To make it short: the worst thing that could happen, Malcolm (assuming our
predictions are true), is that it turns out to be a bump for us in the West
(compare to the Great Depression centered in North America).
Imagine: war raging in foreign countries, depleted resources, dried up
rivers, millions starving, genocide, political manipulation, slightly
lessened standard in developed nations, more nihilism, more neuroses, more
greeting cards/BDSM/culture without integrity/pathological
depression/pornography/commercial sports/rockstar dreams/utter
inspontaneity.
The global disaster 50-100 years in the future is already here.
The illusion is that *it will happen*, that it *will be noticeable via
direct impact to our infrastructure circa 2050*, is the "necessary lie".
James
----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Från: "Malcolm Riddoch" <m.riddoch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Till: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Skickat: Monday, October 25, 2004 16:37
Ämne: Re: Energy decline and totalitarianism
>
> On Monday, October 25, 2004, at 07:13 PM, Bakker, R.B.M. de wrote:
>
> > Hydrogen energy, or whatever TECHNOLOGICAL effort to face the
> > permanent crisis we're in, CANNOT be a solution, Suppose even,
> > that it would work somehow, then the real problem just remains,
> > waiting to become acute in what always will be unforseeable
> > circumstances.
>
> Many environmentally minded people would agree with you. They feel that
> energy alternatives that allow our growth based order to continue will
> only postpone the deadline and make the final outcome worse. The main
> problem for them is that oil based civilisation has led to massive
> overpopulation due to 'phantom carrying capacity'. The latter currently
> supports a population of 6.4 billion based solely on our nonrenewable
> hydrocarbon energy surplus and without which the earth could possibly
> support only about 1-2 billion of us. You factor in the probability of
> massive war, famine and pestilence over the next few decades coupled
> with catastrophic global warming and then the complete collapse of
> civilisation or even extinction becomes a possibility.
>
> I've been arguing that no matter what truly sustainable alternatives
> are found we need to understand how we got into this mess in the first
> place otherwise humanity will be locked into the same cycle of boom and
> bust that has characterised modernity so far, into the eternal
> recurrence of the same human reality and its will to power. We need to
> understand the mechanism of the will to will and our relation to
> technology as the historical setup for modern understanding. But that's
> where I lose them as it's too philosophical to actually question one's
> own understanding, so here I am back in Heidegger's realm.
>
> > The only 'solution' can be: not working towards solutions anymore.
> > They themselves are the trouble. Cos they have their ground in
> > (the holding sway of) subjectivity. And any widerwille or rage
> > against not being able to bring solutions, will only entangle more
> > into subjectivism, at last completely irrational subjectivism.
> > (fundamentalism: principle of reason as will-to-will)
>
> The solutions will be sought one way or another, such as the invasion
> of Iraq for instance, and I agree the coming energy decline will only
> intensify our entanglement in modern subjectivism. People en masse will
> be outraged, nihilist confusion will proliferate and some will turn
> further to the old gods while others sink into hopelessly skeptical
> nihilism as the new gods of liberal morality collapse into chaos and
> totalitarian technicism. Perhaps extreme nihilism will step into that
> breach on the edge of human extinction and there with the supreme
> danger the saving power will grow: An ecstatic nihilism that stands out
> into the openness of its own finitude and groundlessness, safeguarding
> the open region on the threshold of Heidegger's new great beginning for
> thinking. Either that or we fragment into feudal totalitarian states
> peopled by technological elites ruling over what's left of the
> impoverished masses until something like fusion energy allows the whole
> stupid mess of globalisation to start over again.
>
> > And meanwhile letting the world fall apart? Sure, it cannot be saved,
> > it is wrong to try to save THIS any longer. Cut the ropes, and stand
> > on your own feet, that's postmodern individualism, i suppose: carry
> > the cross of metaphysical completion: a destiny.
> >
> > (then behind the world may come the earth)
>
> Are you a 21st century flagellant Rene? Many anarchists share your
> distaste for our modern world and are neither surprised by the
> possibility that globalisation may collapse nor sorry to see it go.
> Myself, I'd rather see some form of internationalism reassert itself to
> mitigate the fall in a sort of rearguard rational decline of the
> project of modernity with at least the hope of a transition towards the
> good once the worst is over sometime later in this century. But this is
> all of course still merely speculation, who knows what the future may
> hold, perhaps the worst case scenarios won't eventuate and we will all
> be treated to a radically revised version of more of the same? The next
> decade may give us some better insights into the problem as we enter
> what may very well be one of the most interesting times in all of human
> history.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
predictions are true), is that it turns out to be a bump for us in the West
(compare to the Great Depression centered in North America).
Imagine: war raging in foreign countries, depleted resources, dried up
rivers, millions starving, genocide, political manipulation, slightly
lessened standard in developed nations, more nihilism, more neuroses, more
greeting cards/BDSM/culture without integrity/pathological
depression/pornography/commercial sports/rockstar dreams/utter
inspontaneity.
The global disaster 50-100 years in the future is already here.
The illusion is that *it will happen*, that it *will be noticeable via
direct impact to our infrastructure circa 2050*, is the "necessary lie".
James
----- Ursprungligt meddelande -----
Från: "Malcolm Riddoch" <m.riddoch@xxxxxxxxxx>
Till: <heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Skickat: Monday, October 25, 2004 16:37
Ämne: Re: Energy decline and totalitarianism
>
> On Monday, October 25, 2004, at 07:13 PM, Bakker, R.B.M. de wrote:
>
> > Hydrogen energy, or whatever TECHNOLOGICAL effort to face the
> > permanent crisis we're in, CANNOT be a solution, Suppose even,
> > that it would work somehow, then the real problem just remains,
> > waiting to become acute in what always will be unforseeable
> > circumstances.
>
> Many environmentally minded people would agree with you. They feel that
> energy alternatives that allow our growth based order to continue will
> only postpone the deadline and make the final outcome worse. The main
> problem for them is that oil based civilisation has led to massive
> overpopulation due to 'phantom carrying capacity'. The latter currently
> supports a population of 6.4 billion based solely on our nonrenewable
> hydrocarbon energy surplus and without which the earth could possibly
> support only about 1-2 billion of us. You factor in the probability of
> massive war, famine and pestilence over the next few decades coupled
> with catastrophic global warming and then the complete collapse of
> civilisation or even extinction becomes a possibility.
>
> I've been arguing that no matter what truly sustainable alternatives
> are found we need to understand how we got into this mess in the first
> place otherwise humanity will be locked into the same cycle of boom and
> bust that has characterised modernity so far, into the eternal
> recurrence of the same human reality and its will to power. We need to
> understand the mechanism of the will to will and our relation to
> technology as the historical setup for modern understanding. But that's
> where I lose them as it's too philosophical to actually question one's
> own understanding, so here I am back in Heidegger's realm.
>
> > The only 'solution' can be: not working towards solutions anymore.
> > They themselves are the trouble. Cos they have their ground in
> > (the holding sway of) subjectivity. And any widerwille or rage
> > against not being able to bring solutions, will only entangle more
> > into subjectivism, at last completely irrational subjectivism.
> > (fundamentalism: principle of reason as will-to-will)
>
> The solutions will be sought one way or another, such as the invasion
> of Iraq for instance, and I agree the coming energy decline will only
> intensify our entanglement in modern subjectivism. People en masse will
> be outraged, nihilist confusion will proliferate and some will turn
> further to the old gods while others sink into hopelessly skeptical
> nihilism as the new gods of liberal morality collapse into chaos and
> totalitarian technicism. Perhaps extreme nihilism will step into that
> breach on the edge of human extinction and there with the supreme
> danger the saving power will grow: An ecstatic nihilism that stands out
> into the openness of its own finitude and groundlessness, safeguarding
> the open region on the threshold of Heidegger's new great beginning for
> thinking. Either that or we fragment into feudal totalitarian states
> peopled by technological elites ruling over what's left of the
> impoverished masses until something like fusion energy allows the whole
> stupid mess of globalisation to start over again.
>
> > And meanwhile letting the world fall apart? Sure, it cannot be saved,
> > it is wrong to try to save THIS any longer. Cut the ropes, and stand
> > on your own feet, that's postmodern individualism, i suppose: carry
> > the cross of metaphysical completion: a destiny.
> >
> > (then behind the world may come the earth)
>
> Are you a 21st century flagellant Rene? Many anarchists share your
> distaste for our modern world and are neither surprised by the
> possibility that globalisation may collapse nor sorry to see it go.
> Myself, I'd rather see some form of internationalism reassert itself to
> mitigate the fall in a sort of rearguard rational decline of the
> project of modernity with at least the hope of a transition towards the
> good once the worst is over sometime later in this century. But this is
> all of course still merely speculation, who knows what the future may
> hold, perhaps the worst case scenarios won't eventuate and we will all
> be treated to a radically revised version of more of the same? The next
> decade may give us some better insights into the problem as we enter
> what may very well be one of the most interesting times in all of human
> history.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
> --- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---