clothing, or build shelter if you believed a guy with long beard was going to take care of you. Likewise, if a group of people embrace the myth that society is on the verge of collapse, and that myth turns out to not be true, they will in all likelihood have wasted a great deal of their time doing things that are not at all useful (building fallout shelters, learning to grow their own food, pick your favorite prepare-for-the-apocalypse activity).

The truth of the narrative determines its usefulness.

Part of the narrative of our civilization is, "Money is a store of value." Is that true, or not? It's certainly true as long as we all keep believing it is. One of the big problems with fiat money, though, is that it has no intrinsic value (it's just paper, bits of metal or even electrons after all), and has only the value that its users agree it has. If the users lose confidence in the underlying value the money represents, the value of the money itself can crash literally overnight. Not because the statement became any less true, but just from people rejecting the story, "Money has value."

This points out one of the main reasons cultural narratives are so strongly defended -- if enough people stop believing them, the delicate balances of agreement that form our social web are at severe risk. If, for example, a significant fraction of western consumers were to reject the part of our narrative that says "possessions confer status" (either because they begin to use different status symbols or they decide that status itself is a crock of shit) what happens to an economy based on the production of consumer goods?

This is why the general response to people like me, who reject large parts of the accepted narrative, is so visceral. We are painted in the most unflattering terms possible: our views on overpopulation are labeled racist or eugenic; our views on limits to growth are described as totalitarian; and the mere suggestion that people without the benefits of indoor plumbing might have been perfectly happy cause screams that we want everyone to go back to living in caves and are rooting for death over life. This is all because our rejection of the story of modern industrial civilization is seen clearly but subliminally as a threat to those who created the story. After all, if our rejection wasn't a threat, there would be no need to get so heavily invested in defending against it. The defensive reactions are built into the story precisely to protect it: not because it's any "truer" than any other story, but because the one in use is the one that must be maintained at all costs, since too many people have skin in that game.

Ask yourself why you react so strongly to my views. What drives you to defend your view of the world in such strong terms against a virtual voice on the internet? Why is it so important to you that I be shown to be wrong?

What, then, determines the truth of a particular narrative? You? A thousand others who share your belief?

If you are declaring the truth or falsity of a narrative, it is only by means of another narrative. It just happens to be the one you believe in. Then there has to be another narrative to establish the "truth" of that one, and so on.

Turtles all the way down.

That's what happens when you conflate "narrative" with notions of "truth" -- you get an infinite regress. Indeed, the whole point of the term is to have a value-neutral way of identifying and describing communications in which a culture accounts for itself.

What, then, determines the truth of a particular narrative? You? A thousand others who share your belief?

What determines the truth? The observable universe determines the truth. Not everything is a subjective proposition or an opinion--there are many objective, verifiable facts that contribute to the discussion. For example, in 1970 Paul Ehrlich made the following statements:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate... "

"Hundreds of millions of people will soon perish in smog disasters in New York and Los Angeles...the oceans will die of DDT poisoning by 1979...the U.S. life expectancy will drop to 42 years by 1980 due to cancer epidemics."

“In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”

Objectively speaking, the Ehrlich narrative that humanity is doomed was not true. Now, since Ehrlich wrote the Population Bomb the humanity is doomed crowd has gotten a bit smarter. They rarely put dates on their predictions anymore, making it impossible to make them look as foolish as they did in the past. When you try to pin them down they obfuscate, but at some point in time the evidence against them just sort of piles up to the point that a reasonable person can conclude they were wrong.

A prediction is one man's proposal, and can always be (in)validated -- that's the main point of a prediction. A narrative is a different sort of beast entirely. It's a fabric of values, and comes into being through broad agreement within a given culture.

A narrative is composed of individual, interlocking beliefs. Some of the beliefs making up modern industrial civilization are:

"This civilization is the most fulfilling that has ever existed"
"Technology is good, and the more advanced a technology is, the better it is"
"It's better to be rich than poor"
"We will always be able to figure out a way to solve any problem"
"National boundaries are a good thing"
"Laziness is bad"
"Hierarchies are essential - somebody has to be the boss"
"We should always obey the law"
"Our troops exist to protect our freedom"

These are all value statements, and none of them can be shown to be true in any absolute sense. I claim that none of them can be validated or invalidated with objective evidence. However, most of us will recognize them as widely shared beliefs that help define the core values of our civilization.

A cultural narrative can change over time, as it did when Europe moved from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance. However, it does so not because the old world-view was falsified (though some foundational assumptions may be proven wrong as with the heliocentric theory), but because there was a broad shift in beliefs by the people of the culture.

Let's say we have two different societies, A and B, with two different narratives. Assume the populations can see how the people in the other society live. If over time a large number of people leave one society with one narrative to live in the other, one can objectively say that shrinking narrative has failed.

That's a fairly hard call to make, because you have to separate it from circumstances. We can say that the narrative of Nazi Germany was responsible for a lot of emigration, and may have contributed to the ultimate failure of that society. However, if Hitler had been a bit more astute and they had won the war, would the narrative have been deemed a failure by the people who had stayed loyal to it?

It would still have been a failure to the emigrants and to those who perished in the fighting and the camps, but to the stay-at-homes and survivors (and to the the culture itself) it would have been a success. In the end that's how you judge it. The success of a narrative is written along with the history books -- by the winners.

It remains to be seen if the narrative of modern industrial civilization will be judged a success. There are a few more cracks in the glorious facade than there were a mere century ago.

It remains to be seen if the narrative of modern industrial civilization will be judged a success. There are a few more cracks in the glorious facade than there were a mere century ago.

Would say that a subjective statement or an objective one?

I'm talking primarily about ecological damage like species extinctions and AGW as well as the water crises in places like the Indian subcontinent and Australia. These speak to me of the failure of the part of our narrative that says, "Nature is not a factor in the growth of our civilization."

I'm genuinely confused as to what types of statements are subjective (part of the narrative) and what types of statements are objective. You seem to being saying that statements concerning "species extinctions and AGW as well as the water crises in places like the Indian subcontinent and Australia" are objective, while statements like "nature is not a factor in the growth of our civilization" are subjective. Is that true?

"Human activity is causing species extinctions" is an objectively verifiable fact not dependent on the beliefs of the observer.
"Humans are more important than animals" is a subjective value statement.

The first is not typically part of a narrative, because it requires no memetic support for its truth proposition.
The second is a narrative element, because it forms part of the value system of the culture, which is what the narrative supports. I sometimes refer to the cultural narrative as the culture's "memetic fabric", which refers explicitly to the fact that it's made up of shared beliefs.

Facts are relatively unimportant to the narrative, except insofar as they support the values and beliefs. This means that facts often get cherry-picked for their utility, leading to a high degree of confirmation bias among culturally embedded researchers. AGW denialists are a prime example of this.

Now we can make some progress.

I would agree that values are subjective. I cannot prove the truth or falsehood of the statement "Humans are more important than animals". That does not mean, however, that we cannot make some objective statements regarding values. It is possible, for example, to objectively prove that one or more of a person's or society's values are logically inconsistent with one another. Consider a society that claims the following values:

1) We want our children to live as long as we do.
2) We want to drive everywhere in our cars.

While I may not be able to make an objective statement regarding the truth of these two statements, I may be able to demonstrate, objectively, that #2 will cause #1 to not happen. If I can do that, I may be able to convince that society that #2 is "wrong" (assuming they value #1 more than #2).

You see where this is leading?

We see down thread the dismissal of 100 billion human lives yet we see a concern for the extinction of other animals (extinctions being a part of the planetary cycle for eons). There is a subjective value statement here, whether you like it or not.

For instance, "Human activity is saving species from extinction" is another statement of fact which has with it a subjective value statement.

The fact that humans have caused extinctions (and have tried to prevent some) is a simple fact.

We seem to be working from different definitions of "objective". For me an objective statement is one that is true regardless of the inner state or beliefs of the person stating it. "I have five cars" is an objective statement, because it's true no matter what value I place on car ownership. On the other hand, "Everyone should be able to own as many cars as they wish" is a subjective value statement because someone who thinks car ownership of any sort is a bad thing for the ecosystem wouldn't be able to make it.

I see no actual value associated with your example of "Human activity is saving species from extinction", at least on its face. The value comes in the unspoken clauses of "and that's right and just" or, "and that's a waste of valuable resources."

I did not say it was not objective, merely that it had an added subjective value statement, because the content of the idea involved something that concerned you which could easily be neutral.

If you wanted to discuss extintions on their own, you could say "We are currently experiencing the Holocene extinction."

The value statement you place is with the human level of activity toward extinction.

What you consider "objective" is part of your belief system, reinforced by a modernist/rationalist cultural narrative.

When someone claims "objective verification" of something, their sub-text is: "I am declaring true what I believe to be true, and you may not contradict me." It's a political proposition, then, as to how much agreement you can muster by what means.

Sorry, nobody's got a lock on truth. You can make all the claims you want about the nature of reality, but it just comes down to your particular metaphysics. It's no better or worse than anyone else's metaphysics.

If there is no such thing as objective truth (or objective truth is unknowable) then debate and discussion is a waste of time. The whole purpose of a discussion like this is to try to determine what the truth is so that the correct course of action can be chosen. If there is no true to be known, what is the basis for determining the correct course of action?

As the old adage goes, "One experiment can prove me wrong, an infinite number of experiments cannot prove me right!"

I'm only responding to you because what happens is that "metaphysics" types love to form a strawman and box empirical evidence into a corner, stating that those who need empirical evidence are in fact incapable of accepting alternatives, and that we assume to have a monopoly on the truth.

But we know, from a science standpoint, that this is absolutely not the case. No science claims to have an absolute monopoly on the truth, and it is very very important to show that this is not the purpose of science.

When you're doing good science, you make no metaphysical claims -- ie, science never purports to "prove" anything as "real." You make observations, formulate and test theories against them, and eventually gain some confidence that the observed patterns will repeat themselves in the future more or less according to the model.

It's only in the popular mind that science ever "proves" something. With priests and shamans largely forsaken by the modernist/rationalist culture, there was sort of a vacuum left which many people now fill with their latter-day shamans: scientists.

Of course, no self-respecting scientist would actually accept that role.

My objection in this thread is the characterizing of Science (capital S) as having the final absolute say so about what is "real." Science doesn't do metaphysics.

...science that we currently have to endure. People are actually losing scientific reasoning and replacing it with something else entirely.

The cry of many a lost soul -- but take heart, my good fellow!

Here's the thing: the whole universe is completely crazy, and there is no umpire. Sounds scary, but if you think about it for a minute, it's actually very liberating. I mean, what if there were an umpire, and he was a jerk? Or maybe he just didn't like you?

It's our lot and our responsibility to make what sense of it we can. We observe carefully, study diligently, think clearly and compassionately, and then decide for ourselves what the best bets are. And they're always just bets -- never guarantees.

In such a situation, discussion and debate are actually very vital, because that's where the process of trying to make sense becomes a collaborative one, and therefore much stronger.

:toast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

If I say "I will drop this rock and it will fall at the acceleration of gravity," and I do so, it will fall at the acceleration of gravity. I am not, and indeed, cannot be lying to you or attempting to manipulate you.

If you say, "I will drop this rock and gaia will bring it to a stop as she wills," and you do so, I have nothing to go by. I don't know if you're telling the truth or not. And I certainly cannot tell what your motives are for telling me of this unexperiencable thing.

This has nothing to do with beliefs. I can believe all I want that said rock will fall under said circumstances, my belief has absolutely no bearing on what the rock will do.

That's the point: you "make sense" according to your accepted narratives. That's the function they serve.

Certainly, you can describe a falling rock in a way that has nothing to do with beliefs, but you won't be able to explain it without referring to some shared system of beliefs.

As a side note, it's unlikely that one of us would be able to manipulate the other unless we both accepted some of the same basic narratives.

So it's unlikely anyone could easily manipulate you.

"Why does a rock fall" is a lot harder to answer than "How fast does it accelerate?"

...in fact, you could not calculate how fast it accelerates without knowing why it fell!

That is, all mass attracts all other mass. We could not determine the acceleration at which it would fall without knowing the mass of the Earth.

I know, it curves the space time continuum.

So why does that happen?

Um, um, um, string theory. Or some form of Cooperative Universal Consciousness? At that point one is as provable as the other.

Similarily as to how an electron emparts charge.

The key is that you can stop at any time. I could simply do the same with regards to any spiritual theory. "Who made the goddess?" "She has always been." "Why? How?" etc

At any level of any bit of scientific knowledge, if I make a claim, you can check it (especially as it relates to useful things in society, such as technology). That's what's important.

(Sorry!) Modernist/rationalist discourse likes to use the word "myth" as a synonym for "lie," "fabrication," "illusion," etc.

However, the sense of the word in this thread is very different. In this more fundamental sense, a myth is a narrative that is told and re-told in the course of a culture's accounting for itself. It's an embodiment of the culture's values, assumptions, aspirations and taboos.

One prominent element of modernist/rationalist discourse is that its own myth is "factual," where "factual" is taken to mean "true" and "real," whereas any other myth is, well, "a myth."

Comparing myths is not very odd, really, and certainly not anything to "admit."

dictionary.com (your source) is the "lite" version of its superb parent, the American Heritage Dictionary. Here's the preferred entry from the latter for "myth":

Here's the OED's primary definition for "myth"

I particularly like the focus on "explanation, aetiology, or justification."

It seems that the most prominent cultural narratives serve to justify some bit of hubris held dear by the culture -- for example, "manifest destiny." Interesting to note that we use the word "account" to mean either "story," "explanation," or "justification."

Had to look up "etiology" again, and in doing so came across the Wikipedia entry for "myth." In the first paragraph:



There it is in a nutshell.

One author I read differentiated between "Myth" and "Legend."

Myths (he said) were understood not to be true in a factual sense, instead, they were used to communicate some deeper "truth." (For example, Aesop's Fables.)

The truth or falsity of a "Legend," on the other hand, is not known. Traditionally, "Legend" is synonymous with "History." Indeed, the OED says:

You know, we're just coming to appreciate some of the technology the Romans and the Greeks (and other collapsed societies) had.

As just one example, consider the "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism">Antikythera mechanism." We had no idea the Greeks were capable of such things. Why? Well, because no one else (to the best of our knowledge) was capable of such a thing for a thousand years or more afterward.

When I think where our technology might be today, had it progressed forward from that point…

But the ratio of societies actually collapsing to predictions of collapse is probably around 1000000:1.

That would satisfy your ratio, right? All you need is a million people who are aware enough to figure out what's coming down the pike and one society to collapse. That sounds quite reasonable.

I was thinking more along the lines of for every time society actually collapses there are a million theories predicting society will collapse.

That's obviously not a scientifically precise calculation. I could be off by an order of magnitude or two... :)

To the best of your knowledge, what has caused the collapse of societies in the past?

There is no doubt that small scale collapses like Easter Island were the result of overpopulation. The collapse of larger societies like the Mayan Empire or the Roman Empire are far more debatable. In general, the larger and more diverse the society, the lower the risk of collapse. The reason is simple. If a society is diverse, the people engaging in unsustainable activities can die off without causing the collapse of the whole society. The relevance to modern times is obvious. The "global village" as it is called is the largest most diverse society that has ever existed. Chances are good that pieces of it will collapse and die off due to the stupidity of certain segments of the population, but at this point the odds of the entire system falling apart are very low.

We might consider that when an unsustainable portion of a diverse society collapses, that a "sub-society" has collapsed.

GliderGuider (if I may be so bold) also believes that it's possible for a large portion of our diverse society to collapse, while a portion of it remains intact.


I hope that that's true. There are certain things I see as givens:

• "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." — http://www.slate.com/id/2561/">Herbert Stein
• Our "Industrial Society," is currently based on consuming fossil fuels at an increasing rate, even though they are in finite supply. (This cannot go on forever.)
• The human population has increased exponentially, and is still increasing, even though the Earth is finite in size. (This too cannot go on forever.)

Clearly, some fundamental features of our society will need to change. If a culture changes fundamentally, does it still exist?


However, what disturbs me more is the possibility (even if you feel it is unlikely) that we may succeed in making our home uninhabitable by us.

I am confident that life will go on, I'm just coming to question whether we will be a part of it.

Our "Industrial Society," is currently based on consuming fossil fuels at an increasing rate.

I would say that what you really mean is this: Our "Industrial Society," is currently based on consuming energy at an increasing rate.

I would say (with a great deal of irony given our disagreement on another thread :)) that our society's access to energy is virtually unlimited given the existence of the sun.

Currently, our industrial society is founded on burning fossil fuels.

If tomorrow, all fossil fuels suddenly ran out, what would happen to our industrial society?


There may be large numbers of people whose lives would not be significantly changed, but they are not part of our "industrialized society."


A transition to some other energy source (be it solar, or nuclear fission, or wind, or nuclear fusion) will involve fundamental changes, and there's some question as to whether those changes can be accomplished in a timely enough manner.

Fossil fuels will not suddenly run out, and no model predicts that they will.

As fossil fuels become more scarce, their price increases, creating the incentive necessary to transition to other forms of energy. With oil pushing about $75 a barrel, this process has already begun, despite the fact that we are at least 10-15 years away from declining oil production.

I did not mean to suggest that fossil fuels would run out tomorrow.

My point was that if they did, our society as it exists would no longer function.

Therefore, it should be obvious that since they will run out eventually to avoid a collapse, we need to make a transition. The question is whether we have the time to accomplish such a transition.


For example, let's say we built a zillion fission reactors overnight. We have a sufficient supply of uranium, sufficient processing facilities and an acceptable way to dispose of the resulting waste. All of those concerns are addressed. Poof!

(Caveat Lector: I am once again employing a ridiculous hypothetical.)

OK, that's great, except:

• The vast majority of our transportation system depends on burning petroleum products.
  • So, let's assume that we can produce them using chemical means, and a sufficient supply of electricity. Great! now all we need is all of the facilities to do that in. How fast can we build those?
  • Let's go with EV's. OK, fine, except batteries are big and heavy, and don't work well in things like trains and buses and ships and… and how long will it take us to transition the fleet?
  • OK, let's go with some sort of electrified highway system. Of course, now we have to transition the fleet, and the highways!
  • OK, then let's go with hydrogen fuel cells… Now we don't have to change the highways, but we do have to transition the fleet, and produce hydrogen facilities.
• Much of the nation depends on fossil fuels for heat.
• Much of our industry relies on fossil fuels.
• …

Most of these things can be retrofitted; the question is how fast can you make the transition?

Then, add in the "inconvenient truth" of greenhouse gases, and the transition is made more urgent and difficult.

In the 70's, Jimmy Carter recognized the need for the transition, but he saw us using coal as a bridge technology. Now, however, we know that coal is one of our worst enemies…

You see my point?

It's not a matter of costs, it's a matter of necessity. Electrical costs simply double, a simple doubling, and you will see whole nuclear plants going up all over the place, breeder reactors, whole nine yards. OK so it takes 5 years before they're ubiquitious, that's not a big deal, societies, especially western society, have gone through these resource blackouts before, and come out fine afterward.

Just for perspective, China consumes 2.4 billion tons of coal a year and it is increasing at around 10% a year (iirc). China's coal reserves are proven to last at leat a century and that's taking into account current demand.

Here is my overall argument. In order for social collapse is actually occur, we would have to get to a point where the essentials of life become scarce. You know, food, clothing, shelter. People losing the ability to participate on internet forums or watch the latest episode of American Idol do not constitute social collapse in my book.

The percentage of economic activity that actually provides the essentials of life is extremely small now--much smaller than it has ever been. America used to be a nation of 98% farmers, now 2% of our population provides more food than ever. In sum, we have to lose an awful lot before we cut into the essentials. I'm not talking about a 10% or 20% decline in GDP, I'm talking about a 60% to 80% decline in GDP before you really start seeing collapse. Quite honestly, I don't the mechanism that creates that kind of scenario.

...upon the systems in place. If, and this is unlikely, but if oil just disappeared overnight then a whole bunch of crops are going to just wilt away. Then they'd have to put away 10% of crop land simply to grow fuel to operate the machinery to get the crops.

We get nitrates from natural gas deposits, if those natural gas deposits simply vanish, we'd also be in a whole heap of trouble, since our geo-agriculture crops wron't grow.

I agree that the scenarios are unlikely to occur, of course, and it is nothing more than a thought experiment more than anything.

The only thing we have to watch out for is temperatures going up and sea level rise.

For example, long-term droughts, which are already occurring, can present a bit of a challenge for the food supply as well.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/21/AR2009082103698.html


http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Drought+slashes+crop+output/1918873/story.html


http://www.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=8920


http://www.newstrackindia.com/newsdetails/118691

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29957&Cr=climate+change&Cr1

Get rid of geoagriculture, for one, and dought becomes essentially a non-issue. Note that I am including dought in the "deserts of the world" statement, I simply do not think it would affect technologically capable societies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSN2052670220090820
http://www.ndmc.unl.edu/DM/MONITOR.HTML

I'd say that's a prime example of a narrative element. Large, complex, highly interconnected systems can be quite prone to total failure, sometimes in unexpected and dramatic ways.

One good example is the 2003 power outage in the northeastern US and Canada. It was triggered by a branch hitting a power line in Ohio, and the failure cascade left 55 million people in 8 states and one province without power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Blackout_of_2003

I don't think our civilization will experience some total, monolithic, amorphous collapse. I think pieces of it will collapse completely, some regions will experience partial failures of one sort or another, and still others will keep on going pretty much as normal. IMO which category a region falls into will depend largely on how dependent it is on the global system to provide some of the necessities of life. More self-sufficient regions will fare better, while countries that import large quantities of goods on a Just-In-Time basis from, oh, let's say China, could be more vulnerable.

Before I respond, I'd like you to clarify a few things:

1) Elaborate on what you mean by "partial failure".

2) What do you consider "the necessities of life"? Food, clothing and shelter?

3) What region specifically are you referring to in the last sentence? The US?

1. By partial failure I mean the loss of things that might make life difficult but not impossible. Say electrical grid failures, or the loss of a natural gas supply, or a reduction in food supply by 25%, but not all of them at once.
2. The necessities of life are food, fresh water, clothing, shelter, and heat in northern climates.
3. Not just the US. Europe is a prime candidate, as are Australia and parts of Southeast Asia.

I completely disagree with all of your predictions in #1.

The electrical grid will not "fail", prices of electricity will increase leading to reduced consumption. Lord knows we consume far more electricity than we really need to, and the opportunity for consumption reduction via conservation is huge.

We will not "lose" our supply of natural gas, prices will go up. People will compensate by turning their thermostats down a few degrees.

A reduction in the supply of food by 25% could be absorbed without a blink. Prices will go up and people will eat less meat. Given the number of people that are obese and that eating meat is bad for you, this will probably result in a net improvement in living standards.

First, I didn't "predict" any of those things, I just presented them as examples of things that, if they were to happen, could make life difficult but not impossible.

Second, my view extends further than just your borders. The electrical grids are in big trouble in Pakistan and South Africa. Bangladesh and many other countries (even Britain) are experiencing major problems with natural gas supplies. A crop failure of 25% in sub-Saharan Africa or India could be catastrophic.

Stop thinking like a Yank for a second and you'll see the issues better.

In post 61.

Not with reference to things like food supplies or grid failures.

...food. So going by this knowledge it seems obvious that the US would fare pretty well in the event of some kind of "unforeseen collapse" (which we know isn't likely). Given that the US has a huge military you can expect its empire to reach out and destory certain societies that have more resources, such as Iran for its uranium.

Basically, the richest will do much better off, not worse off. This is truly the first time I have seen someone attempt to claim that wealthy and powerful states would do worse than poor impoverished states in the collapse scenario.

What would happen to the US if your telephone/internet system crashed? You may say that it's unlikely, but a fundamental tenet of systems theory is that complex adaptive systems exhibit emergent properties that make them somewhat unpredictable and less than fully manageable. The failure probability of such systems is axiomatically non-zero.

What would happen to the US if your telephone/internet system crashed?

We already know the answer to this--it's happened several times in the last decade. What hasn't happened is "permanent failure" of the telecommunications system. I happen to work in telecommunications, and have for the last 9 years. I see no mechanism for "permanent failure", though I'm open to hearing about it.

Basically any real collapse scenario is predicated on extraoridinarily unlikely events. Asteroid impacts, etc.

Two or three weeks would make quite a dent in peoples' lives.

I worked in telecom for 20 years, doing low level control software for PBX's, routers and switches. I remember reading about a cascading crash that happened in the '70s or early 80's when a poorly coded switch statement in C -- the programmer forgot to put in the "default" statement and the flow of control fell though when a bad value was encountered. The bad value was propagated through to the next switch in the system (that was running the same software) and the failure cascaded until it hit some kind of service boundary. That took out all public telecom halfway down the eastern seaboard.

We can try and engineer our way out of such traps, but as I said before, complex adaptive systems exhibit unpredictable failure modes.

Now the network is diversified. The Internet is not run by one company, but many. Their switches are deliberately not setup to share code or configuration info with each other because nobody wants to have their network brought down because some idiot at another company does something stupid. More importantly, the content of data today is largely irrelevant. Disruptions do not cause total traffic loss, they cause a reduction in bandwidth, and high value traffic gets priority (e.g. 911 systems are the last to go down). Given that something like 50% of all Internet traffic these days is porn and You-Tube video, I don't think a reduction in bandwidth would harm the economy much :)

buncha wonks. What do they know, anyway?

It's a question of fact. You asked what would happen if the telecommunications system crashed. I answered that it has crashed, several times in the last decade. The answer is not found in system theory, it is found in the history books. You mentioned an example of an error that took out "all public telecom halfway down the eastern seaboard". Well, what was the impact? Whatever it was, it is more significant than it would be today because back then a much higher percentage of telecommunications traffic was actually important, not the useless drivel of internet forum posters like you and I :)

People share free water to one another, walk quietly to their homes, and basically treat each other with the level of civilized behavior that they have come to take for granted.

You are more complicated than the whole of the internet system. Just for some perspective here.

It's Africa that's fucked, not North America.

Europe and the US would do well (along with Canada since it would presumbably be the new living ground for a good deal of Americans in the event of sea level rise). NATO would become more of a "league of nations" where both states share resources and basically kill anyone else.

Russia would be burning tens of thousands of acres of forest weekly for warmpth. Charcoal and wood would be the fuel of choice (again).

China might instate killing squads to alleviate the population drain. They can't import grain from the US anymore. We're talking seriously evil shit here. I'm talking about half a billion people starving to death. Just unimaginable. It would make the whole Great Leap Forward look like nothing.

based on your assumptions of how the world does/will probably work. Others start from different assumptions, and come up with very different scenarios. The proof of that pudding will definitely be in the eating.

But using China as an example of a necessity exporter is not necessary.

The western world can do without Indian telecom operators. It can't do without food.

India + China don't have the agriculturial area or technology to support their populations.

They will be in bad shape regardless. Maybe they'd migrate into Africa.

I don't think Canada is going to be a winner in the coming changes. We have very little arable land beyond what's already cultivated. It's f'ing cold up here, meaning that winter heat is essential. If we were to absorb 30 million ecological/economic refugees from the USA we'd bust. And I can't see any reasonable way of keeping y'all out. You've got all the tanks and planes, after all.

"Indian telecom operators" is a straw man. Can you do without Taiwanese microchips?

If things work out the way the experts predict, Canada will be the new breadbasket of the world as the sweet spot of agricultural climate moves northing several hundred miles.

So what we would have is the whole south of the USA getting annexed (except for, say, Arizona and other resource rich states like Colorado). Any latinos trying to migrate upward because Mexico would become a dry desert would result in mass executions. It helps that a good deal of the southern USA would be underwater anyway.

We live in a time of social, economic and ecological unravelling. All around us are signs that our whole way of living is already passing into history. We will face this reality honestly and learn how to live with it.

When economic and even social conditions are improving globally, it is difficult to accept the "economic" aspect of the argument. Therefore I cannot agree to it.

http://www.gapminder.org/

Ecologically we do have problems to sort out, but there's no real danger of our bringing global society to the brink, at most a natural culling of population could take place, given the worst case scenario of human involvement (global warming creates sea level rise, acidic oceans, and sea life goes extinct en'masse). In the end population may be readjusted by half, but from some economists point of view, this would be a "good thing" since those who would ultimately perish would be those at a lower class in society, who are an "unnecessary burden" on global capital. Of course, they would never say it.

And a person who believes global collapse cannot be stopped (and in some cases should not be stopped) is essentially nothing more than a xenophobic racist who has no compassion for those at the lowest tier of society would would unabashedly be affected by these ecological changes. We're talking mass migrations, large concentration camps, people being shot and killed because they try jumping a border fence, stuff like that.

2. We reject the faith which holds that the converging crises of our times can be reduced to a set of‘problems’ in need of technological or political ‘solutions’.

This is essentially a rejection of science. Science that, unsurprisingly, helped the ecological conclusion be made, and hopefully results in a series of scientific proposals that can mitigate the problems we face. By saying "there is no fix" you are basically, as I said in the response to the first principle, saying "oh well" to those on the lowest tier of global society who for so long have been exploited. They've been exploited their whole existence and now they get to die a painful and authoritarian death.

Indeed, the last principle suggests that there are solutions, but those solutions are inarguably relegated to a small minority of believers who have prepared themselves for this global industrial collapse, and who wait for it with baited breath, hoping one day to be able to participate in archaic and exploitive ideologies.

3. We believe that the roots of these crises lie in the stories we have been telling ourselves. We intend to challenge the stories which underpin our civilisation: the myth of progress, the myth of human centrality, and the myth of our separation from ‘nature’. These myths are more dangerous for the fact that we have forgotten they are myths.

The root of these crises starts with a fundamental rejection of egalitarianism, of which these "principles" play an integral part. That is, the idea that ultimately we are doomed, and that there's nothing we should even attempt to do for our fellow human beings.

The "myth of progress" is most certainly not a myth, under any definition of the word (including the OED definition). The fact that the author is able to write such principles and post them on a network which millions and millions of people can view, shows that progress is a very real, very active process. But said progress is always going to be thwarted by any kind of rejection of egalitarianism. If we are not equals, then what of progress?

When someone on that lowest tier of society is unloading grain from a truck because corporations build soda factories which drain water supplies, necessitating foreign imports to simply survive, they are fully aware of their part in society, they are fully aware of the air conditioning that the driver is enjoying, as the sweat drips heavily off of their skin thick in grime, unwashed in clean water their entire existence. They know what progress is, they see it with their own eyes. They wish for it more than any other.

http://www.mineyourownbusiness.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosia_Montana#Films:_.22Gold_Futures.22_and_.22Mine_Your_Own_Business.22

Human centrality and the separation of nature are of course one in the same, and they are not necessarily myths, most people recognize nature, and enjoy experiencing it, but the whole "egalitarianism must take a back seat" thing removes them from being able to experience it. People spend their days flipping hamburgers, sitting at a computer, lugging rocks, and when that day is over, they just want to go home and relax with whatever luxuries that they have and sleep.

This is where the "myth of progress" statement comes from. It presumes that an anti-egalitarian society is necessary to have the technological society we currently enjoy. But that is hardly true at all, and not proven in any credible sense. We *can* have egalitarianism with our level of luxury. We *can* have tangible progress for *everyone*.

In "Mine Your Own Business" there's an eco-yuppie who is petitioning the government to keep an industrial project from being created under the guise of "environmentalism." Said eco-yuppie told the director that the poor impoverished people "liked their conditions" and "wanted to be primitives." So, doing what would be completely anti-ethical to the "narrative" that said eco-yuppie was creating, the director *asked* the people living in straw huts what they wanted. They claimed quite quickly that there existed no more sticks to gather to build new huts or improve upon the ones that they had, and that in fact they were basically screwed already, that they could not go back, and that they weren't allowed to go forward.

The eco-yuppie then went on to show off his yacht and house that he was building. Real cool, that.

4. We will reassert the role of story-telling as more than mere entertainment. It is through stories that we weave reality.

Untrue, unverifiable stories applied to social life in a tangible way (outside of entertainment) got us to where we are today. Kings claiming sovereignty because they said so. Science is the first step toward removing this inequality, because it allows people to verify statements and claims, and to set them apart from other claims that are unverifiable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

Manipulation stems from claims that cannot be checked. So if a "healer" claimed that they could cure a disease by channeling some sort of supernatural power, those who believed said claims would be in a position of inequality. The story tellers, then, are the masters, because said story, said information, exists solely in the claims of the teller, and are not part of actual objective reality.

5. Humans are not the point and purpose of the planet. Our art will begin with the attempt to step outside the human bubble. By careful attention, we will reengage with the non-human world.

Non-sensical spiritualism. What is the author trying to say? I agree that humans are not the "point and purpose of the planet," but I don't know anyone who would disagree with such a shallow concept. Humans are a part of the planet just as any other species, however, we have had a far reaching impact on the planet due to inequality within our own species. Indeed, just as we see other humans we see the world. As simple things that can be exploited for our own ends.

This obviously has to stop.

But you don't have to don a wolf head and dance around a fire for it to stop.

6. We will celebrate writing and art which is grounded in a sense of place and of time. Our literature has been dominated for too long by those who inhabit the cosmopolitan citadels.

We're already doing that.

http://creativecommons.org/

http://www.fsf.org/

We don't need global collapse and 3 or more billion people dying for this to be the case. Opening ones eyes can be useful.

7. We will not lose ourselves in the elaboration of theories or ideologies. Our words will be elemental. We write with dirt under our fingernails.

Indeed, collapse is already agreed upon by the author, therefore elaboration is not necessary. We sit idly by waiting for billions to die (even if they don't this is an inherently evil position to take). "I have this position and I will not change it for anyone." Yet no evidence for said position, and no desire to even expound upon the little argument that you do have.

8. The end of the world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop. Together, we will ?nd the hope beyond hope, the paths which lead to the unknown world ahead of us.

There won't be an end of the world because there are people who actually do care about other human beings. There are people who don't want to see people suffer. There are people who don't wish for the destruction of the environment (a collapsist scenario inherently approves of more environmental destruction; for when frost hits a billion people a billion more trees will go into the furnace). And all of these people are actually actively working against these ends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_hardware

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap_Project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCores

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimachine

If the premise is true, if there is really nothing that can be done about global collapse, then, well, it's simple.

We won't go down without a fight, we will help our fellow human beings, and we will expend every ounce of energy we have to succeed.

First, I hope you don't take offense, because I mean none. You are who you are and have a perfect right to your own values.

Something has struck me about every single one of your posts I've read on this board. That is that the attitudes and beliefs you express are an absolutely perfect example of the cultural narrative of industrial society in full flower. That includes the defense mechanisms I mentioned in a post above. You embody the everyman of this civilization, down to the last meme. That's quite an accomplishment.

There is little point in someone like me arguing with you, because I explicitly reject most of what you hold inviolable. As a result neither of us is even really capable of understanding, let alone converting, the other. I do admire the energy and tenacity with which you defend your world view, and the fact that you don't get nasty and personal in the process. That's not always easy when you're arguing against a position you find repugnant.

I just had to respond today because I had some free time to type out my thoughts.

Note that I am anti-monetarist, anti-state, anti-government, anti-capitalist, anti-property, anti-work, anti-specialization.

Pro-environment, pro-technology, pro-freedom, pro-equality, pro-science, pro-knowledge.

So when you link to me a post I already read about "the money narrative," I feel that you have simply stereotyped me into the same corner as others who have "created a narrative."

Nah, I live in a technological world, I understand that a billion or two people are unduely suffering because of the society I was unfortunately born in to.

But I still can't not have a desire to emancipate them from the chains which they were also born in to.

I didn't create the environment that we live in, but I did grow up very poor, I did have to endure not having warm water to bathe in, not having anything other to eat but rice and potatoes. And I see no rational, evidenced based reasoning for this society to be the *only* way for this society to *be.*

You seemingly do. And that I do find repugnant, I have to admit, because I think that while you accuse me of writing a narrative about life, I have actually lived it, I have known what it is like to be living in squalor. I didn't write the narrative, life did. Guys like you did. People saying "Oh well that's life, it's nothing personal, just business. Nothing you can do about it."

Everyone has their own story, and the internet has too little bandwidth to try and funnel or interpret a whole person through.

The same goes for me. Just as you are not a representative of the forces of empire bent on entropizing the world, neither am I a fetishist for insufficiency. I simply think that there are may ways human beings can live and be happy, and not all of them involve high technology, or even a varied diet and indoor plumbing.

From my point of view yes it does result in a reevaluation of human behavior and a slowing down of human environmental exploitation. But if it were to occur without also harming the elites at the top, then the scenario I described would absolutely happen. It is frightening.

Note that I am neutral for the most part about collapse or a large industrial failure. If massive methane deposits release we'd be in deep trouble, if greenland and antarctica started melting, the whole face of the planet would change. If oil stopped flowing without alternatives in place, whole regions would simply die.

I only post the Gapminder statistics to show that the elites are doing just fine. It is not to say "oh half of the population gets culled, that's fine."

It *isn't*. It's awful, it's wrong, it's inherently evil.

George. Dude. Abide serenely in this knowledge:

All of the 6.5+ billion human inhabitants of our fair planet will, in fact, perish.

They will perish whether we "let" them or not.

Chill. Have a nice day.

105 billion people have perished on Planet Earth since the beginning of people. The current 6.5+ billion will perish as well, as will the next 100 billion. The only issue is the average age at death, which has historically been lower than it is right now, just as it still is in places. The real question is not death, but the quality of life. Some people seem to think that depends on having air conditioners, flat-screen TVs and automobiles. Most of the 105 billion who have gone before us would beg to differ.

They never had access to the things that we in western civilization currently enjoy.

...and vice versa!

It's not as enjoyable as people make it out to be, most of whome have never tried to live off of the land, and many who have never touched a garden that would actually support themselves and their family.

to be a very credible outcome. Unfortunately we still have plenty of rope left to ensure that we give ourselves a proper hanging. There is still oil in the ground, coal and natural gas are still abundant. We're going to be able to continue this merry dance, right up to the bitter end. I see no evidence that we are prepering to mend our ways.
I believe we've entered the realm of what the physicist Per Bak called the self-organizing system. Bak made his point with sand piles. As a sand pile grows it becomes less stable. As sand is added, grain by grain, the internal dynamics of the pile continuously adjust, until it finally slides. But it's impossible to predict which grain will destabilize the pile. Our planet's ecosystems are stressed to the point that there is little resilience remaining. Bit by bit we increase the load on the system, with no clear idea of how, when or where the rupture will come. It may take the form of persistent drought, dust bowls, a sudden methane release, sudden, catastrophic ice-melt in Greenland or the Himalayas, firestorms ravaging the Amazon basin or Indonesia. What's coming, I fear, will beggar imagination. Based on 7 decades of observation, I don't expect humans to behave well when it goes down.

Have you read Paul Hawkens' book "Blessed Unrest"? We may yet hang ourselves, but I find the vision of an emerging cultural sub-narrative much more persuasive than the techno-social planning approach championed by the green community. If we are to come out of this OK (for whatever "OK" means to each of us), one of those two approaches has to succeed -- we have to either change the way we choose do business or change the business we choose to do. I do not believe, personally, that the techno-socio-political approach has a hope in hell of changing the way we do business enough to "save us". I believe the "new storytellers" actually have a slim chance to change what we define as success, so at this point that's good enough for me.

paradigm that led us into this morass is unlikely to get us out. But if I understand you correctly, you're postulating some sort of broad epiphany among the general population, which I simply can't imagine. Most people go through life with their shoulder to the wheel, their nose to the grindstone, an ear to the ground and their eyes on the prize. That attitude doesn't leave much space for the developement of a self-actualizing consciousness. People don't want to wake up. The stories they tell themselves are more powerful than reality

Of course these aren't normal times. I thought exactly like you until I read "Blessed Unrest" and considered its implications. Part of the reason I couldn't give the notion of a broad awakening any credence was because I couldn't see a mechanism. I'm now convinced there is one.

The mechanism I'm talking about is the spontaneous, undirected emergence of a global movement of small, independent, local environmental, social justice and ecospiritual groups that is already underway. Such groups have sprung up in every city in every nation in the world, and their number is growing by 40% or more each year. There are now over two million of them. It's the largest social movement the world has ever seen, and it's constructing a coherent, alternative cultural narrative right down at the grass roots. It's being driven by the growing number of environmental and social crises, much in the same way that antibodies spring into being in response to an infection. Given the continued growth of this phenomenon, I think there will be a tipping point at which the new value system will go mainstream. The existing power structures will fight it like hell, but as in the case of every other idea whose time has come, that will prove to be a forlorn rearguard action.

So no, the mechanism is not collapse. Despite what you may think, I'm a very hopeful guy these days.

I don't consider that a very big movement toward helping the environment and helping global society as a whole to be honest.

I wouldn't consider an "ecospiritual tour" of the Himalayan Mountains for $5,000 very helpful to the environment, for instance.

Read Paul Hawkens' book "Blessed Unrest". It's a quick read, since just half of it has the meat of his argument. It might completely change your sense of what's going on out there. There's not a word in it about ecospiritual tourism.

As of now I cannot find it on all of the book piracy sites out there.

Try these:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/05/books/review/Sullivan-t.html
http://engagedintellectual.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/blessed-unrest-review-by-paul-b-scudder/
http://biblioarchy.blogspot.com/2008/08/blessed-unrest-review.html
http://deepgreenconversation.org/book-review-blessed-unrest/
http://www.newwest.net/index.php/city/article/paul_hawkens_blessed_unrest/C396/L396/

There truly is a miracle afoot in the world.

The reviews seem pretty damn uplifting (I might check it out of the library and emancipate the book for everyone else; the last part is me talking out of my ass and no admission of copyright infringement).

Is this movement supposed to stop the impending collapse? Or is it just intended to ride the wave of collapse and survive to the other side?

There's a movie called "Life At The End Of Empire" which is inherent collapsist. It does not go into details about the "after fall" existance, but it does try to conjure up images of "smart people with lots of foresight" surviving the collapse, and "creating a new world in its soldering embers."

Is that the sentiment expressed in the book? And if not, why are you seemingly behind collapse and deny any potential force to stop said collapse?

Note that my language is not intended to incite you or anything, when I say "deny any potential force" I don't mean you are akin to a global warming denier. Perhaps better words can be used here. I am too tired to think of any (been awake 34 hours).

The answer is a little ambiguous, though. I think the answer is neither. The movement doesn't really have any inherent intention. The movement is not "intended" to stop the collapse, though I suppose it might. It's not "intended" to ride the wave, though it definitely could. There is very little that is intentional about the movement itself - after all, it wasn't created as a movement, and the individual groups each have a different objective or intention of their own. It's less a classical movement than an emerging phenomenon with emergent qualities, but those qualities shouldn't be confused with intent.

To me, what makes the movement so deeply fascinating isn't the various outcomes, it's the inputs. Virtually every group in it is being informed by a value system that is outside the mainstream narrative we've been talking about in this thread. They tend to value:

• Cooperation, not competition;
  
• Nurturing, not exploitation;
  
• Consensus, not hierarchy;
  
• Recognition of interdependence, not separateness;
  
• Acceptance of limits, not a rejection of limits;
  
• Respect for all life, rather than a dualism with humans getting most respect and non-human life getting little;
  
• Universal justice, not a hierarchy of justice based on culture, ethnicity or status;
  
• In short, the values of true sustainability, not the values of Empire.

This gives the movement a fundamental coherence, and also gives it a set of unique properties that can act in a number of ways. In my own short article on the movement, I say:


I'm in touch with the producers of the movie you mention, "What a Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire" (Tim Bennett and Sally Erickson). They now explicitly recognize this movement as the source of their vague sense of something important that could survive a "fall". So does another eco/justice/indigenous/spiritual group I'm involved with, "Awakening the Dreamer, Changing the Dream". Tim, Sally and the ATD group still recognize the possibility of collapse, though they're now thinking of it in terms of massive involuntary change without the implied negativity of the word "collapse". We're all coming to think of this movement as the game-changer, though.

What's most exciting for me is that the movement will do Good Stuff no matter what happens in the world. If the Empire stays in control, at least some shit gets cleaned up and the message keeps being spread. In that role the movement would be a little like a spontaneous Underground Resistance movement, with computers instead of guns. If the Empire weakens even a bit, the movement has infrastructure, a value system and knowledge that will let it take advantage of any opportunity that presents itself (as well as constantly trying to create opportunities for itself as it goes along). Its ubiquity means that it's like slowly rising water that can flow through any crack in the Empire's defenses, no matter how small. And if the Empire fails, loses its grip, and the defenses it has put up cannot be maintained, the movement has a set of sustainable, grassroots values and practices that are fully prepared to replace the anti-human values that have ruled our civilization for so long.

The movement is fully organic and will do whatever is needed and possible at any given point in time or space. It opposes Empire by its very nature, is so resilient that it's essentially unstoppable, and is currently growing by over 60% a year. That's why I think it's a total freaking miracle.

Now go get some sleep. :boring: