A Practical Utopian’s Guide to the Coming Collapse

[jakell]

My questioning of the importance of the 'elites' was not really based upon their effects (or lack of effects) on us up to this point, it was based on the fact that our problems are based upon hard economics relating to energy and resources. The only way they could be deemed to be significant is if they could be said to be actively preventing a solution to these problems, the insistance of which does seem to me a convenient way of dodging the responsibility to change at all.

About the timescales involved. You are probably right about a couple of generations being needed, and only in ideal circumstances. Ideal circumstances are very unlikely to occur though, especially as new elites are likely to emerge from the 'masses' as soon as the present ones are removed. I can't really see the new Boss being very different from the old Boss.
All the talk of a change of direction or leadership does not remove the underlying issue though, which is the fact that there are hard economic limits relating to energy and resource scarcity up ahead.

I agree with pretty much all of the above.

A good analogy for the situation at present can be extrapolated with a little imagination from the terms in psychology Enabling and Codependency:

"In a negative sense, enabling is also used to describe dysfunctional behavior approaches that are intended to help resolve a specific problem but in fact may perpetuate or exacerbate the problem.[1][2] A common theme of enabling in this latter sense is that third parties take responsibility, blame, or make accommodations for a person's harmful conduct (often with the best of intentions, or from fear or insecurity which inhibits action). The practical effect is that the person himself or herself does not have to do so, and is shielded from awareness of the harm it may do, and the need or pressure to change. Enabling in this sense is a major environmental cause of addiction.[3]

A common example of enabling can be observed in the relationship between the alcoholic/addict and a codependent spouse. The spouse who attempts to shield the addict from the negative consequences of their behavior by calling in sick to work for them, making excuses that prevent others from holding them accountable, and generally cleaning up the mess that occurs in the wake of their impaired judgment.[citation needed] In reality, what the spouse is doing may be hurting, not helping. Enabling can tend to prevent psychological growth in the person being enabled, and can contribute to negative symptoms in the enabler."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling

If we take the enabling on the part of profit making enterprises to provide the materials as well as the arguments and reasoning for the continuance of our modes of behavior, and the part of the 'consumer' (for example) to subsequently provide support and justification on behalf of the producer.

And,

"Codependency is defined as a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition (typically narcissism or drug addiction); and in broader terms, it refers to the dependence on the needs of, or control of, another.[1] It also often involves placing a lower priority on one's own needs, while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others"

A similar process again, particularly if we take into consideration the frequent technique of advertising of creating guilt and subsequently the means of either relieving that guilt or temporarily subduing it.

I think understanding those processes have strong implications for the purposes for education and spreading information as a way of breaking the cycle...

What is left though is finding a substitute, a more constructive way to "fill the void", so to speak.

I had a bit of trouble following your post as you didn't use quote boxes around the quoted parts, but I think I got the gist.

You seem to be focussing on our behaviour as something abnormal that needs to change. True, our behaviour as a species is definitely not in balance with our environment, and will very likely lead to disaster, but it's also quite normal behaviour given the abundance we have experienced over the last century or so, people in other parts of the world make do with a lot less, and that is normal too. The only real education that needs to take place is to convince people that we are at the end of the age of abundance**, and once this has sunk in, to act accordingly. People can adapt to scarcity... think of after the Great Depression, post-war Britain/Europe, the collapse of Soviet Communism or Argentina in the 00's.

**ok, that's not very easy, we have denial, anger, bargaining and depression to get though before we come to acceptance. But the issues themselves are actually quite simple, and it is stuff we have dealt with before.

[TheBlackSheep]

You seem to be focussing on our behaviour as something abnormal that needs to change. True, our behaviour as a species is definitely not in balance with our environment, and will very likely lead to disaster, but it's also quite normal behaviour given the abundance we have experienced over the last century or so, people in other parts of the world make do with a lot less, and that is normal too.

Quite the contrary, I have no real place for the word abnormal in my vocabulary besides as an abstract lynch pin without any concrete grounding in reality. I try not to use that term. I was highlighting what I felt was a good analogy, namely psychological relationship based on a codependence ('we' need the "stuff" and 'they' need the money). But I think your later points were valid for discussion, so the above in no way interferes with addressing them on their own terms.

The only real education that needs to take place is to convince people that we are at the end of the age of abundance**, and once this has sunk in, to act accordingly. People can adapt to scarcity... think of after the Great Depression, post-war Britain/Europe, the collapse of Soviet Communism or Argentina in the 00's.

**ok, that's not very easy, we have denial, anger, bargaining and depression to get though before we come to acceptance. But the issues themselves are actually quite simple, and it is stuff we have dealt with before.

I don't really think that "[t]he only real education that needs to take place is to convince people that we are at the end of the age of abudance". It might be worth throwing that in, but I don't really think it's the main issue at all—and this I do mean in regard to the creation of an entirely new set of behavior and/or way of life.

That being said, those things you mentioned (anger, bargaining, and depression) are definitely things to take into account, as are pretty much all aspects of psychology, when designing a program of education.

That idea, education, is definitely something that should be further looked into. It's probably one of the most important subjects to my mind and is hugely multifaceted and most likely cannot be adequately illuminated in the confines of a forum thread. That being said I will give a few indications of some of the directions I personally believe would be beneficial, or else are simply important to take into account.

A few things that are definitely under-appreciated in most current models of education are introspection and interpersonal skills.

Connected with the idea of introspection, I think it is definitely going to be necessary that taboos become broken down on an intellectual level (perhaps to a lesser extent in practice) but at least in so far as taboos that stem from the individual can be dealt with introspectively and collectively without harassment. I think this much, at least on a personal introspective level, will go a long way.

Connected with this, it will be necessary for individuals to understand and learn to deal with experiences of suffering in constructive ways.

Ultimately, education should be highly individualized. The best way to accomplish that would be by fostering the ability of individuals to educate themselves. (A note behind the philosophy of this idea is that, with a proper education, not just of theory but of practice, a person can be on the way to accomplishing that which they see fit). Besides the skills for self education, individuals will need the time as well as resources.

Those are some hints at just a few of the examples that have not been taken into account in our current models of education. Much more could be said about them and education in general. Ultimately, I think that the best way to "fill the void" that is currently being filled by "stuff" is by creating a new collective paradigm that fosters constructive collective action and self-determination. I am nearly certain that a lack of the latter is at the heart of the whole issue. Of course the thought of a great swathe of masses determining their own destinies is a very uncomfortable idea to the elites, which is why I believe a mind to their presence and influence is crucial.

I also see this as a direction towards a hopeful solution because it has great potential to be entirely peaceful, and education can begin from within the family and among friends, provided we are willing to take the time and make the effort.

(Another important note is people gathering to discuss and mutually educate, in the sense of the classical philosophical schools, the 19th century salons or the cafes of the same era.)

In all honesty, I think the greatest impediment is that most adults don't really want to face reality, let alone teach it to their kids. That is an important point, and you did bring it up in your post (anger, bargaining, depression), but not impossible hurdles.

[jakell]

....I don't really think that "[t]he only real education that needs to take place is to convince people that we are at the end of the age of abudance". It might be worth throwing that in, but I don't really think it's the main issue at all—and this I do mean in regard to the creation of an entirely new set of behavior and/or way of life.

That being said, those things you mentioned (anger, bargaining, and depression) are definitely things to take into account, as are pretty much all aspects of psychology, when designing a program of education....

Sorry to snip, but I'm trying to be brief here.

Regarding 'education', I was really making quite a clumsy oversimplification here, but I was doing that to amplify a point. It is so hard getting this one simple** point over, that I would concentrate on that alone, because people nod their heads, but don't really get it, and it really needs hammering in, and hard! Even then we get all the variations of denial and bargaining.

What comes after that point is accepted (if at all) is not really what I call education per se, and this is because there aren't really many folks around who can teach this sort of thing, we're all pretty much at the starting point here.

** IMO, it is a simple point, I think the reason that people complexify it is part of the denial process.

I

[TheBlackSheep]

Sorry to snip, but I'm trying to be brief here.

Regarding 'education', I was really making quite a clumsy oversimplification here, but I was doing that to amplify a point. It is so hard getting this one simple** point over, that I would concentrate on that alone, because people nod their heads, but don't really get it, and it really needs hammering in, and hard! Even then we get all the variations of denial and bargaining.

What comes after that point is accepted (if at all) is not really what I call education per se, and this is because there aren't really many folks around who can teach this sort of thing, we're all pretty much at the starting point here.

** IMO, it is a simple point, I think the reason that people complexify it is part of the denial process.

I

I understand your feeling that this idea should be gotten through to people. You might consider that the reason you are having trouble are as much due to your presentation of the idea. When you are in essence taking something away, (being in this position of arbiter) you are going to need to offer something up to fill in the void that you are creating. So you might want to consider a few things, not just about your presentation of the facts, but also with what you leave those people with afterwards. Would you be ready to sit with them as the deal with the idea slowly, and work with them to create a new ulternative way of being?

The way you phrased that "really needs hammering in" expresses a certain degree of impatience and even stubbornness. Perhaps the people you are addressing are in a process of mirroring what they are perceiving from their teacher?

[jakell]

No, I'm not really in the teaching business, and I'm no longer too bothered about getting the point over to people new to the idea, that was me a decade ago. I'll leave that to others who are relatively fresh and possibly more motivated.

I'm actually more concerned with folks who already 'get it'** and then after six months or so slip back to the familiar themes of 'new technologies' (fusion, asteroid mining), new fossil fuel possibilities (fracking etc), changes in global consciousness, political solutions etc etc. Anything in fact to try and get around the uncomfortable economic realities concerning energy and resources via denial and bargaining.

**in other words, the potential teachers. If they slip back, then we really are doomed.

[Iamwhomiam]

Luther wrote,
The solutions would have to be radical; not to lift up the global poor to the west's standards, but to remove the game entirely and replace it with something completely different in order to save lives.

Oh, they are most certainly going to be radical, but not to anyone's liking among RI contributors. And though I fully endorse Annie's philosophy and had been promoting same long before her appearance, it ain't gonna happen. We've been piloted by greed too close to the black hole of destruction, and still they push on, knowing we've past the point of no return.

Mass exterminations brought about by the most diabolical means will slow things down and further concentrate wealth.

I don't mean some neat poison gas or deadly virus, but by starvation, and the pitting of individuals against each other desperate for survival. It will be brutally ugly and lethal to tens if not hundreds of millions.

Sorry, but that's the only paradigm shift I can see.

[TheBlackSheep]

I'm not really in the teaching business, and I'm no longer too bothered about getting the point over to people new to the idea, that was me a decade ago. I'll leave that to others who are relatively fresh and possibly more motivated.

I might suggest that we are always teaching, through our words and by our example. Already you are an example of a free, acting, and thinking individual. There are lessons to be had in these.

Sorry, but that's the only paradigm shift I can see.

I hope this isn't a call to despair. In this forum as well as other places we can see evidence that such a paradigm shift has already taken place or is in the process of taking place. Perhaps in times like these it is for us to rally our strength and become conscious of our actions and their effects in the world.

[Sounder]

David Graber wrote…

Clearly, an antiwar movement in the sixties that is still tying the hands of U.S. military planners in 2012 can hardly be considered a failure. But it raises an intriguing question: What happens when the creation of that sense of failure, of the complete ineffectiveness of political action against the system, becomes the chief objective of those in power?

I love this Graber paper, but do take issue with his use of the word ‘become’ in this last sentence. Power has always lived through imposition of the idea that there can be no other way. Yet, down through the ages we all seem to carry a niggling feeling that there is another way. Even while we carry a ‘sense of failure’ at dealing with power, we can and do affect power in many ways as David pointed out. While power may have many tools to maintain the dominant narrative, every application threatens to further expose the internal contradictions of our continually more contrived ‘picture of reality’.

People who see mans nature as being fixed can only see breakdown, whereas others who see our conceptual framework as being contrived and somewhat arbitrary, recognize that changes in basic assumptions can change expressions of mind in potentially growth filled and extraordinary ways.

This is for you jakell, our nature is not fixed.

Ideal circumstances are very unlikely to occur though, especially as new elites are likely to emerge from the 'masses' as soon as the present ones are removed. I can't really see the new Boss being very different from the old Boss.

Does consciousness evolve (or evolve us)?


Iamwhomiam wrote:

Sorry, but that's the only paradigm shift I can see.

Then you need to look harder.

[jakell]

Luther wrote,
The solutions would have to be radical; not to lift up the global poor to the west's standards, but to remove the game entirely and replace it with something completely different in order to save lives.

Oh, they are most certainly going to be radical, but not to anyone's liking among RI contributors. And though I fully endorse Annie's philosophy and had been promoting same long before her appearance, it ain't gonna happen. We've been piloted by greed too close to the black hole of destruction, and still they push on, knowing we've past the point of no return.

Mass exterminations brought about by the most diabolical means will slow things down and further concentrate wealth.

I don't mean some neat poison gas or deadly virus, but by starvation, and the pitting of individuals against each other desperate for survival. It will be brutally ugly and lethal to tens if not hundreds of millions.

Sorry, but that's the only paradigm shift I can see.

Even though this is one possible outcome, it is possible that the 'elites' will also be part of the same landslide, and that that the foundations of what is considered to be wealth will crumble along with everything else. Newer things** that are more related to human survival will be considered to have value, and only those who sieze these (if this can be done) will have wealth.

Your next paragraph does hint at the crumbling of centralisation (ie people against each other), and this centralisation is also a feature in the concentration of wealth.

What I'm saying above is a return to what I was saying earlier about the 'elites' not being the central problem after all, and that they are just a convenient scapegoat for everything bad.

ETA ** Older things actuallly, just like a lot of the solutions will not be 'new' things, they will just seem that way.

[bluenoseclaret]

Maybe of interest:

The truth is out: money is just an IOU, and the banks are rolling in it
The Bank of England's dose of honesty throws the theoretical basis for austerity out the window

David Graeber...theguardian.com, Tuesday 18 March 2014

Back in the 1930s, Henry Ford is supposed to have remarked that it was a good thing that most Americans didn't know how banking really works, because if they did, "there'd be a revolution before tomorrow morning".

Last week, something remarkable happened. The Bank of England let the cat out of the bag. In a paper called "Money Creation in the Modern Economy", co-authored by three economists from the Bank's Monetary Analysis Directorate, they stated outright that most common assumptions of how banking works are simply wrong, and that the kind of populist, heterodox positions more ordinarily associated with groups such as Occupy Wall Street are correct. In doing so, they have effectively thrown the entire theoretical basis for austerity out of the window.

To get a sense of how radical the Bank's new position is, consider the conventional view, which continues to be the basis of all respectable debate on public policy. People put their money in banks. Banks then lend that money out at interest – either to consumers, or to entrepreneurs willing to invest it in some profitable enterprise. True, the fractional reserve system does allow banks to lend out considerably more than they hold in reserve, and true, if savings don't suffice, private banks can seek to borrow more from the central bank.

The central bank can print as much money as it wishes. But it is also careful not to print too much. In fact, we are often told this is why independent central banks exist in the first place. If governments could print money themselves, they would surely put out too much of it, and the resulting inflation would throw the economy into chaos. Institutions such as the Bank of England or US Federal Reserve were created to carefully regulate the money supply to prevent inflation. This is why they are forbidden to directly fund the government, say, by buying treasury bonds, but instead fund private economic activity that the government merely taxes.

It's this understanding that allows us to continue to talk about money as if it were a limited resource like bauxite or petroleum, to say "there's just not enough money" to fund social programmes, to speak of the immorality of government debt or of public spending "crowding out" the private sector. What the Bank of England admitted this week is that none of this is really true. To quote from its own initial summary: "Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits" … "In normal times, the central bank does not fix the amount of money in circulation, nor is central bank money 'multiplied up' into more loans and deposits."

In other words, everything we know is not just wrong – it's backwards. When banks make loans, they create money. This is because money is really just an IOU. The role of the central bank is to preside over a legal order that effectively grants banks the exclusive right to create IOUs of a certain kind, ones that the government will recognise as legal tender by its willingness to accept them in payment of taxes. There's really no limit on how much banks could create, provided they can find someone willing to borrow it. They will never get caught short, for the simple reason that borrowers do not, generally speaking, take the cash and put it under their mattresses; ultimately, any money a bank loans out will just end up back in some bank again. So for the banking system as a whole, every loan just becomes another deposit. What's more, insofar as banks do need to acquire funds from the central bank, they can borrow as much as they like; all the latter really does is set the rate of interest, the cost of money, not its quantity. Since the beginning of the recession, the US and British central banks have reduced that cost to almost nothing. In fact, with "quantitative easing" they've been effectively pumping as much money as they can into the banks, without producing any inflationary effects.

What this means is that the real limit on the amount of money in circulation is not how much the central bank is willing to lend, but how much government, firms, and ordinary citizens, are willing to borrow. Government spending is the main driver in all this (and the paper does admit, if you read it carefully, that the central bank does fund the government after all). So there's no question of public spending "crowding out" private investment. It's exactly the opposite.

Why did the Bank of England suddenly admit all this? Well, one reason is because it's obviously true. The Bank's job is to actually run the system, and of late, the system has not been running especially well. It's possible that it decided that maintaining the fantasy-land version of economics that has proved so convenient to the rich is simply a luxury it can no longer afford.

But politically, this is taking an enormous risk. Just consider what might happen if mortgage holders realised the money the bank lent them is not, really, the life savings of some thrifty pensioner, but something the bank just whisked into existence through its possession of a magic wand which we, the public, handed over to it.

Historically, the Bank of England has tended to be a bellwether, staking out seeming radical positions that ultimately become new orthodoxies. If that's what's happening here, we might soon be in a position to learn if Henry Ford was right.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -austerity

Comments: 1361

Self....
"The fact is that money no longer bears any relation to the production of useful goods or services. This has been the case for some decades, and the trend becomes more pronounced with every day that passes. It suits two core groups: the banks and the govt/state, who are inextricably intertwined and mutually dependent.
Everyone else is more or less screwed within this deeply evil system, but only a global revolution can stop it now."

magicmoneytoken
"Since 1971 in fact, when Nixon abolished the convertibility of the United States dollar to gold. That's the date all currencies in the world essentially became unbacked by anything of value."

LeftOrRightSameShite
"The truth is out there. The Syndicate of bankers...
An alternative is out there.
Positive Money"

https://www.positivemoney.org/

"Positive Money is a movement to democratise money and banking so that it works for society and not against it.
Our current financial system has left us with the highest personal debt in history, unaffordable housing, worsening inequality, high unemployment and banks that are subsidised and underwritten with taxpayers’ money. We believe that these problems have a common root: money."

Justin Walker (a good guy)

Bring Back The Bradbury Pound

"On the 7th August 1914, in order to avoid a run on the banks, the Treasury issued Treasury Notes signed by John Bradbury - a form of national credit backed by the credit of the nation.

We require that the Treasury immediately restarts issuing such interest-free money, based upon the wealth, integrity and potential of our country. Such an initiative would completely remove the hold the banks have over the nation, and would kickstart a productive economy........

The Bankers, The Bradburys & The Carnage On The Western Front

http://www.lawfulrebellion.org/2012/11/ ... ern-front/

Enjoy...

[TheBlackSheep]

Even though this is one possible outcome, it is possible that the 'elites' will also be part of the same landslide, and that that the foundations of what is considered to be wealth will crumble along with everything else. Newer things** that are more related to human survival will be considered to have value, and only those who sieze these (if this can be done) will have wealth.

Your next paragraph does hint at the crumbling of centralisation (ie people against each other), and this centralisation is also a feature in the concentration of wealth.

What I'm saying above is a return to what I was saying earlier about the 'elites' not being the central problem after all, and that they are just a convenient scapegoat for everything bad.

ETA ** Older things actuallly, just like a lot of the solutions will not be 'new' things, they will just seem that way.

At first glance your reasoning seems sound, but I do think there are a few flaws with it upon reflection. First of all you say that it is possible that the elites will come down in the landslide with all people. While certain elites may do so, I doubt this will be a universal case among them for a number of reasons. For one, it is within the grasp of the elites to utilize highly advanced weaponry to take out their claims, as they are the only ones with direct access to it (this is potential for certain of the rich as well as military elites). If owning certain peaces of choice land that remains fruitful in a coming collapse could not be secured through law and deed alone, the weapons will be useful to securing it.

Besides that, storage of natural seeds have been put away, and the first ones to have access to this will no doubt be the elites, and again they are sure to defend their rights to it.

Also, when we are here speculating about how all the resources are being used up and the evironment sullied and what not, it is through the directives of figures in power that the same processes continue to run. How can we even know that bringing the world to this state (of crisis) is not part of some overarching plan? I don't mean to say it must necessarily be a plan, but we don't really know that it's not. Perhaps there is some credence to the idea that weather manipulation/weather warfare is currently possible or being perfected, as well as the possibility that an environmental crisis might be manufactured to justify the imposition of centralized planning.

The last paragraph above is more speculation, though there are documents from the government that do talk about weather warfare, as well as the book by the club of rome about creating a revolution from an environmental crisis... the first paragraphs are less speculative.

[jakell]

I'm not really in the teaching business, and I'm no longer too bothered about getting the point over to people new to the idea, that was me a decade ago. I'll leave that to others who are relatively fresh and possibly more motivated.

I might suggest that we are always teaching, through our words and by our example. Already you are an example of a free, acting, and thinking individual. There are lessons to be had in these.

Sorry, but that's the only paradigm shift I can see.

I hope this isn't a call to despair. In this forum as well as other places we can see evidence that such a paradigm shift has already taken place or is in the process of taking place. Perhaps in times like these it is for us to rally our strength and become conscious of our actions and their effects in the world.

What you said is not really what I mean by teaching. To me teaching is a positive conscious act and something that is a craft to be honed, in other words, it is not something we are doing simply by communicating.

Regarding 'despair', this is really an end-point, and there are plenty of steps before then. You may be thinking of depression, and this is not an end-point, but a stage. I've already brought this up in the mention of denial, bargaining, anger and depression, sometimes depression is actually a natural response to externalities that we have (or think we have) little control over.

[Luther Blissett]

Sorry, but that's the only paradigm shift I can see.

I hope this isn't a call to despair. In this forum as well as other places we can see evidence that such a paradigm shift has already taken place or is in the process of taking place. Perhaps in times like these it is for us to rally our strength and become conscious of our actions and their effects in the world.

The only belief I allow myself are that people are inherently good. I have to come to this based on our response to crises in spite of the popular media's portrayal of human savagery in disaster time.

There's something within every highly competitive person to love others, trying to present itself. Greed is an accidental disease.

[jakell]

I'm not too sure about your equating of 'highly competitive' with 'not good', but I'm generally in agreement.

It can be seen that behind a large amount of apparent acts of hatred, the driving force is love for something else, whether this has been appropriated for these ends or not.
The smaller amount of acts that areleft over are the ones I (tentatively) class as evil.

[TheBlackSheep]

What you said is not really what I mean by teaching. To me teaching is a positive conscious act and something that is a craft to be honed, in other words, it is not something we are doing simply by communicating.

Regarding 'despair', this is really an end-point, and there are plenty of steps before then. You may be thinking of depression, and this is not an end-point, but a stage. I've already brought this up in the mention of denial, bargaining, anger and depression, sometimes depression is actually a natural response to externalities that we have (or think we have) little control over.

I'm not really sure of your point on either of these is. I'm quite aware of what teaching is formally. That doesn't take away from the fact that our unconscious actions do act as lessons for ourselves and others.

And in regard to iamwhoiam's comment I was referring to despair as an end point...

We've been piloted by greed too close to the black hole of destruction, and still they push on, knowing we've past the point of no return.

Mass exterminations brought about by the most diabolical means will slow things down and further concentrate wealth.

I don't mean some neat poison gas or deadly virus, but by starvation, and the pitting of individuals against each other desperate for survival. It will be brutally ugly and lethal to tens if not hundreds of millions.

Sorry, but that's the only paradigm shift I can see.

The final words of that post seemed to be implying that we might as well give up, if a terrible horror was all that was about to befall us.