Vermont Peak Oil Network Newsletter |
It has been said that we are not facing an energy crisis, but rather an energy shortage leading to a cultural crisis. There are many technical ways to make do with a somewhat smaller dose of our fossil fuel fix. But powering down is impossible, not only due to our growth-based financial system, but also because it runs against human nature. We have evolved, millions of years ago, in the context of resource scarcity. Thus we tend to seek domination of resources, and are hard-wired to make use of all the resources we can corner, in order to enhance the number of our likely surviving descendents. This does not have to happen on a conscious level, the subconscious drives may subvert any ideology or education. We build elaborate mental superstructures, such as religion, or theories of economics, and do not realize that it is all just papering over the reptilian brain.
In biological evolution, copies of genes is all that counts. Any physical or behavioral trait that is genetically determined evolves, in ways that enhance the success of the genes carrying that trait to reproduce themselves, relative to alternative versions of these genes. Natural selection is often misunderstood to be working for the good of the species. That is not the case, although often what is good for the gene is also good for the individuals and for the species. A very good explanation of all this can be found in the book "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins. (Caution: this book may make you gloomy!) But the message of this book is unwanted by most people, and thus it has been criticised by many, including some who havn't even read it. Some think that its title refers to a gene for selfishness, or that the book suggests that we should be selfish. Rather, the point is that the gene itself is selfish, not in the sense that it thinks or feels, but in the sense that natural selection pits one gene against another, with no regard for anything else. Nevertheless, some altruistic behaviors, where individuals make an effort, and even endanger themselves, for the sake of the group, are seen in nature. These can usually be explained by the fact that the small groups involved are genetically related, and the behavior is a benefit to the gene that causes it, at the expense of the individual that is carrying one copy of the gene. The exception proves the rule.
Given all that, can we expect people to voluntarily limit their reproduction, or live more modestly than they can? Even if a group manages to do that, it would be overcome by other groups that are doing the ancient conquer-and-reproduce thing. This has happened many times in history, especially in the last 500 years as the aggressive European mercantile drive displaced one native culture after another. The only way that an old, stable, culture could defend itself was by adopting a militaristic stance, thus becoming their own enemy - see "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunshine" by Thom Hartmann. In "Against the Grain: How Agriculture Has Hijacked Civilization", Richard Manning says that the invention of agriculture made it possible for one person to feed several, and this enabled some humans to enslave others and live off their surplus product. This domineering continues to our day, "The Culture of Make Believe" by Derrick Jensen expounds on the many ways in which the USA is guilty of brutally exploiting others. Although old-style slavery has been finessed into subtler forms, it may make a comeback, as once again feeding human slaves may become more profitable than fueling and maintaining machines.
While our future as a species depends on our getting together to deal with Peak Oil and Climate Change via cooperation and self-limitation, our nature is such that we will rather kill each other. Just watch how the world's only military superpower, and biggest gas-guzzler, is putting all its resources into the "last man standing" warmongering approach, rather than mention the "C" word (conservation). Even when we look for "alternatives" they involve using other people's food (or arable land) as feedstock for making fuel for our wheeled toys. And "efficiency" alone does not conserve resources, because what we save by being efficient, we spend on additional consumption. Individual choice to consume less is ineffective, as money not spent directly is loaned by the bank, several times over, to others who want to consume more. This is called "Jevon's Paradox".
Will anything save us? The only hope is to break away from our biological destiny. The genes are selfish, they don't serve us -- can we choose to stop serving them? Perhaps any such attempt is a delusion, or doomed to be overrun by other people. But perhaps it is possible? Evolution gave us brains that can reason and plan ahead, because those are useful tools for the purpose of aggressive domineering. But the same tools can be used for other purposes. It is sort of like buying a Windows PC and running Linux on it instead: the hardware is built to be flexible enough to run other software.
Cultural evolution is not the same as biological evolution, it is not based on genes, and happens much faster. And yet, looking at the actual cultural changes over the centuries, do we see enduring progress? Or is our current notion of progress an illusion, derived from the exuberance of the fossil-fuel-burning party of the last two centuries? Jared Diamond's book "Collapse" is subtitled "How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed". If we fail, it is because we choose to. But do we really have the capacity to choose otherwise? The Easter Islanders failed to choose not to cut their last tree. Will we cut our last trees to keep warm here in Vermont? Perhaps we will be wiser than that, wiser than yeast in a vat of grape juice. Perhaps.