That funny argument
A curious argument with a friend today, started in response to my whimsical statement, hoping that our commuication network would survive the economic crash that is coming.
What followed was a 40 minute war of vision. He basically didn't think the signs were there signaling possible collapse, that all problems are managable and are being managed reasonably. And on my claims of an energy crisis, he said "We're not running out of oil" and "We WILL be producing more oil in 10 years than now" and "only politics may limit that" (i.e. Who put our oil under their sand?) He accepted that we need to ween ourselves from fossil fuels, we both agreed there's more than enough coal and sandtars, and other sources of oil to pollute and worse climate change. He did acknowledge outside the U.S. that others will be in worse situations, mainly with global warming changes.
Late in the discussion he made an observation that "People who seem most worried about economic collapse are those most insulated from the consequences", people with minimal debt, with a stable job. I reasoned that people in unstable situations are unwilling to face large scale dangers like economic collapse, things outside their control or hope to deal with. He also mentioned his dad apparently was in this "doom and gloom" camp with me. I thought that was interesting, but had to leave so couldn't ask more.
What was most interesting to me was the dynamic. Basically I'm 100% convinced "we're screwed" and he's 100% convinced "We'll muddle through whatever happens", and probably we're both right. Short of death and starvation, necessity is the mother of invention, so we'll do whatever we have to. AND again we both see the same thing - that unless problems are managed BEFORE they come full force, in our desparation, we'll reverse any environmental standards that get in the way, any protective labor laws that get in the way, and any thing else that gets in the way.
It's just curious to me that we can see the same thing and come to different conclusions. AND I wonder about his willingness to defend the undefendable.
My vision of human behavior, and my own, is that as long as an "inconvenient truth" can be avoided for fun or profit, as long as we can step around the consequences of our actions we WILL, and that this behavior merely delays and worsens the consequences.
If we're children, AND we don't get ourselves KILLED, we can call this a "learning experience." and we can fight our way through what comes and do better next time. I can accept the futility of trying to convince addicts their days are numbered. Certainly its a waste of energy. I've tried more to simply ACCEPT what I can't change, accept that large scale failures ARE COMING, and act in my life as if this is a certainty. If I'm wrong, it merely puts my life on a more cautious approach as otherwise. And yes, I'm lucky that a cautious life can lead.
But I do worry about others. My friend says happily that our economy can handle $4 gasoline, while I don't consider this as certainty since the time frame has been too short. How have credit card balanced increased over this period? How has overall debt increased?
Anyway, lastly I'm just surprised. Was my friend's confidence merely a reaction to my confidence? What did he gain by holding his ground against this "delusion of doom"?
Basically, I'd judge that his WHOLE LIFE STORY doesn't make sense in a world where LIFE AS WE KNOW IT won't be there for us. He'd have to turn off his personal ambition, his dreams of his future life, if its all in danger. It costs him too much to accept systematic failure beyond his control.
I don't know if the argument was worthy, probably not. Maybe his observation was valuable - that only those in stable situtions worry about this. Maybe that's true, and maybe just another reason why "communication is hopeless".
The number one rule of politics is NEVER state a problem unless you have a solution.
I have solution: "The U.S. must consume less oil", "The U.S. must pay down our debts", "The U.S. must invest a better future with less energy and higher costs."
I say this easily, but understand the sirens' call for a free lunch. I feel it myself, and I'm very glad for all I've know. I just hate to WANT what I may someday LOSE. I can't get excited flying down a hill knowing I have to climb up again on the other side of the ravine.
Who's to say who's got the more realistic view, the more realistic projected future? I accept my fears are perhaps projected outward based on recognizing my own inner moral corruption? And I know fear doesn't offer an answer, only a reason to pay attention and face what can be faced.
What followed was a 40 minute war of vision. He basically didn't think the signs were there signaling possible collapse, that all problems are managable and are being managed reasonably. And on my claims of an energy crisis, he said "We're not running out of oil" and "We WILL be producing more oil in 10 years than now" and "only politics may limit that" (i.e. Who put our oil under their sand?) He accepted that we need to ween ourselves from fossil fuels, we both agreed there's more than enough coal and sandtars, and other sources of oil to pollute and worse climate change. He did acknowledge outside the U.S. that others will be in worse situations, mainly with global warming changes.
Late in the discussion he made an observation that "People who seem most worried about economic collapse are those most insulated from the consequences", people with minimal debt, with a stable job. I reasoned that people in unstable situations are unwilling to face large scale dangers like economic collapse, things outside their control or hope to deal with. He also mentioned his dad apparently was in this "doom and gloom" camp with me. I thought that was interesting, but had to leave so couldn't ask more.
What was most interesting to me was the dynamic. Basically I'm 100% convinced "we're screwed" and he's 100% convinced "We'll muddle through whatever happens", and probably we're both right. Short of death and starvation, necessity is the mother of invention, so we'll do whatever we have to. AND again we both see the same thing - that unless problems are managed BEFORE they come full force, in our desparation, we'll reverse any environmental standards that get in the way, any protective labor laws that get in the way, and any thing else that gets in the way.
It's just curious to me that we can see the same thing and come to different conclusions. AND I wonder about his willingness to defend the undefendable.
My vision of human behavior, and my own, is that as long as an "inconvenient truth" can be avoided for fun or profit, as long as we can step around the consequences of our actions we WILL, and that this behavior merely delays and worsens the consequences.
If we're children, AND we don't get ourselves KILLED, we can call this a "learning experience." and we can fight our way through what comes and do better next time. I can accept the futility of trying to convince addicts their days are numbered. Certainly its a waste of energy. I've tried more to simply ACCEPT what I can't change, accept that large scale failures ARE COMING, and act in my life as if this is a certainty. If I'm wrong, it merely puts my life on a more cautious approach as otherwise. And yes, I'm lucky that a cautious life can lead.
But I do worry about others. My friend says happily that our economy can handle $4 gasoline, while I don't consider this as certainty since the time frame has been too short. How have credit card balanced increased over this period? How has overall debt increased?
Anyway, lastly I'm just surprised. Was my friend's confidence merely a reaction to my confidence? What did he gain by holding his ground against this "delusion of doom"?
Basically, I'd judge that his WHOLE LIFE STORY doesn't make sense in a world where LIFE AS WE KNOW IT won't be there for us. He'd have to turn off his personal ambition, his dreams of his future life, if its all in danger. It costs him too much to accept systematic failure beyond his control.
I don't know if the argument was worthy, probably not. Maybe his observation was valuable - that only those in stable situtions worry about this. Maybe that's true, and maybe just another reason why "communication is hopeless".
The number one rule of politics is NEVER state a problem unless you have a solution.
I have solution: "The U.S. must consume less oil", "The U.S. must pay down our debts", "The U.S. must invest a better future with less energy and higher costs."
I say this easily, but understand the sirens' call for a free lunch. I feel it myself, and I'm very glad for all I've know. I just hate to WANT what I may someday LOSE. I can't get excited flying down a hill knowing I have to climb up again on the other side of the ravine.
Who's to say who's got the more realistic view, the more realistic projected future? I accept my fears are perhaps projected outward based on recognizing my own inner moral corruption? And I know fear doesn't offer an answer, only a reason to pay attention and face what can be faced.
posted by Ares Olympus at 12:39 PM
0 comments
