Is Kunstler behind the curve? McAmerica Uber Alles
Back to Main
May 16, 2005
Billmon: McAmerica Uber Alles
Comments
In case you don´t know him. Kunstler blogs (every Sunday) on: Clusterfuck Nation and has an additional website.
And I think we are in the middle of what Billmon fears and what Kunstler predicts. Not yet in 1933 but somewhere in 1929 or the early 30s.
@Coleman – yes – the U.S. is probably one big terror incident away from it (and it doesn´t matter who will push that button – Antrax anyone?)
What’s toqueing me off about that article is this guy downright revels in predictions of our impending doom. Which is annoying, because it hurts any attempts to prevent us from having to descend to a new middle ages (which, if my reading history is at all correct, really sucked the last time around, and thus aren’t something I am looking forward to doing again).
Posted by: Brian Hurt | May 16 2005 18:29 utc | 4
Just to keep the conversation flowing, there is an important codicil to Godwin’s law that should be mentioned:
When discussing actual neo-Nazis, Godwin’s law does not typically apply
Posted by: bcf | May 16 2005 18:38 utc | 5
his blog (kunstlers) is great — as is the salon interview.
Posted by: anna missed | May 16 2005 18:40 utc | 6
the problem with predicting catastrophe is when: today, tomorrow, next week?
saying that someday the oil economy will be no more is alot like saying someday the sun will be no more. it is undoubtedly true, but not very politically relevant unless you know it’s happening really soon.
If the object is to reign in suburbia before it’s too late, playing chicken little is almost guarunteed to fail.
personally, i find Kunstlers daydream pretty comforting (and I’m sure he does too.) In alot of ways it’s the old anarcho-syndicalist paradise via deus ex petroleum, and about just as likely to come about.
Posted by: geos | May 16 2005 18:47 utc | 7
Sheer agon is needed in every tradedy, and guys like Kunstler are our necessary tragedians. They pile it on for a reason. As is usually the case, the truth of such great auguring is 50%. And perhaps why we don’t visit full-blown apocalypse is the restraint encouraged by our tragedians, to think about how our present actions might induce The End.
So, the “doom-and-gloom” serves a vital rhetorical function in our society; and besides the rhetoric is halfway justified: just ask Rumsfeld what he thinks about Henny Penny now.
Posted by: slothrop | May 16 2005 18:48 utc | 8
@ Brian upthread 2:29,
I don’t think you read through the entire article, Kunstler isn’t suggesting it’s back to the Middle Ages but an evolution to something entirely different; who knows exactly what it will look like. Did you think this feeding frenzy could go on forever, and should it? So, it’s adapt, or society dies under the weight of its own complexity. at the end of the day, it’s an ecological principle of systems, energy in, energy out, scarcity of resources, exploting new niches.
Posted by: Mrs. Chippy | May 16 2005 19:26 utc | 9
If Bolton is not confirmed expect the NUKUCLAR option for REAL
Posted by: Friendly Fire | May 16 2005 19:45 utc | 10
I’m terribly sorry, but I can’t resist this any more: it’s “rein in” as opposed to “reign in”, unless you believe Kunstler intends installing himself as Tyrant of The Urban Wastelands. I’ve ignored this about four times recently, and it’s beginning to get to me.
After reading several posted articles by Kunstler, I find that although I have a naturally dysphoric attitude, and thus should be his soulmate, I really don’t agree with what he thinks will happen. Transportation expenses will go up as petroleum becomes scarcer, but in my view this will do nothing to get rid of specialization of occupations in our society, and will not abolish corporations or public relations, as he seems to think. There will be an impact on where people can afford to live, and commuting patterns, and how expensive things that are brought a long distance are – but his “bring back the horse” notions are romanticism, in my opinion.
Posted by: mistah charley | May 16 2005 20:40 utc | 12
it’s “rein in” as opposed to “reign in”
just think of it as destroying the english language one word at a time.
Posted by: geos | May 16 2005 20:52 utc | 13
Deja vue …..[Somebody should check to see what Kunstler was writing in 1999. Y2K survival manuals perhaps?]
“I feel fortunate that I enjoyed the blandishments of modernity. I had hip replacement and root canal. I was able to travel on airplanes. I was able to take cheap food for granted. I went to the movies. I enjoyed rock ‘n’ roll. And now I’m ready to move on.”
Root canal a ‘blandishment’ of modernity? When he says he’ll be ready to move on, does he really mean die off? After all, post 2020 he’ll be into his 70’s. No angioplasty for you!
Posted by: gylangirl | May 16 2005 21:28 utc | 14
Sorry about that geos, I have occasional fits like that. Can’t be helped short of a very long course of therapy.
Kunstler is talking nonsense of course. You can’t sell books and speaking engagements by being moderate.
I believe Kunstler errs in asserting that America voted in the majority for cornpone Nazis. The necessary 5% of the electorate which ultimately voted for Dubya didn’t know that they were voting for cornpone Nazis. They too were deceived.
The necessary and sufficient emergency conditions can likely be provided by attacking Iran. Any attack on Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, through which the oil bounty of the Middle East flows to the industrial societies of the world. Close that choke point and the oil prices spike, a la 1973, except on steroids this time. What will the average voter do when confronted by $8 per gallon gasoline for his SUV getting 10 mpg and a 40 mile commute each day? What does the emperor do when the legions are overseas and the populace roars? It will likely not be a pretty sight. Bolton’s appointment to Turtle Bay is the first step down that oily path.
Posted by: PrahaPartizan | May 16 2005 22:50 utc | 16
Fascism as a collateral damage of the middle class’s fear of falling? I have my doubts.
There is a relish for the effectful extreme in Kunstler’s style… reminds me of other rhetorical setups…
Posted by: teuton | May 16 2005 22:54 utc | 17
Rightwing apocalypts justify actions by dreaming of transcendence. Leftwing apocalypts justify action by confronting the problems of immanence.
Basically.
Posted by: slothrop | May 16 2005 23:20 utc | 18
Van der Leun’s Corollary: As global connectivity improves, the probability of actual Nazis being on the Net approaches one.
Mcclellan’s Restatement of Van der Leun’s Corollary to Godwin’s Law: As the length of time the neoconservatives control all three branches of the U.S. government increases, the probability that a full-fledged fascist state will emerge approaches one.
Posted by: Gabby | May 17 2005 0:00 utc | 19
Colman,
thanks. geos sentence makes much more sence now.
Posted by: A swedish kind of death | May 17 2005 0:22 utc | 20
Coleman wrote:
Kunstler is talking nonsense of course. You can’t sell books and speaking engagements by being moderate.
Can’t argue w/you there. If one wants to know how to pursue plausible transformational strategies for adapting our current infrastructure to an age of increasingly expensive oil, Jane Jacobs would be a much more helpful source. And while she thinks suburbs reflect piss-poor planning, she’s not smugly self-righteous about it, as is Kunstler.
Kunstler’s function, as far as I can tell, is to record the scream of agony of a hip gay writer, as Civilization and it’s sustaining myth of progress confronts the abyss. Taking him literally would be misplaced concreteness, but his scream is refreshing even if it’s couched in a pseudo-rational language. Trying to read Jacobs bk. on the Dark Ages Ahead is unnerving, precisely because she approaches the abyss so pragmatically, when I just needed to scream…so he does serve a valuable function…tho, perhaps a more valuable one had he confined himself to fiction…I still recall that beautifully haunting scene in a Doris Lessing novel in which a London bourgeouis family is hastily dumping everything they can grab into their car, as the city decays into the clutches of displaced hordes…
(As I was driving home this afternoon, it struck me as amusing that devotees of the Reactionary Pirate Party would choose to call themselves “progressives”, which of course they are not, just as the myth of progress has shown even idiots that it’s utterly false. The more far-sighted, like cultural historian William Irwin Thompson, were discussing this as far back as ’68.
Posted by: jj | May 17 2005 1:50 utc | 22
Where is DeAnanander when needed to balance the dismissiveness of this thread? We shall see how much nonsense Kunstler is talking as things develop.
What’s toqueing me off about that article is this guy downright revels in predictions of our impending doom. Which is annoying, because it hurts any attempts to prevent us from having to descend to a new middle ages (which, if my reading history is at all correct, really sucked the last time around, and thus aren’t something I am looking forward to doing again).
Can’t see that Kunstler and his ilk are doing anything to prevent our remediating the situation – BushCo are guilty of that charge.
As is usually the case, the truth of such great auguring is 50%. And perhaps why we don’t visit full-blown apocalypse is the restraint encouraged by our tragedians, to think about how our present actions might induce The End.
What restraint? The time to have started on restraint was in the 70s, as we began to under Carter until Reagan trashed them. Perhaps if we had, the 50% measure might be applicable. While those who study this issue closely are divided as to whether a “soft landing” is still possible, they agree that the direction of travel is down.
Posted by: Liz | May 17 2005 2:37 utc | 23
Actually, Kunstler is about as interesting and informative as the cornpone nazis and theo-lunatics.
They’re all crazy as shithouse rats and full of it too, imho.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 17 2005 3:00 utc | 25
They’re all crazy as shithouse rats and full of it too, imho.
.. or as mad as a cut snake.
No, I haven’t read his article, or his website, but I don’t think I can stand any more of this peak-oil, back to the dark ages bullshit.
The only agenda worth pursuing at the moment is Bush, Blair, and the neo-fuckwits. Not much point burning ourselves out with angst about evil SUV drivers until the American nuclear threat is contained.
(And I know that I can safely say this as DeAnander is off on holiday somewhere).
Posted by: DM | May 17 2005 4:41 utc | 26
I don’t think History repeats itself but it sure stutters a lot.
However, the US is not nearly as efficient as it’d ave to be to be called a Nazi state. They wish! Our management is not competent enough and our population not disciplined enough. Nazi-wise, we’re a joke.
The obvious analogy, to me, is the Brezhnev USSR: dysfunctional management, lots of corruption, crazy military living on WWII fantasies, apathetic population with delusions of superiority.
We’re not in Germany 1930, we’re in Moscow 1980.
I think at this point, we are watching the Fall of the US of A as we knew it – no matter who’s elected in 06 or 08. (Though my money is on the “fascists” until 2012.)
I believe the forces in motion are irreversible.
But I also believe that, while painful, the Fall of the US of A is a *GOOD* thing. Like the Soviets, we had (have) too much power and not enough wisdom.
As usual, History will do the culling.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17 2005 5:46 utc | 27
No, I haven’t read his article, or his website, but I don’t think I can stand any more of this peak-oil, back to the dark ages bullshit.
Except that peak oil is coming, that Bush and co are the worst possible preparation for it, and the US is going to be left in a much worse position by another eight years of these idiots. The back to the dark ages stuff is crap, but we need to be preparing for a change in the basic assumptions of our economy, and the fools running the US couldn’t care less. They’ll be dead when it happens, or raptured.
Even without peak oil, the current set-up is not sustainable and needs to change.
The only agenda worth pursuing at the moment is Bush, Blair, and the neo-fuckwits. Not much point burning ourselves out with angst about evil SUV drivers until the American nuclear threat is contained.
We cannot deal with problems one at a time. In any case, there seems little many of us can do about Bush: we’re not USian. Blair is toast: he’ll be gone in a little while, and at this stage will start losing votes if he pushes his luck with his party. Evil SUV drivers are not the problem, they’re a symptom of the problem, which is a society and economy based on destructive assumptions: consume, consume, consume.
How does it help us if you get rid of Bush without addressing the underlying problems? Kunstler and his ilk remind me of the problem with Marx: largely correct criticism of the status quo, incorrect or lacking solutions (at least according to conventional wisdom among economists). You need to move from a society that values the ability to consume crap right now above all else to one that has some sort of idea of the future and places some value on it.
(And I know that I can safely say this as DeAnander is off on holiday somewhere).
Nuair a bhíonn an cat amuigh, bíonn an luch ag rince:
“While the cat’s away, the mouse does be dancing”.
I’m really hoping Lupin is right, because although making the U.S. repeat the U.S.S.R.’s path will be bad, it is conceivably a softer landing than many of the other ones available. By the way: if this works, then it means the energy hogs won’t fall on their faces for another few centuries—but at least everyone will get to laugh at Kunstler and Bageant while their faces turn purple. 😉
(And before anyone jumps in with “where will all this hydrogen come from?”—if you can draw power from a fusion reaction, you have more than enough spare energy around to separate a more-than-adequate supply of hydrogen out of distilled water. Hydrogen is only problematic if you’re pulling the energy from a fossil fuel source.)
Posted by: Blind Misery | May 17 2005 6:39 utc | 30
@Lupin, I think the only reason the US is not yet an efficient Nazi state is the internet. The Nazi’s didn’t have to deal with this kind of resistance.
Posted by: Fran | May 17 2005 6:52 utc | 31
I know it is popular on here to be obsessed with Bush being a fascist, however please think about the bigger picture..
The US economy is completely dependent on oil, over half of which is imported. If oil production is nearing a crisis point (peak production), there is a strong chance the US and world economy will suffer a swift takedown both for reasons Billmon has pointed out (macroeconomic) and due to declining energy supplies making growth impossible.
A diminishing world oil supply is a permanent problem, suggesting any economic collapse following it will be permanent as well (fantasies about European fusion reactors notwithstanding). Kunstler believes that is the most likely ‘endgame’ for our globalized economy and that it is in a crisis like this in which a true fascist (or “cornpone Nazi”) is likely to gain popular appeal.
Consider a society like the US with a massive appetite for resource consumption and the lifestyle it provides. Consider this lifestyle being destroyed in a short period of time for reasons nearly everyone in society does not understand. Even on this board, it seems many posters do not understand the role of energy in our society. What types of delusional politics are likely when these people are clamoring for a solution and some ‘tough guy’ claims he will do whatever it takes to bring back the old days? The type of guy who will make the Bush administration look positively enlightening and plenty eager to take advantage of all the totalitarian legislation already in place. The type of guy who will call policies of war, conquest, and genocide what they are. Will this person have appeal? It is quite likely in my opinion…
Posted by: zed | May 17 2005 7:52 utc | 32
Defense Dept. Scrubs Report Criticizing Rumsfeld “national security” “national security” “national security” “national security” “national security” “national security” “national security” “national security”
Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 17 2005 8:07 utc | 33
Capitalism based on “growth” each and every year being seen as a “good thing” was always a very stupid concept on a planet with a finite supply of resources.
Oh look, a big line of hippies saying “we told you Breadheads but you wouldn’t listen!”
The last laugh is always the loudest 🙂
Posted by: Anonymous | May 17 2005 9:27 utc | 34
I have written to Mr.Kunstler asking why he contradicts himself in his own book. Thermal polymerization, which takes offal and shit and garbage and turns it into a suitable heating oil, WORKS, is working NOW, and according to Mr. Kunstler isn’t going to work at all in maintaining the fleets of autos.
Well, good on him, then. I think that retiring fleets of autos is a good thing. If thermal depolymerization can heat houses and power electric plants, there’s no need to go back to any Dark Ages, because one does not need to import shit.
The main problem seems to be the attitude that only one person or company may profit from this new discovery. I suspect that the reclamation of garbage will go better in Europe, where they have a bit more concern about the environment and fewer resources to waste.
Kunstler argues that a sort of Jeffersonian democracy must replace suburban sprawl, a laudable goal. He by no means suggests that we go back to the Dark Ages; he only states that dark ages will certainly occur if the suburbs and automobile are allowed to continue guzzling resources. And what does his sexuality have to do with his opinions?
Posted by: hopping madbunny | May 17 2005 10:10 utc | 35
Fran, the reason the US isn’t an efficient fascist state is that the would-be tyrants are incompetent, magic thinking, arrogant fools. They couldn’t arrange a putsch in a beerhall, never mind an efficient fascist state. Bush’s experience is in running companies into the ground remember? Making the trains run on time is not something he can work out.
Krugman in the NYT is worth a read.
snip
Why did the administration want to invade Iraq, when, as the memo noted, “the case was thin” and Saddam’s “WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea, or Iran”? Iraq was perceived as a soft target; a quick victory there, its domestic political advantages aside, could serve as a demonstration of American military might, one that would shock and awe the world.
The Iraq war has, instead, demonstrated the limits of American power and emboldened our potential enemies. Why should Kim Jong Il fear us when we can’t secure the road from Baghdad to the airport?
At this point, the echoes of Vietnam are unmistakable. Reports from the recent offensive near the Syrian border sound just like those from a 1960s search-and-destroy mission, body count and all. Stories filed by reporters actually with the troops suggest that the insurgents, forewarned, mostly melted away, accepting battle only where and when they chose.
Meanwhile, America’s strategic position is steadily deteriorating.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 17 2005 10:42 utc | 37
Kunstler and co. don’t want anything to work: that would wreak their spiel. By individually debunking solutions to problems he can claim that there are no solutions, despite the possibility that a patchwork of partial solutions may more than cover the problem space. We’re going to need a variety of ways of producing electricity. There isn’t one true solution: even if we get fusion going I suspect it’ll be expensive. But if he can debunk wind as not being a full solution and biofuels as not being a full solution and so on, he can claim there is no full solution, make more awful claims in his books and get more speaking engagements.
As for suburban sprawl, I guess it depends what you mean. If you mean US-style sprawl with no public transport at all and no planning for anything other than a car based society, then yup, you’re in trouble when cars get too expensive to run casually. If you mean European style suburbia with shops within some sort of reasonable walking distance, public transport infrastructure and so on, then you’re probably not in as much trouble. Biofuels and other solutions would possibly be efficient enough to support food transport and public transport in that scenario, and we can generate enough electricity through renewables and increased efficiency to keep cities alive.
The Cuban experience suggests you can get pretty good crop yields just by being smart, and that suggests that the current form of industrial farming isn’t necessary to support civilisation.
The argument against technological solutions seems to be “I can’t think of a complete solution, so there isn’t one.” That is pure arrogance.
I have no clue what his sexual preferences have to do with his opinions on this stuff either. I meant to ask as well.
But CP, you’ve read the same said here a year ago, and two years ago. How come the corporate media couldn’t see it then? It’s not as if the facts weren’t there to see.
True Colman……… so fucking true….. but we have to keep saying it.
Posted by: Cloned Poster | May 17 2005 11:09 utc | 41
By the way, someone on Kos came up with a brilliant idea. From now I will only refer to Bush as “The Butcher of Crawford.” If you like it spread the meme.
And here is a nice photo to go along with it.
Posted by: Lupin | May 17 2005 11:45 utc | 42
Yeeaahhhh!!!! Lupin – did you have to do that. Thank God I haven’t had time for lunch yet.
Posted by: Fran | May 17 2005 11:53 utc | 43
My Grandfather was a farmer with sheep, horses and a barn. There were hundreds of thousands of working barns in New England up to the 50’s. All gone due to industrial farming and cheap energy.
The era of cheap oil has ended. This is causing fluctuations in the structure of civilization. The Iraq Invasion or nomination of John Bolton as UN Ambassador are good examples or even the contemplation of bombing of Iran by the US government.
Predicting what happens next depends on one’s ideology. Since humans live in a relative universe tied to human culture trying to find God’s intentions in the random motions of electrons, events tend to mimic the past. Markets will find high price alternatives to petroleum but anything associated with cheap will disappear like long commutes to work, airline tickets, and Wal-Mart. Also, raging inflation and a Depression tend to bring forth dictatorial unbalanced authoritarian governments.
Posted by: Jim S | May 17 2005 15:31 utc | 44
US Domestic Covert Operations
From the Archive: WAR AT HOME (AGAIN?)
US Domestic Covert Operations
Harassment Through Psychological Warfare
While boring from within, the FBI and police also attack dissident movements
from the outside. They openly mount propaganda campaigns through public
addresses, news releases, books, pamphlets, magazine articles, radio, and
television. They also use covert deception and manipulation. Documented
tactics of this kind include:
Posted by: Uncle $cam | May 17 2005 16:58 utc | 45
Earth to Kunstler: We’re not going to run out of electricity. Electricity comes from coal, which will last for 100-300 years, and which we can ultimately replace with solar power or breeder reactors.
Gas, on the other hand, will be a problem. Quite frankly, batteries suck, ethanol is a political scam, and the hydrogen economy is an expensive joke.
And winter heating will be pretty ugly for those of us in the north…
Posted by: Eric | May 17 2005 18:50 utc | 46
I graduated from planning school at the end of the Carter administration so I’ve heard the song Kunstler is singing many times before. His visions of a Rustic Revival are fantasyland but he is right about how dependent our economy is on throw-away real estate development. We are headed for a major housing crash, and if this hits when oil prices are high the new home buyers in their early 30’s and 40’s may get burned big time. (Happened to my brother in the early 90’s he lost $85,000 on a $200,000 house.)
But Kunstler’s most important point has to do with the loss of Class A Agricultural Soils to exurban development. You might find more oil, or develop alternative energy, but you can’t create new agricultural topsoil. The best agricultural soil in the Country has been lost to exurban development. As Kunstler says, making the production of agricultural products further from the population centers. Some of the greatest loses of Prime Ag Land has been where rainfalls are the most consistent, particularly on the East Coast (like Lancaster Co Pa-some of the richest farmland in the Country, with the most dependable rainfall-being eaten up by McMansions.) It won’t take an Energy Crisis, all we need is a change in weather patterns, or another Dust Bowel and we have screwed ourselves.
(The Brits on the other hand do not allow uncontrolled development on farmlands, they couldn’t or they would have no farmlands left.)
I think he is also right about small towns and cities, but that’s what planners always think.
Posted by: marym | May 17 2005 18:56 utc | 47
Yeah, just keep sailing that big ol’ barge down De-Nial river, all you Cleopatras! 😀
Posted by: Loveandlight | May 17 2005 19:46 utc | 48
You’re right about the prime farmland, but you’re wrong (to a certain extent) about making topsoil. Making topsoil is expensive and difficult, but you can do it, at least in the wetter parts of the world. (Forgive me if you’re a farmer; the following explanation is a bit basic.)
The three major components of soil are sand, clay, and organic matter. If you don’t have a reasonable ratio of sand and clay, you need to truck in the missing component, or find it elsewhere on your land. While you’re at it, add some rock phosphate and some greensand, both of which act as slow-release fertilizer.
To build organic matter, you need compost, cover-crops, and time. For example, Fedco, a New England seed co-op, sells a peas/oats/hairy vetch mix that builds up organic material pretty rapidly.
Eliot Coleman runs a vegetable farm in coastal Maine soil, which tends to be extremely sandy and very low in organic matter. But his soil is supposedly pretty good these days, thanks to many years of tender loving care.
I’m not sure this would work in, say, Montana.
Posted by: Eric | May 17 2005 19:52 utc | 49
Colman
It’s not merely some empirically provable consequences of consumerism needed to justify the value of the left wing apocalypt. The leftwing apocalypt also strips away the veil of “progress” and inevitability of a form of life undesirably sustained by the progressive devaluation of life. For example, the leftwing apocalypt tries to disable the widespread view that improvements in the survivability of an increasingly dangerous world is a preferrable commitment to “progress.”
Finally, the leftwing apocalypt would like to shock popular consciousness to imagine a better life. It’s an old theme. Here’s a version from Paul Valery:
Modern man is a slave to modernity. . . . We will soon have to build heavily insulated cloisters…. Speed, numbers, effects of surprise, contrast, repetition, size, novelty, and credulity will be despised there…
Posted by: slothrop | May 17 2005 22:11 utc | 50
I went out and bought Knustler’s book to read while I worked in the Oil and Gas field looking for petroleum products. Ironic, no?
In the field where I’m working, Seismic, it seems there has never been a busier time, as gas reaches new heights and the smaller oil companies (Encana, Husky Oil, etc) rush to discover the remaining stocks.
I’ve read Knustler’s website for a couple of months previously to buying his book and have enjoyed some, but not all, of his columns.
To me, the attitude he displays is representative of his generation, the one that won WWII, and now sees all that it has built being squandered. Jaded, cynical, yes, but essentially correct in his diagnosis of the problem.
And that’s just what he does in the book, diagnosis the problem with verbal scapel. His main problem with alternative technology is that it is a band-aid solution. That is to say, even nuclear reactors and solar panels are products of a “cheap-oil fiesta” economy. It is the continuging future that Knustler is concerned about. What about your childern and childern’s childern? How will they live?
The primary weakness of the book, in my opinion, is that Knustler doesn’t cite enough sources. There are wide swaths of pages that I feel needed some primary sources to bulk up his argument. Another problem is that the book is primary a diagnosis, one that has little to offer in how to dismantle the current situation–not that it could be in time, however, in my opinion.
In conclusion, I feel Knustler’s book is a perfect bible for future generations to understand the conditions and thinking that lead to the collapse of the “cheap-oil fesita” economy.
Posted by: The Key | May 17 2005 23:33 utc | 51
To me, the attitude he displays is representative of his generation, the one that won WWII, and now sees all that it has built being squandered.
Maybe his parents won WWII. He was born in the late 1940’s well after the war was over. He’s a boomer, if you need to classify him.
Posted by: tee | May 17 2005 23:54 utc | 53
Earth to Eric: increased burning of coal will have brought on runaway global warming well before your 100-300 years are up.
Posted by: Liz | May 18 2005 0:28 utc | 54
The best work on reinventing & replenishing is brought together yearly at the Bioneers Conferences – there’s a website, w/cd’s/dvd’s of their conferences. Listening to them is most rejuvenating. And yes you can create new topsoil – they’ve discussed many successful experiments. One using various fungus working on hideously polluted soil, turned it into really rich topsoil. Also, the Permaculture approach is fruitful. Finally, someone in England replenished soil by breaking up & scattering certain mineralized rocks. That’s now being officially studied in England. John Todd may also have done work in that area, though his main work has been using living organisms to clean seriously polluted water. And these are just the ones I know about.
In short there’s plenty of great work going on biologically. It’s politically & economically that things are really Apocalypse Now, both in xAm. & Europe. What worries me is that this tone from Kunstler et. al. plays right into the hands of the Pirates.
Posted by: jj | May 18 2005 1:27 utc | 55
Liz, of course, you’re right. Global warming is quite likely a more serious crisis than running out of oil, and our continued use of coal will be the major driver. And let’s not even talk about sulfur polution, mountaintop removal, and all the other costs of coal.
But Kunstler’s argument that we’re going to run out electricity soon is simply moronic. I’m pretty pessimistic about the future myself, but I have a special loathing for doomsayers who can’t be bothered to do a little research. They discredit everybody who’s actually trying to solve the problem.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 20 2005 14:48 utc | 57