True Blue

November 14, 2005
     Years ago, President Nixon nominated a legal nonentity named G. Harold Carswell for a seat on the supreme court. Derided by the newspaper columnists as "mediocre," Carswell was defended by a conservative Nebraska senator, Roman Hruska, who said, memorably: "There are a lot of mediocre people in America who ought to be represented."
     Now Hruska has been reincarnated in Senator Charles ("Chuck") Grassley of Iowa, who said the following a few days ago:

"You know what? What makes our economy grow is energy. And Americans are used to going to the gas tank (sic), and when they put that hose in their, uh, tank, and when I do it, I wanna get gas out of it. And when I turn the light switch on, I want the lights to go on, and I don't want somebody to tell me I gotta change my way of living to satisfy them. Because this is America, and this is something we've worked our way into, and the American people are entitled to it, and if we're going improve (sic) our standard of living, you have to consume more energy."

      Like the true-blue mediocre Americans of the Nixon era, American consumers (as we like to call ourselves) have the representative they deserve today in Senator Grassley. He expresses perfectly the dominant thought out there, which is as close to being not-a-thought as any thought can be. And this kind of proto-crypto-demi-thought is exactly what is going to lead this country into a world of hardship.

      Instead of preparing the public for changing circumstances that will inexorably require different behavior on our part, our leaders are setting the public up to defend a way of living that can't continue for practical reasons. The question remains: are our leaders doing this out of cynicism or stupidity, or some other reason that is hard to determine?

      Cynicism would mean that they know exactly what the score is with the global energy situation and our predicament in relation to it, and don't trust the public to deal with the truth. Two weeks ago, I was on a speaking program in Dallas with investment banker Matthew Simmons, author of Twilight in the Desert, an alarming book about the state of the Saudi Arabian oil industry. I asked Matt what he has encountered the time or two that he has had an audience with George W. Bush. Apparently, the president's reaction to Simmons' message (which is that we are in big trouble) is a kind of curious incomprehension, as in the old expression, is that so?

      Personally, I don't believe that Mr. Bush or the people around him do not understand that oil production worldwide has about topped out, and that whatever oil is left belongs mostly to other people who don't like us very much. But public acceptance of this reality would mean the end of many illusions supposedly crucial to our national life, most particularly that we can continue to be an easy motoring society, and continue running an economy based on its usufructs.

      But the psychology of previous investment is a curious thing. It compounds itself insidiously, and now we not only suffer from our misinvestments in an infrastructure for daily life that has no future, but we also suffer from the political investment in continuing to pretend that everything is okay. That is, if Mr. Bush went on TV tomorrow and told the public we have a problem, the public would want to know why they weren't told sooner, and why they were not directed to some purposeful adaptive behavior, and Mr. Bush's team, the Republican party, would be discredited for failing to do so.

      While I doubt that the President and his posse are too dim to comprehend the energy trap we're in, there certainly is plenty of plain stupidity in the rest of our elected leadership, of which Senator Grassley's remarks are Exhibit A. To be more precise, actually, Grassley's statement displays something closer to childishness than sheer stupidity. It comprises a set of beliefs or expectations that are unfortunately widespread in our culture, namely, that we should demand a particular outcome because we want it to be so. This is exactly how children below the age of reason think, in their wild egocentricity, and it is the hallmark of mental development to grow beyond that kind of thinking. But the force of advertising and other inducements to fantasy are so overwhelming in everyday American life that they may be obstructing the development of a huge chunk of the population, something that becomes worse each year, as proportionately more adults fail to grow up mentally. This state-of-mind is made visible in Las Vegas, our national monument to the creed that people should get whatever they want.

      What I wonder is: when will my fellow citizens discover that their thinking and their behavior are unworthy of their history?  That we are entering a time when these things simply aren't good enough, aren't enough to meet the challenges that reality now presents. Or are we too far gone? It's possible that we are. After all, life is tragic, meaning that happy outcomes are not guaranteed and that people who forget that usually come to grief.

Comments

[Dave]

Great Post ! You hit the nail on several heads at once. My own take is that know but are unwilling to face the truth and its consequences for the "growth dependent economy" i.e. sprawl, that the population is so dumbed down that they can trust in the clueless, and that the coming shitstorm needs to be seen as a natural market correction. It won't wash for long and the hell to befall our so called leaders is going to be biblical in its intensity and I fear violent. The hve known about this for years and the Republicrats are responsible and there is no getting out of it for them and their party.
One final note. I spoke with first grade school teacher recently and she noted that she is seeing more dstracted and disoriented children every year. These kids are overexcited and overstimulated and have permanent damage to their ability to do tasks and listen.

[TheInterloafer]

JHK: If the psychology of previous investment is so powerful, how did we trash our streetcar systems, and the tens of cities that they fed, so easily?

[anon e mus]

This is the best part of the quote:

"...and the American people are entitled to it..."

Entitled...bwahahahah!

[Gary Benzon]

The subject of this essay is my biggest cause for pessimism over resource and population issues. Even the pundits in this field who are often perceived as being pessimistic (yes, JHK, that seems to include you) usually provide some optimistic caveats based upon a more-or-less radical change of direction that will require a high level of public cooperation. The more optimistic commentators often seem to come from a few progressive enclaves where they are surrounded by like-minded people. But for those of us surrounded by more typical middle-America, it's heartbreaking to witness either (1) complete ignorance of the issues, or (2) slight familiarity with the issues but thinking like Chuck Grassly.

The level of denial is so pervasive that I have a very difficult time envisioning any course change that will even make a dent in the problems. Can anyone realistically imagine complete overhaul of economic systems such as described by Herman Daly & John Ikerd?

Other than a few times in the 1970's, how many of us baby boomers can remember a time when we couldn't fill up that tank? It's easy to see that cheap energy has taken on the birthright status of air and water--- and that's not going to change without serious wailing and gnashing of teeth.

[sipsey]

Interloafer,

The economic possibilities that would follow the destruction of the streetcars were so great that they easily outweighed the "previous investment."

Now, however, we may be in the opposite situation. If the coming paradigm dictates that unending growth is impossible and that a contraction of our economic activities (with a commensurate decrease in energy use) is mandated, then that is a threat to the economic engine that depends on going forward.

Leaders like Grassley do everyone involved a great disservice with their "the American way of life is not negotiable" blather. We can't wish our way out of this situation, and I'm afraid we can't engineer or invent our way out of it either. Less consumption is the only path. It would be great to hear some straight talk from our pols, but I'll not hold my breath.

[jorge]

I for one believe that all is not lost. Roscoe Bartlett has initiated a one-man campaign taking the PO issue to the floor of the House on several ocassions. Mainstream publications are starting to pick up the theme of PO and are slowly removing the appearance of doomsday cultism from the subject. The prompt reaction of a significant number people to the spike in oil prices last September (reflected in dropping SUV sales, increased carpooling, local communities moving to lock in heating oil and gas prices through cooperative bargaining), lead me to believe that there is a growing mass of opinion that's aware of what is happening.

Is it a critical mass? I don't think so. What is the number needed for a critical mass? I have no clue. Denial is still the staple of most Americans' diets when it comes to the end of the era of cheap oil. Perhaps the pace of change in the level of awareness is to slow to prevent the most severe consequences of PO.

I simply don't know. But there are some encouraging signs out there.

[kd]

Excellent post, Jim. All of it.

I was especially struck by your comment about how "the force of advertising and other inducments to fantasy are so overwhelming in everyday American life that they may be obstructing the development of a huge chunk of the population, something that becomes worse each year, as proportionately more adults fail to grow up mentally."

The "we're entitled to it" mentality runs alongside the "something for nothing" mentality that pervades the moral sense of a surprisingly large segment of the American population. Set that next to a well-oiled (pun intended) elite making machine fueled by advertising, psuedo social Darwinism, & a twisted notion of rugged "individualism", & the result is as JHK suggests: a Las Vegas state-of-mind, with all the illusory, self-indulgent, amoral images that go with it.

*

Dave, the observations of the first grade teacher you spoke with speak volumes.

[adelbert stifter]

All the Casandras and Jeremiahs combined cannot undo the mammalian tendency for comforting simplicities. We are animals, really no better constructed than a dog or wombat. We will (I know I will) keep going back to the dry well over and over because once there was refeshment. Is this tragic? No. It's biology. The only thing that's tragic about life is KNOWING.

[Mike]

KD-

How does "a twisted notion of rugged 'individualism'" lead to a sense of entitlement? I would think a nation of infants expecting its government to bail it out is more directly related to thinking it "deserves" something.

Some examples: endless liquidity & credit; oil on-line everytime reduced supply raises prices; paying farmers to destroy crops; protectionist barriers that discourage inefficient industries from improving.

[Louise]

Interloafer,

You stated, "our streetcar systems, and the tens of cities that they fed..."

Did you mean "tens of thousands", or "tens"? Certainly there were dozens of streetcar and trolley systems in New Jersey alone a century ago. What is the estimate of the total number of trolley systems across the entire nation at that time?

Perhaps there is tremendous money to be made in tearing out the state highway systems, disposing of the asphalt, and building new trolley and streetcar systems.

[Fahey]

When the barbarians ran through the streets of Rome, the people put they're valuables on their doorsteps to appease the invaders. They couldn't fathom someone not wanting riches. That's our problem here in the good old U.S.A. If its out of our realm of thinking, it can't be that important. Well folks, put on your best toga's and watch the citys fall. It will happen pretty quick so try to get it all on your video cell phone from the window of your fuel less S.U.V.

[Mike]

Louise-

Careful what you wish for. The "short rail" systems that have been popping up all over lately have a few things in common: sponsorship by well-connected politicos; nice contracts sitting right behind this sponsorship; rail lines that run to nowhere in particular (think of the one in your own Jersey City); those that do run somewhere tend to shuttle tourists from one shopping locale-to-another.

Not saying short rails and street cars wouldn't be great. But unless the system appropriating the funds gets streamlined, I fear more of the status quo with metal, rather than rubber, wheels.

[t]

I welcome the end of abundant oil. I also fear its end. I welcome the end because I believe we are too irresponsible to use our energy wisely. That is, given our childlike attitude towards the world, unlimited energy resources would lead to unlimited destruction.

On the other hand, I fear the end, not because we may run out, but because the substitutes will be coal, coal to liquids, biofuel, oil shale, oil sands, and God knows what else.

We will take the easy path, the supply path. The thought of actually restraining ourselves by doing meaningful conservation and total restructuring of our cities will just be too much for the people to contemplate or bear.

[Mike Church]

"If the psychology of previous investment is so powerful, how did we trash our streetcar systems, and the tens of cities that they fed, so easily?"

It's easy to get people to stop using public transporation: cut lines, limit routes, make the system more inconvenient. Then people have to drive. During an era when racism was still somewhat common, this was an appealing option for white soon-to-be or want-to-be suburbanites.

It's not as easy, in this twilight before crisis when there seems to be no problem, to get people to cut their driving and get back onto public transit.

It was relatively easy to sell the changes of the 1950s, because the former lower-middle class was being elevated into the middle-class suburban lifestyle, and despite the destruction of community, these changes could be sold as progress, increasing convenience, and affluence. The changes of the 2010s will be much harder to sell, but we will have no choice but to "buy" them.

[Frank]

Most public street car systems were sold to private companies by funding-pinched civic governments. Unfortunately, as reported by Jane Jacobs, they were invariably sold to shadow subsidiaries of General Motors who subsequently ran the companies into the ground, the better to sell more cars.

[kd]

Mike,

The notion that an "I got mine" way of life is guaranteed by God & our forefathers is what I meant when connecting a twisted form of "rugged" individualism with a sense of entitlement.

"We're Americans, we're exceptional. And since by natural law we're at the head of the table, we deserve the lion's share, by God!"

[bud4wiser]

JK, great article. Yes indeed.

The "children" are leading the children.

The history of America's growth reveals a pattern of never-ending "growth" based on consumption of everything in reach.

But sooner or later every child "reaches too far" [Iraq?].

There's a tantrum coming.........

[Don in Colorado]

The childish 4-year-old ego must learn about humility and limits if it wants to progress to adulthood.

I remember back in the '70s and '80s when psychologists became increasingly concerned that we were raising a generation of sociopaths.

Welcome to that world.

[Mungojelly]

I agree with y'all on Peak Oil. Very serious situation. Got it. OK, now it's time to take some of your own medicine: There is a Singularity coming in the next few decades. Peak Oil is just one of the opening acts. Please take this seriously. It sounds crazy (much like PO) but it is, nonetheless, true.

The accelerating pace of information technology is not headed for any sort of wall; it is not likely to encounter any impediment. It is a self-perpetuating feedback loop which is only going to grow stronger and is probably beyond hope of being stopped (or even substantially slowed).

This means that computers are about to become more intelligent than humans (essentially regardless of how you judge such things). One domain after another of human intellectual activity has been falling (calculations, spellchecking, chess, manufacturing, recently driving) but these are just the first few in a long line of dominoes. Nothing is going to be safe or reserved.

We are going to have complete control over the physical structure of the world. We are going to conquer death and suffering. We are at serious risk of destroying everything on the planet, for real. We are going to eliminate the concept of strangers. These are some of the more mundane consequences.

I don't mean to distract you from paying attention to Peak Oil, but it should also be understood in this larger context. It only really makes sense in a larger context; it's *because* we are entering a Singularity that we have been using so many resources so quickly. We are strapped to an engine of exponential growth which is becoming increasingly impossible to control.

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

<3

[Mike]

KD-

"We're Americans, we're exceptional. And since by natural law we're at the head of the table, we deserve the lion's share, by God!"

Whoever says that is just silly, I'll grant you that much.

But, as mentioned in posts a few weeks ago, the American ideal was founded on individuals afraid of government. Whether one agrees with that philosophically is a different matter.

But look to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights in particular, the Declaration of Independence, etc. and arrive at that conclusion is not "twisted" at all. It's the only conclusion if you read the documents.

[kd]

Mungojelly,

Your "Singularity" post is interesting, but somewhat incoherent. Could you eleborate
a little?

*

Well said, Don.

[kd]

Mike,

Essentially, I agree with you.

Note that I said a "twisted" sense of rugged individualism. That does not mean individualism itself is twisted. What I meant is that the ideal of individualism has become twisted.

The "I got mine/something for nothing" mentality of Las Vega nation (or perhaps a good term might be Jackpot Nation) would probably be abhorrent to the framers of the Declaration of independence, the Constitution & the Bill of Rights.

[Mike]

KD-

I gotcha. It's twisted out of recognition if that's the example. A perfect example are TJ's words themselves: among the "self-evident truths" (read: Natural Rights) is the PURSUIT of Happiness. Our life and our liberty, in its manifold forms, are guaranteed under our Enlightenment-based system. Happiness, however, is not. Only the freedom to pursue it honestly, vigorously, creatively, without interference from meddlers, private or public.

Las Vegas nation thinks happiness, per se, is guaranteed. And it citizens will get very angry when they discover that it isn't. We will, of course, spend and borrow ourselves into oblivion before we accept that truth.

[mungojelly]

It's kind of hard to summarize in a paragraph. There's plenty of info out there (& you're going to hear more & more over the next few years). I'll give it another shot.

Here's the basic shape of it: Anything that goes on an exponential curve gets ridiculous. Peak Oil for instance-- you can't just keep using more oil each year than you did the year before forever! Very quickly you hit the limit, even if the limit seemed very distant at first. In the case of Peak Oil the limit is a simple physical restriction (how much oil there is in the world), and we've pretty much arrived.

The development of information technology is a little different. There probably are limits to the ability of matter in this universe to be intelligent, but those limits fall on the far side of human beings as we now understand them. Very far on the other side. We're not sure yet exactly what the maximum computational ability of matter is, but it's a fair guess that you could fit a device that does as much thinking as everyone on Earth is doing at the moment into your bedroom. And you will. Try to think of the consequences of that, & see if you can get your brain around it (don't worry, no one else can, either).

I've known all my life that these transformations are coming. What I didn't realize until recently is that they aren't going to take hundreds of years. If we had to think out the advances of technology at the pace we were going at during the 80s or the 90s or even today, then it would surely take hundreds (or thousands) of years to come to the most ridiculous transformations. Instead, because the technology is itself thinking-- because it is thinking about itself-- each advance makes the next easier, and the entire process is snowballing down the hill.

I'm here responding to this post because an AI (google reader) thought that it would be a good idea. AIs are already seamlessly becoming a part of our way of life. They aren't very impressive yet, it's true, but you must put it in context: A few decades ago a computer the size of the room I'm sitting in would struggle to add a few numbers. Now they can recognize faces, transcribe spoken words, prioritize articles, emulate a bass amp, monitor inventories through chips implanted into everything, etc, etc.

The next few decades will not be just *one* more such set of transformations. Raw computing power has been doubling regularly. Twenty doublings gets you from one to a million, but the next set of twenty doublings doesn't give you another million, or another billion-- it brings you to a trillion. The next one brings you the next trillion. If information technology continues as it has so far, then we should expect the transition between 2025 and 2026 alone to be a million times more dramatic than the transformations that we have experienced over the past few decades (since before the internet). These numbers are just for fun, to get a sense for the scale-- but I believe that in the general scheme of things they are underestimates.

<3

[Weaseldog]

MungoJelly, sounds like you've read, "The Postman", or maybe some of other David Brin novels. Or maybe just some of the techno fantasy in Popular Science.

I highly recommend you move on to John Brunner's, "Sheep Look Up", or "Stand on Zanzibar".

Each big leap in technology, required a big leap in energy consumption. I don't see how your vision can be reconciled with the permanent energy downturn we've started on. IT development is likely to become narrower and less cutting edge over the next few decades. I'll posit that we're close to the zenith and the big economic push will be in consolidation and remaking the tried and true.