doom letter #4

This is inspired by two things really, the first being this post on Ashes Ashes, and also the whole content of the blog Peak Oil Debunked. The biggest hurdle that I think we face in this country is not geological or economic. It is psychological. There is a prevailing mentality in this country that questions the validity of any phenomenon that challenges our perception of the future. In the past I have, perhaps, been overly hyperbolic when talking about this issue. But I thought now would be as good a time as ever to take a look at how an idea like peak oil is perceived by the masses.

Peak Oil Debunked

Since my Momma always told me that if I couldn’t say something nice, I shouldn’t say anything at all let me start with a compliment. JD and Ari, the two primary writers on PO Debunked, are witty and smart individuals. I like reading their website because they present their ideas in a way that is funny and thereby enjoyable to read. I also think that they are both excellent examples of people I have in the past called “techno-fuckers.”

A techno-fucker is a person that believes that history provides overwhelming evidence that when people are put in a tough situation they figure out a solution to the problem. Regarding peak oil specifically, a techno-fucker will find hope in technology and will assume some scenario under which these technologies will be able to come to fruition. Techno-fuckers (I sure do like cussin’ today) love ideas like a hydrogen economy, cellulosic ethanol, algaeic bio-fuels and the more traditional renewables as well. It is their position that some combination of the aforementioned technologies will be the basis for our future energy consumption.

Over at PO Debunked, JD and Ari are definitely in that camp. Although the name of the website would indicate their primary interest is in showing peak oil is not a threat to the status quo, they spend a lot of time and posting space either ridiculing efforts by people to localize their economies or talking up the prospects for alternatives to oil. My question is why play up alternatives if there is not an issue with supply of oil in the future?

You can also see in their writing and how they form their arguments that they are looking for something that will validate their generally positive ideas about what the future will be like. Now, I think it is valuable for someone like me to consume stuff like this, so that is why I like the site. I do not like only going to “doomer” websites for the same reason that I don’t like going to church. I don’t need affirmation. My mind doesn’t get off on that. I need an opposing point of view that will challenge the way that I see the world.

I will admit that I could be totally wrong about peak oil. It may not be an immediate threat. That does not mean that I won’t try to prepare myself for the possibility of a drastically different world because of peak oil in the future. At some point in my life the following saying was ingrained into my head:

Expect the worst, hope for the best.

That is why I pay attention to peak oil. It has potentially immediate issues that can have a serious impact on the way I live my life. If peak oil is a contemporary reality, I expect the worst possible scenario and I am preparing myself for a drastically different life during and after the shock has run its course. The motto at PO Debunked is something more like:

Expect the best, hope for even better.

To me, this is no way to look at the future. No matter how smart guys like JD and Ari are, they fail to account for the vast swaths of the population that are not that smart and are becoming more and more dependent on oil-produced life. JD and Ari don’t scare me, but people that read what they write and then use it to dismiss such a potentially life-changing issue do scare me.

Ashes Ashes

In his post Dan W, who is an awesome writer, mentions a recent conversation with a co-worker:

…after a couple of minutes of witty repartee and prattle, I make the off-handed remark that the Dartmouth Library is going to experience, at a minimum, a 30% reduction in force over the next 24-36 months. Whoa, that was a conversation stopper. In response to my prognostication, the guy says the following: “…Well I guess I’ll just have to go get my umbrella and run outside to see if the sky is falling…” That was an unexpected response. And so I coughed up one of those uncomfortable chuckles, the kind you cough up when you’re not really sure if someone is trying to be funny or insulting, but you’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he’s a really good guy. And then I say I’m not kidding, and that I’d be happy to share some of my thoughts regarding the numbers with him. And then he says, “…I’ll just wait for the Trustee’s report, because that’s where the real numbers are…”. Now I’m starting to get a little annoyed. Real numbers? Are you insinuating that my numbers are fake numbers? And so I chime in that maybe, just maybe, the trustees’ analyses will not be entirely trustworthy in that they have somewhat of a vested interest in putting a best foot forward to the public and to potential students and donors, and that I frankly have no vested interest in massaging the numbers because I know I’m going to get laid off. And so I say, “…the trustee’s numbers don’t really matter. It’s the real numbers that matter…” And then this really nice guy says, “…you know Dan, I never trust folks who say the sky is falling but say that the numbers don’t matter…”. Hmmm.

Dan’s conversation is another excellent example of how people are going to instinctively assume that any critique of the status quo that they find threatening is incredulous. I could have the same or similar conversations with any number of people in my life. I don’t really talk about peak oil with my girlfriend anymore, but when I did her response was always similar and she is but one example.

Confirmation Bias and Conclusion

When people surf around online and they come across a site about peak oil or anything else with which they are not totally familiar, they look for information either historical or other competing temporary theories to reassure them that their vested interest in the status quo is not under threat. People that are smarter than me came up with terminology to explain this sort of behavior, confirmation bias. It is something I am aware of, and it is why I try to diligently research issues about which I am concerned. Like I said earlier, I could be wrong, there are plenty of people that have a lot of power that have a clear interest in maintaining life as we know it. I don’t think they should be underestimated. I also don’t think that the problems we face should be underestimated and written off out of hand based on some general good feeling you may have about the future or evidence from the past. If I am right and peak oil is a big deal, the past is not going to be a good indicator of the future. If people like JD and Ari are right, I will still be fine and I will have knowledge that will help me out whatever tomorrow brings.

I still think we’re screwed,

mike