Jay Hanson is the Paul Revere of the Peak Oil Story. His view of
reality is
occasionally quite dark, but there is always a lot of truth to be
found by examining his viewpoint.

As you may know, the Greeks and the Chinese were intrigued with the
word and concept of CRISIS.

The Greeks said that CRISIS was always filled with danger, but there
was opportunity if you saw
a better way.

The Chinese combined the
ideogram for danger and the
ideogram for opportunity
together to form
the new ideogram for CRISIS.

Most of us are beginning to see the danger of our present crisis, but only a rare few of us have noticed any
opportunity.

Jay is putting together a new study group to seek a solution to this crisis. He is seeking the opportunity in this crisis. The stated mission and goals
seem laudable. Take a look and see what you think. It might be quite
interesting.

In the following invitation, Jay Hanson invites thinkers to join him in finding a solution to the financial crisis of 2009:

PEAK
CAPITALISM:

Capitalism died
on, or about, 2007
(production
fell with prices climbing!)

Oil
prices roses in 2007 with Brent gaining $7 a barrel (11%) to average
$72.39 for the year, but global oil production fell by 126 thousand
barrels per day, or 0.2% to 81.5 million barrels per day! In July and
August of 2008, while oil prices were still very high, global crude
oil production fell nearly one million barrels per day! M.K. Hubbert
was right.

Capitalism
is dying.

“Peak
oil” now limits global economic growth (in the physical sense) and
any attempt to surpass previous levels of global economic activity
will cause oil prices to spike again, driving the world back into a
recession. Moreover, no viable alternative exists to replace
petroleum. [1]

On Jan.
14, 2009, the “Killer Ape” Yahoo group will initiate a discussion
based on the assumption that President Obama will ask us for advice
on how to form a new “sustainable” (one that will last last
longer than 1k years) way of life here in the United States to
replace moribund capitalism.

When the
first free trade episode
(1846-79) ended, it led to WW1 & WW2. [2]
Our leaders realize that 2007 marked the end of the second
free trade episode and are concerned that it could lead to
WW3. We are pretending that our new president will take our advice,
and that he has the absolute power to do anything he feels is right.

We will
begin with a discussion of background material from Plotkin’s
EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT IN PSYCHOLOGY. [3]
We will spend up to two weeks on Plotkin’s material so we all can
understand the basics of human thought. Then we will move on to
designing our new “sustainable” society.

Where
would we start? First, we need a definition. Here’s one for
discussion:

A
“sustainable society” is one that intentionally limits both
consumption and population to stay within its territorial “carrying
capacity.”

The
preceding definition seems like a reasonable, simple definition. But
what’s “carrying capacity?”

“An
environment’s carrying capacity is its maximum persistently
supportable load (Catton 1986).”

Footprint
analysis [4] shows us that the United
States is over carrying capacity. In other words, we cannot support
our present way of life with our own natural resources. To be
sustainable we must live a less wasteful lifestyle or lower
population, or probably both.

We
will look at HUBBERT’S
PRESCRIPTION FOR SURVIVAL,
by Robert Hickerson http://www.hubbertpeak.com/hubbert/hubecon.htm
and my SOCIETY
OF SLOTH http://www.warsocialism.com/unnecessary.htm

Do we
really need a new economics? If “economics” is invariably
“political,” why isn’t it called “politics?” Are economists
simply trying to avoid responsibility for their political activity?

We will
look at the work of William Ophuls. What were his suggestions? How do
they hold up in light of evolutionary psychology?

Did Marx
and company have any good ideas worth incorporating into our new
political system? Do we have anything worth saving in our present
form of government?

One of
our tasks will be to understand what is “natural” (supported by
genetic material) and what is “not natural.” Obviously, any
social system that doesn’t account for genetic algorithms will fail.

For
example, the desire for “private property” (things) is natural,
but the desire for unlimited amounts of fiat money is obviously a
social construction. That’s more-or-less what Locke said, and I
believe he was correct.

The
desire for higher social status is genetic but culture largely
determines how high status is achieved (e.g., Potlatch ).
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol2/iss2/art11/#Abstract

Perhaps
if people were limited to only the “things” they could
comfortably place on a standard house lot – AND those things were
constructed for durability – AND advertising in the mass media were
banned (or something like that) – AND we completely redid our food
production systems – AND (several other things we will think of once
we get started…), then perhaps a sustainable society could be
constructed.

Obviously,
the difficult part will be human nature. If we can identify a few key
sustainability principles that can be accepted by realistic people,
then the rest will be easy to imagine.

Our
discussion concerns “theory” only!
We are not going to discuss
implementation!
Language
that promotes violence will not be tolerated!

I
am making the starting date for our new discussion Jan. 14. I hope
you all will do your homework. If you are already a member of the
killer ape list, you do not need to resubscribe. If a new person
wants to join my list, they must send me a message at
http://www.warsocialism.com/j.htm

After
On Jan. 14, no new people will be added to our list!

Once we
get going, I WILL allow constructive criticism, but I WILL NOT allow
sarcasm and pointless bitching. I will not allow talk promoting
violence! If you don’t want to contribute, then just keep quiet.

Do your
homework,

Jay Hanson

[1]
http://sfbayoil.org/sfoa/myths/index.html

http://www.energywatchgroup.org/fileadmin/global/pdf/EWG_Report_Coal_10-07-2007ms.pdf

http://www.warsocialism.com/rr-jhanson-16kbps.mp3

[2]
“By the end of the seventies the free trade episode (1846-79) was
at an end; the actual use of the gold standard by Germany marked the
beginnings of an era of protectionism and colonial expansionÖ the
symptoms of the dissolution of the existing forms of world economy -
colonial rivalry and competition for exotic markets – became acute.
The ability of haute finance to avert the spread of wars was
diminishing rapidlyÖ For another seven years peace dragged on but
it was only a question of time before the dissolution of nineteenth
century economic organization would bring the Hundred Years’ Peace to
a close.” [p. 19]

The origins of the cataclysm lay
in the utopian endeavor of economic liberalism to set up a
self-regulating market system.” [p. 29] THE
GREAT TRANSFORMATION, Karl
Polanyi; Beacon, 1957;
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0807056790/

http://www.warsocialism.com/polyani.htm

[3]
http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-Thought-Psychology-Blackwell-Histories/dp/1405113782/

[4]
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/footprint_for_nations/  (01/05/09)
more…

Robert L. Hickerson writing about M. King Hubbert in 1995:

Clark writing in Geophysics in February 1983 states:

“I was in New York in the 30′s. I had a box seat at the
depression,” Hubbert says. “I can assure you it was a very educational
experience. We shut the country down because of monetary reasons. We had
manpower and abundant raw materials. Yet we shut the country down. We’re
doing the same kind of thing now but with a different material outlook. We
are not in the position we were in 1929-30 with regard to the future. Then
the physical system was ready to roll. This time it’s not. We are in a
crisis in the evolution of human society. It’s unique to both human and
geologic history. It has never happened before and it can’t possibly
happen again. You can only use oil once. You can only use metals once.
Soon all the oil is going to be burned and all the metals mined and
scattered.” That is obviously a scenario of catastrophe, a possibility
Hubbert concedes. But it is not one he forecast. The man known to many as
a pessimist is, in this case, quite hopeful. In fact, he could be the
ultimate utopian. We have, he says, the necessary technology. All we have
to do is completely overhaul our culture and find an alternative to money.

“We are not starting from zero,” he emphasizes. “We have an
enormous amount of existing technical knowledge. It’s just a matter of
putting it all together. We still have great flexibility but our
maneuverability will diminish with time.”[2]

A non-catastrophic solution is impossible, Hubbert feels, unless
society is made stable. This means abandoning two axioms of our
culture—the work ethic and the idea that growth is the normal state of
affairs.
Hubbert challenges the latter mathematically and concludes the
exponential
growth of the last two centuries is the opposite of the normal
situation.

“It is an aberration. For most of human history the population
doubled only once every 32,000 years. Now it’s down to 35 years. That is
dangerous. No biologic population can double more that a few times without
getting seriously out of bounds. I think the world is seriously
overpopulated right now. There can be no possible solutions to the world’s
problems that do not involve stabilization of the world’s population.”

Hubbert’s ideas about work are even more heretical. Work is
becoming, he says, increasingly unimportant. He thinks it is conceivable
that the future work week might be on the order of 10 hours. Indeed,
because production will have to be limited by increasingly limited mineral
resources, that might be inevitable. And that, Hubbert stresses, could be
the foundation of an earthly paradise.

“Most employment now is merely pushing paper around,” he says.
“The actual work needed to keep a stable society running is a very small
fraction of available manpower.”

The key to making this cultural alteration is to come up with a
limitless supply of cheap energy. Hubbert feels the answer is
obvious–solar power–and he does not feel more technological breakthroughs
are needed before it can be made universally available. His faith is not
that of a knee-jerk trendy but that of a doubter who did much studying
before his conversion.

“Fifteen years ago I thought solar power was impractical because I
thought nuclear power was the answer. But I spent some time on an advisory
committee on waste disposal to the Atomic Energy Commission. After that, I
began to be very, very skeptical because of the hazards. That’s when I
began to study solar power. I’m convinced we have the technology to handle
it right now. We could make the transition in a matter of decades if we
begin now.”

On June 4th, 1974, Hubbert testified before Representative Morris K.
Udall’s Subcommittee on the Environment. (01/05/09)

more…

James Howard Kunstler writes: There are two realities “out there” now competing for verification among those who think about national affairs and make things happen. The dominant one (let’s call it the Status Quo) is that our problems of finance and economy will self-correct and allow the project of a “consumer” economy to resume in “growth” mode. This view includes the idea that technology will rescue us from our fossil fuel predicament — through “innovation,” through the discovery of new techno rescue remedy fuels, and via “drill, baby, drill” policy. This view assumes an orderly transition through the current “rough patch” into a vibrant re-energized era of “green” Happy Motoring and resumed Blue Light Special shopping.

The minority reality (let’s call it The Long Emergency) says that it is necessary to make radically new arrangements for daily life and rather soon. It says that a campaign to sustain the unsustainable will amount to a tragic squandering of our dwindling resources. It says that the “consumer” era of economics is over, that suburbia will lose its value, that the automobile will be a diminishing presence in daily life, that the major systems we’ve come to rely on will founder, and that the transition between where we are now and where we are going is apt to be tumultuous.

My own view is obviously the one called The Long Emergency.

Since the change it proposes is so severe, it naturally generates exactly the kind of cognitive dissonance that paradoxically reinforces the Status Quo view, especially the deep wishes associated with saving all the familiar, comfortable trappings of life as we have known it. The dialectic between the two realities can’t be sorted out between the stupid and the bright, or even the altruistic and the selfish. The various tech industries are full of MIT-certified, high-achiever Status Quo techno-triumphalists who are convinced that electric cars or diesel-flavored algae excreta will save suburbia, the three thousand mile Caesar salad, and the theme park vacation. The environmental movement, especially at the elite levels found in places like Aspen, is full of Harvard graduates who believe that all the drive-in espresso stations in America can be run on a combination of solar and wind power. I quarrel with these people incessantly. It seems especially tragic to me that some of the brightest people I meet are bent on mounting the tragic campaign to sustain the unsustainable in one way or another. But I have long maintained that life is essentially tragic in the sense that history won’t care if we succeed or fail at carrying on the project of civilization.

While the public supposedly voted for “change” this fall, I maintain that they underestimate the changes really at hand. I voted for “change” myself in pulling the lever for Barack Obama. I regard him as a figure of intelligence and sensibility, but I’m far from convinced that he really sees the kind of change we are in for, and I fret about the measures he’ll promote to rescue the Status Quo when he moves into the White House a few weeks from now. (01/05/09)
more…

BBC Medical Science – US researchers say they have harnessed the power of gold nanoparticles to devise a better way of delivering drugs to treat diseases such as cancer.

The fledgling system could release a number of drugs in a specific part of the body at desired intervals, the MIT team wrote in the journal ACS Nano.

The device makes use of the fact that different particles melt when exposed to different levels of infrared light.

Different drugs on the particles could thus be released in a controlled way.

One of the advantages of being able to deliver drugs directly to a specific site within the body is that you can use relatively toxic drugs without fear of causing widespread damage to other, healthy tissue.

A number of trials are using nanoparticles, sometimes as small as one nanometre – or a billionth of a metre – to take drugs directly to the site of a tumour and avoid many of the side-effects associated with traditional chemotherapy.

Near-infrared light is shone on the site, penetrating the skin to reach the tumour. At the right temperature, it causes the particles to heat up and release the drugs contained within.

But conditions such as cancer or HIV/Aids often require complex treatment with a number of drugs which have to be taken at different intervals. …

The device developed by the MIT team involves two differently shaped
nanoparticles which have separate melting points, meaning the drugs can
be released in a controlled fashion at appropriate intervals.
(01/05/09)
more…

BBC Ocean Science – Coral growth in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has slowed to its most sluggish rate in the past 400 years.

The decline endangers the species the reef supports, say researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

They studied massive porites corals, which are several hundred years old, and found that calcification has declined by 13.3% since 1990.

Global warming and the increasing acidity of seawater are to blame, they write in Science journal.

Coral reefs are central to the formation and function of ecosystems and food webs for tens of thousands of other marine organisms.

The Great Barrier Reef is the largest in the world, composed of over 2,900 individual reefs and 900 islands.

Dr Glenn De’ath and colleagues investigated 328 colonies of massive Porites corals, from 69 locations.

The largest corals are centuries old – growing at a rate of just 1.5cm per year.

By looking at the coral skeletons, they determined that calcification – or the deposit of calcium carbonate – has declined by 13.3% throughout the Great Barrier Reef since 1990.

Such a decline is unprecedented in at least the past 400 years, they write.

The researchers warn that changes in biodiversity are imminent, both at the Great Barrier Reef and at other reef systems throughout the world’s oceans. (01/05/09)

more…

BBC Physics – Jim Al-Khalili writes: Popular accounts of the history of science typically suggest that no major scientific advances took place in between the ancient Greeks and the European Renaissance.

But just because Western Europe languished in the Dark Ages, does not mean there was stagnation elsewhere. Indeed, the period between the 9th and 13th Centuries marked the Golden Age of Arabic science.

Great advances were made in mathematics, astronomy, medicine, physics, chemistry and philosophy. Among the many geniuses of that period Ibn al-Haytham stands taller than all the others.

Ibn al-Haytham is regarded as the father of the modern scientific method.

As commonly defined, this is the approach to investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge, based on the gathering of data through observation and measurement, followed by the formulation and testing of hypotheses to explain the data. …

While travelling through the Middle East during my filming, I
interviewed an expert in Alexandria who showed me recently discovered
work by Ibn al-Haytham on astronomy.

It seems he had developed what is called celestial mechanics,
explaining the orbits of the planets, which was to lead to the eventual
work of Europeans like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton. (01/05/09)
more…