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

[Don in Maine]

Wal-Mart expects a happy holiday

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051114/bs_nm/retail_walmart_earns_dc;_ylt=Avj2bJAF3GyFqQfecM.d1qSyBhIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

nuff said.

[jorge]

Don-I-M:

And it's not even Merry Christmas anymore. Sheesh!!

[sunstruck]

Here in Oregon we have been gearing up for the Lewis and Clark bi-centennial and have been hearing lots about the courage and hardship they witnessed during their expedition. It seems it used to be American to be brave and willing to endure hardship for a great goal. Now it seems almost unamerican to embrace this attitude. It's tragic what we've become.

[Weaseldog]

Sunstruck in essence, people haven't changed. But opportunities have. Most people in those times wanted the easy life. But there was an outlet for those that wanted to be different and take a different path. And sometimes it paid well.

And it still does, if you can get a corporate sponser, and turn it into a reality TV series.

[Mungojelly]

Information technology is the exception to the rule. Most of the technologies we've come up with expend lots of energy because they are mainly about moving things from one place to another. The theoretical minimum energy expenditures for computation are fantastically low.

It may not seem like it, but a dramatic push towards energy efficiency has been an essential part of the progress of computers. About every year, a computer of a given size acquires the ability to do roughly twice as many calculations-- with hardly any increase in energy use. We're doing a wonderful job at making computers energy efficient, in other words; it's just that we're funneling all of that efficiency into increasing computing power rather than into decreasing energy use.

For an example of what things would look like taken the other way around, consider solar powered calculators: They now cost only a few dollars, are the size of a credit card (and could be much smaller if they didn't need to fit so many buttons), and can get all of the energy they need from a tiny little panel.

Or look at cell phones. Cell phones use a relatively tiny amount of electricity (mostly because they've been optimized for long battery life), but they are just as powerful as desktop computers were a few years ago. Consider (as discussed in a wonderful recent article on FT, "Africa Calling") Maasai herdsmen who live far from the electrical grid but take trips into town and pay a fee to recharge their phones.

It's very difficult to predict how Peak Oil is going to affect the progress towards Singularity. It is possible that it could somehow slow it-- but it's also possible that it could accelerate it. Anything that pushes technology to change in any direction might lead us to develop new technologies that tip the balance.

A random example: Wearable displays (like Scopo). They would go a long way toward deepening the integration between people and computers, but so far the economics are still tilted towards traditional full-size monitors. Increased energy costs would weigh on the side of wearable displays, which are (at least theoretically) much more energy efficient.

Another: Most people don't take their cell phones seriously as computers (even though they're as powerful as a full sized computer costing thousands of dollars used to be), but if they found that they could afford to run their cell phone more easily than they could afford to run their laptop then they might start to demand more from them.

Some of the more terrible possible outcomes remind me of a different genre of SF: cyberpunk. Consider that a breakdown in the structure of society right this instant wouldn't eliminate all of the cells & laptops & so forth-- it just might make them trickier to charge. In the near future there will be considerably more such technology capable of surviving a collapse. What happens to a world where everyone has a computer & no one has anything to eat? Some people in our world are already encountering that possibility; I'm thinking of a post I read on nabuur.com recently, someone posting on the internet discussing how many houses in their village were made of grass, how many made of mud-- but they're online!

There's a project afoot to create a laptop that can be sold for less than $100 to schoolchildren in developing nations. They can be powered by hand cranks. They form mesh networks with other laptops around them. This is happening. They're going to help in more than one way; for many people the laptop will be the brightest light they have in their home. They're already crashed, so to speak, but they can still be brought into the network.

Information technology does not always behave intuitively.

<3

[Sarah]

mungojelly, since cables and wires and computers and chips and circuit boards require large amounts of petroleum to manufacture (and install and maintain), how exactly after the "simple physical restriction" of oil will technology manage to expand?

[Weaseldog]

MungoJelly, the cell phone is a bad example for your argument. You're ignoring the energy intensive cell towers and data centers that support them.

Further, the manufacture of cell phones is an energy intensive process as these things are made from rare elements and energy intensive processes. Now it is true that the some of the rare metals used in them come from cheap sources. Like the slave mines in the Congo where children do the mining, and are endlessly replaced by the black market slave trade, when they fall sick and die from overwork and malnutrition.

As I see it, laptops have limited value in a low energy world. Just because they are becoming popular doesn't mean that they are worth having or investing in. It's only because energy is still cheap, that cell phones and laptops can be manufactured, distributed and powered to begin with.

Once the grid starts going down and solar panels rise in cost and suffer reduced availability, laptops will rest in the corner while people discover they must make better use of their time if they want to eat.

[kd]

Mungojelly,

I must confess to being a bit daunted by your posts. I come from a humanities background with little science education & training, so I have difficulty keeping up with technology oriented conversations.

Just one brief comment, followed by a question. It seems to me that no "device" can "think", since what we call "thinking" is an infinitely complex process that involves culture, emotion, & individuality(human "individuality" is another complex subject; so, of course, is the "soul"!). A device (meaning, I assume, machine) can mimick certain mnemonic, filing & recognition aspects of what is called thinking, but that seems about all it can do, no matter how "vast" its scope in these areas. Of course, you know more about this than I do.

I still don't understand what you mean by "Singularity".

Please forgive my ignorance.

[Weaseldog]

In chaos theory, a singularity is a mathematical point, where our ability to predict outcomes in systems approaches zero. That is maximum change in state can happen with minimal inputs when the system is in such a state. The melting point of water at atmospheric temperatures is a singularity.

In physical systems one can say that nitroglycerin exists in a state near a singularity, when at normal room temperatures. A small shock can move this chemical, past it's singularity, into a dramatic state change.

So in information systems, the word singularity has been co-opted to mean the point at which computers make the next explosive leap in computing capacity. This usually refers to the point at which true artificial intelligence is reached, where computers can begin to learn on their own and expand their capabilities without human help.

[Mungojelly]

Re cell phone towers: This misses the point. I'm not talking about cell phones as communication devices; I'm talking about them as computers. They're perfectly functional general purpose computers; they are (as people say in computer science) "Turing complete," meaning that they can compute *anything* which can be computed digitally (and can simulate analog computation to any required degree of accuracy), given sufficient time. An iPod is also Turing complete, and would serve just as well as an example. The point is to demonstrate that large, power-hungry devices are not required in order to do massive amounts of computation. They used to make "supercomputers" which would be easily bested head-to-head with a run-of-the-mill modern cellphone.

Resource shortages are theoretically a reasonable brake, but to my knowledge we are nowhere in the neighborhood of a shortage of any of the materials that go into making most electronic devices. Peak Oil is going to affect the price of all goods by affecting the price of transportation, but it's not going to make plastic prohibitively expensive just because petroleum is usually involved in its manufacture. We're not actually *running out* of oil, and besides, all the price of petrol-plastics has to do is nudge up past the price of plant-oil-plastics and the market will switch.

I personally believe deeply in economic equality, but the rest of the world does not agree with me, so the massive divide between rich and poor must also be taken into consideration. If there is only enough energy available that if everyone got their fair share we wouldn't be able to afford information technologies-- well, alas, all the more reason to expect that people won't be seeing their fair share. The rich are not going to willingly give up their toys.

KD: This is the sort of philosophical problem which message board conversations are not always sufficient to resolve. ;)

There is, in my view, at least one physical system capable of doing the computations necessary for human intelligence: The human brain. That's the proof of concept. We know that you can make matter think, if you arrange it into neurons & neurotransmitters & so forth. The question is how easy or difficult that feat is with radically different systems, such as digital computers.

It's my guess that there are no obstacles at all to digital intelligence, for which as evidence I point to the goings-on in the world today. If it does turn out to be necessary to use some sort of tricky analog technique to bridge some final gap, I still doubt that that would add more than say a decade to the timeline.

<3

[george]

If peak oil means that people will have to live in smaller, closer-in homes and drive smaller, more efficient cars, carpool, and take the Metro to work, well it seems that form of lifestyle can be adapted to fairly easily. The McMansions in the boonies will be converted to two and three family housing units for retired people until they fall down, which given their standard of construction, will be in a fairly short time. I think the "New Urbanist" movement has some things to answer for as well. They are hellishly expensive to live in and the serious infra-structure that people need, like hospitals and supermarkets, are still in the major communities that serve these self-reverential burgs. Seaside, FL, is a prime example. Not only is it dependent on nearby Fort Wealton Beach for services, the place is guaranted to be GONE at the first brush with a Cat 3 or higher hurricane. Not exactly prime planning.

[The North Coast Curmudgeon]

"This state-of-mind is made visible in Las Vegas, our national monument to the creed that people should get whatever they want."

Unfortunately, it's not only Las Vegas.

I recently went to the Sonoma county fair. In one building there was an exhibit of artwork done by very young school children.

Each and every one of these things had a 1st place blue ribbon attached.

I asked the woman sitting with the exhibit how it could be that everybody won first place.

She told me that everybody got a blue ribbon because they are "all winners."

[waitingforthealiens]

Hey, ease up on Mungojelly. Running out of oil doesn't necessarily condemn us to a new Dark Age. Certainly there are likely to be some tough transitional years. But we can make electricity from atoms; cleanly, safely and without adding yet another gazillion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere. You can make all the heat and motion you want with electricity (air and space travel will require a little work) and save the remaining hydrocarbons for something "value-added" like polymers until we learn to make polymers some other way.

No question, we have a big horsepower addiction. And given that we've geared our lives to fossil fuel consumption means that there will be considerable pain (maybe as soon as this winter.) But part of the energy problem is our unreasonable and unreasoning fear of nuclear power generation. We consumers just haven't had to get our priorities straight.

[Weaseldog]

No MungoJelly, making cell phones is an energy intensive operation. It requires high temperature furnaces operating in a clean environment to make the ingots that then get used to make the semiconductors. Some of these are sliced and polished. Some are heated to a plasma state in a vacuum and applied with lasers.

Then finally, there's the question of why? Why do I need a powerful cell phone computer? What good does it ultimately serve?

And you're right, there will always be oil, even if it's pumped by a team of donkeys going around a well, to supply a region axle grease.

But from here on out, oil and natural gas are in decline. They will become increasingly expensive and there will be less every year to share.

It won't be too many years before water in the US becomes more precious than cell phones. You can quote me on that.

I think we'll disagree for some time on this issue, because the fundamental difference in our opinions comes from our beliefs in energy availability. It wasn't that long ago that people were saying that if oil sustained a price of $14/barrel then we'd be awash in alternatives. And I still remember people saying gasoline would never break $1/gallon or people would riot.

When oil is obviously in decline and the crap is spraying all over the fan, people will still be looking for science fantasy to get us out of this mess. That won't change.

I do believe though that cell phones will continue to become more powerful for a time. But I don't see any benefit to that except to cell phone manufacturers, distributers and people that need the latest gadget to maintain their self esteem. It won't do a thing for my chickens or tomatoes. It won't insure that I have a clean water supply coming to my home. It won't keep the electricity flowing in my area when natural gas spikes again.

[kd]

Thanks Weaseldog & Mungojelly, for helping a poor old techno-peasant like meself!

Wease, you explantion of singularity a model of conciseness.

Yes, the human brain is a physical system. Matter that thinks, as it were (we'll leave out the question of "soul" or "spirit" for now). Thus, proof of the concept. But no "one" "made" it (the brain, or matter) think, or able to think. It so happened, as it were. Suffice it to say, I mean the brain is an organism, not a device. I'm not sure how, but isn't that a crucial difference?

One last thought. By saying "no obstacles at all to digital intelligence" do you mean no limits? Please correct me if I'm mis-reading you, but do you think a digital device could create something with all the transcendent beauty & power as the plays of Shakespeare, the films of Ozu, or the music of Mozart? Do you think a digital device could find a cure for cancer, create new ways for humans to perceive the world & themselves (such as the camera, the violin, or even oil paint), or the theories of Relativity or Evolution?

[Mungojelly]

I'm not saying that the Singularity will "get us out of this mess." Hardly. I'm saying the Singularity *is* this mess. If there were any ways to stop it or slow it down, I think they would be worth considering, even if they involved massive social disruption. I do think we have a fair chance of surviving the Singularity (in some form), but it's not exactly a walk in the park.

Incidentally, Weaseldog, if you really don't think that computers could help with your chickens & tomatoes I recommend taking a second look. Google "growing tomatoes" for instance. Computers can help with anything that can benefit from the application of knowledge (which includes most worthwhile human activities). Not that that necessarily means they're worth the dangers and costs, but it's wrong to say they're not helpful.

<3

[kd]

Agreed, Mungo. Computers are helpful. Despit any dangers, a great tool!

[Weaseldog]

Since I started programming computers in the days of CPM, I've seen them evolve to be more than 20,000 times faster. Yet when it comes to the gardening question, they aren't much more efficient than a book, or a chat with a neighbor who's seeing a better harvest.

For much of what we do with computers, we haven't seen benefits scale at the rate that computers have improved.

Point taken on the singularity. We are certainly in the midst of a criticality.

Is some of you position taken from recent arguments I've heard about the new series, "Serenity/Firefly"? I enjoy the show. But it's nothing more than an entertaining romp through science fantasy.

Our illusion that computers make us more productive, comes from the fact that oil has become our energy slave. the computers help us harness this power. But without the power, we don't need much more than trigonometry and calculus. And at that point we don't need cell phones with mega brains, your solar powered calculator then becomes the high tech tool. At that point, it won't be computers ruling a neat and tidy world of technology, but the human brain navigating the dirty details of living in the physical world. You won't need time saving devices then, because the lack of labor saving devices will keep you too busy to play games or engage in internet chat.

For a humorous take on this topic see...

http://www.deadtroll.com/video/ossuckscable.html

[Frederick]

>>I've known all my life that these transformations are coming.<<

You mean, like, since the womb??

[Mike]

Frederick-

Based on the Fundamentalist Christian definition you have caught Weas in a fib. Since he did not learn of Singularities until a full 13 days after conception, he was therefore a blob or cells without knowldedge for a time. He's a liar.

Based, however, upon the secular definition of life which often carries the day in these here parts, since Weaseldog (only a wee Weaselpuppy back then) emerged from the womb fully-cognizent of all aspects of Singularities, he is, indeed, telling the truth.

[Weaseldog]

Mike, scroll up... MungoJelly wrote that quote.

[Byron]

I think you'd be surprised how many Americans DO get it but are at a loss over what to do. Stop driving to work? No alternatives there in most cases. Stop living in the suburbs? No quick, financially manageable solution there either.
Wait for politicians to see the light, put in effect remedies to slow the inevitable? Not likely.
Carter was the last president in my memory who encouraged conservation and sacrifice. It most likely did him in.
You give few if any suggestions about how well-intentioned responsible citizens can be constructive in this crisis. It's not they don't believe it, it's that there's precious little they can afford to do.

Stop blaming the victims.

[Mike]

Weas-

Sorry.

But glad I made the error. Allowed me to break out the groan-worthy Weaselpuppy line.

At any rate, this week's Willy Shakes quotation, in honor of Frederick's close-reading:

"HAMLET: What man dost thou dig [this grave] for?

FIRST CLOWN: For no man, sir.

HAMLET: What woman, then?

FIRST CLOWN: For none, neither.

HAMLET: Who is to be buried in't?

FIRST CLOWN: One that was a woman, sir; but, rest her soul, she's dead.

HAMLET: How absolute the knave is! we must speak by the
card, or equivocation will undo us."

Hamlet, V, i.

[Weaseldog]

OEO, quick question for you. What's up with the Fed discontinuing the reporting of M3 numbers? Have you heard any official reasons given for removing transparency in this?

On some economic forums I subscribe to, economists are getting ticked off as they use these numbers to track policy and to make recommendations to clients. It's their opinion that the Fed is planning to hide some big money moves that might be economically disruptive if they aren't kept secret. So it's got folks very nervous.

What's the party line on this move?

[Weaseldog]

No harm done Mike.

The Weaselpuppy line did bring me a chuckle.

The name 'Weaseldog' started out as a gaming handle. A young relative was using the name Weaselpup for a time when he played. And there was much confusion...