Personal Consequences - Worst Case

[ccgwebmaster]

Easy, go where the survival experts live: Africa. They'll teach you how to get by.

And seriously - if you want answers to basic questions about how to live with almost nothing, Africa is a good place to start. There are already people living with almost nothing today.

[ccgwebmaster]

One underlying theme I'm noticing in these discussions is that the main motivation seems to be a fear of dying. Is that a good or a bad motivator? Is survivalism a smart form of selfishness? Or does it stand in the way of working at solutions?

I think you're quite correct to identify the question of selfishness in survivalism. I wouldn't agree I'm motivated by a fear of dying, if my assumption that death is an absolute ending is correct - death is the solution to all one's problems. What else can one worry about afterwards? That said it's also irreversible so I've always stuck to living (out of stubbornness if nothing else - I can't say the thought hasn't crossed my mind at times).

At first glance, one might mistake me for a survivalist - one necessarily must survive in the first place to do anything further. Really though I am trying to push a whole different outlook and philosophy - one that ultimately implements a civilisation that can advance without the failure points we tripped up on.

The question of selfishness I find concerning is a lot of people are still only thinking short term. They are failing to consider future generations adequately and it is this thinking that got us into this mess to start with.

I don't care how many bullets and baked beans you have (while granting some may be prudent), or how many tonnes of gear you hoarded. This is not a short duration crisis. Nobody is going to magically put things back as they were even after years pass.

Tools will break, rust, and wear. Finite supplies will be consumed. What will your children and grandchildren do? Don't you care about this? Isn't this the problem that caused all this to start with - a failure to look into the future and selflessly care about future generations?

Accordingly this is why I started looking at "how do you build a civilisation out of nothing". It is difficult and complex. One key is to try to set a sustainable course. A sustainable course that will lead to a better future - and that is very unlikely to come to anything resembling fruition in my lifetime, or even that of any children and grandchildren (given my extremely limited resources especially).

Far too many people, I am afraid to say, removed from the struggle to survive for some generations as they are - are a little naive about it.

Also if I'm going to dump in another pet peeve, if I had a local currency unit every time I heard someone say "we can scavenge metals from the wreckage of the old civilisation". To predicate a civilisation upon finite supplies of chemically active (mostly) metals is stupid. It is essentially the same as relying upon finite supplies of fossil fuel!

I am trying to combine elements of:
- survivalism, to meet the immediate requirement to survive to do more
- transition, how to predicate a civilisation upon sustainability
- long term ism, to consider generations far into the future, as some native american tribes did
- progress, to recognise that we ought to try to realise our potential as a species

[ritter]

I hate to burst the New Zealand bubble, but they are experiencing climate impacts, too.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874948

Climate norms seem to be changing just about everywhere and quickly. We can argue for tech fixes but until we can cheat evolution quickly enough to keep up with the changing climate, we will have difficulty feeding 7+ billion people. This does not even consider the challenges of relocating all of the infrastructure to accommodate a shift in ag production belts.

[ccgwebmaster]

I hate to burst the New Zealand bubble, but they are experiencing climate impacts, too.

I don't think anywhere will escape. I am not going to burst the New Zealand bubble though, because I strongly believe it is one of the relatively few places that will remain climatically viable and theoretically secure into the longer term future.

"Climatically viable" doesn't mean "life continues as usual", it just means it ought to be possible to survive there long term. The UK is also climatically viable, once the carrying capacity excess is shed (ie much of the population dies).

So if I'm going to burst a bubble - it's this idea that there is somehow some utopian refuge from all this - there isn't. There's "worse" and "much worse" - those are the choices.

[wanderer]

Some worst case advice:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/advice-for-parents-at-the-end-of-the-world.html

Sounds bad...

[fishmahboi]

Some worst case advice:

http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/2013/04/advice-for-parents-at-the-end-of-the-world.html

Sounds bad...

If the world is really going to be that bad is there any point in trying to survive. Living out one's days in fear of attack.

[Kate]

to amplify fiction further:
New Zealand will be ruled by military then - but I don't think they will banish people, that already live there. so you either be there before everything starts or as a normal citizen you won't be able to get there...  Intruders will be refused and events in the rest of the world will be carefully surveyed and hopefully there will be other safe havens...

Are you from NZ? Honestly, this is the LAST thing NZ would do. Truly, do you know anything about the last 40 years of NZ politics??

[ccgwebmaster]

If the world is really going to be that bad is there any point in trying to survive. Living out one's days in fear of attack.

If one gets past the period of population vs carrying capacity adjustment for your region, why the assumption the world will remain in a high conflict state? People have strong tendencies towards cooperation or at least coexistence too - we don't usually rush to fight each other without some external pressure acting, do we? (while I grant the external pressure isn't always resource driven, it can also be ideological)

I think so many people in developed nations associate happiness and success with the lifestyle because the capitalistic consumerist society indoctrinates people to think that way. Then you see crime from people who are unable to participate effectively (ie poor) - they aren't stealing things they NEED like food at this stage in many cases, but they will steal things to get "stuff" as that's what they were taught happiness and success is.

When one grows up without any of the usual comforts and indoctrination, western society seems a rather alien place. I can't understand - why can't people in it give up their little toys and comforts? They aren't necessary. Do you think for all of human history before now people were perpetually miserable in their primitive existences?

[wanderer]

I'm afraid it doesn't matter - as far as I know, New Zealand is one of the best democracies that has a better history with natives and woman's rights than most of the other countries, but as I said - it won't matter.

If NZ would be a safe and livable place MANY people and many governments would be interested to live there - what is a better place for surviving mass mortality on the continents, as an island?

Maybe even the UN will build there headquarters there, because NY or Brussels won't be safe then.
So I'm afraid, as good as a democracy or as peaceful NZ nowadays maybe - if it is an interesting geopolitical country, it will be fiercely fought over...

to amplify fiction further:
New Zealand will be ruled by military then - but I don't think they will banish people, that already live there. so you either be there before everything starts or as a normal citizen you won't be able to get there...  Intruders will be refused and events in the rest of the world will be carefully surveyed and hopefully there will be other safe havens...

Are you from NZ? Honestly, this is the LAST thing NZ would do. Truly, do you know anything about the last 40 years of NZ politics??

[ccgwebmaster]

If NZ would be a safe and livable place MANY people and many governments would be interested to live there - what is a better place for surviving mass mortality on the continents, as an island?

Maybe even the UN will build there headquarters there, because NY or Brussels won't be safe then.
So I'm afraid, as good as a democracy or as peaceful NZ nowadays maybe - if it is an interesting geopolitical country, it will be fiercely fought over...

If my view is right that collapse is itself a positive feedback process within the complex interdependent developed world - I seriously doubt there will be a lot of time for many such organised responses as you suggest (ie moving the UN or organised bodies of richer people).

The essential reason for this is that like all positive feedbacks the start is slow and gradual and barely perceptible. With so many people denying either that collapse is even a possibility, and so many more denying that it is possible on short timescales it will come as a relative surprise to the masses. I think that the Arab Spring countries represented the leading edge of the process - and am particularly interested in events in certain southern European countries like Greece, Portugal, Spain and Italy - because they are developed nations.

The smartest people are already moving now. Proaction, not reaction. If you wait for the market crash to arrive to sell your stocks, you waited too long.

I grant I think it possible small groups that are smart might try to invade New Zealand - remnants of collapsed areas - but it's geographically so remote and hard to get to without air travel - and so few people are taking this sort of thing seriously today - I think I'd feel pretty good if I were sat on Greenland. I'd be more concerned about the capability of the nation/government to keep the show running in the absence of the rest of the world than anything else (and I suppose whatever amount of climate change they will get - and if appropriate efforts were being made to mitigate and adapt).

The rich and powerful I think will (fortunately) mostly make the mistake of trying to survive in gated communities or if all else fails underground bunkers. The rapid stage of collapse will occur at the end as the positive feedback effects multiply most rapidly. Life may continue almost as normal in many countries for some time yet...

[wanderer]

I think that some governments already know what could happen, maybe even all of the G8 and more - so that they already have a plan to secure their administrations.
This may sound a bit like a conspiracy theory - but if WE "normal citizens and scientists" know what may happen - how is it possible that all the governments who have access to top scientific research and resources that every small scientist would dream about, don't know anything? and there may also exist some secret societies of rich people. ;-) (okok, this is Roland Emmerich speaking  )

[ccgwebmaster]

I think that some governments already know what could happen, maybe even all of the G8 and more - so that they already have a plan to secure their administrations.
This may sound a bit like a conspiracy theory - but if WE "normal citizens and scientists" know what may happen - how is it possible that all the governments who have access to top scientific research and resources that every small scientist would dream about, don't know anything? and there may also exist some secret societies of rich people. ;-) (okok, this is Roland Emmerich speaking  )

I'm virtually certain a significant number of governments know what is likely to happen and have known for some time.

Look at the timescales within which the Svalbard seed vault was constructed and populated? And the extreme scenarios it's intended to cover? Look at the names behind it? (look at the rules for seed retrieval, and laugh, if you will - once you appreciate why it will never work out as advertised)

Look at the increasing intensification of the police states and the willingness to treat peaceful protestors as criminals and terrorists? Look at the rapid arms race going on in certain parts of the world (Russia and China for example)?

Look at the posturing and increasingly provocative military gestures going on? Even look at what statements do come out of the military about the threats posed by climate change?

While it may not all precisely be driven by this is it is still all part of the same interconnected whole.

Yes, of course it sounds like a conspiracy theory. But consider all the dreadful things governments have done throughout history? Consider the recent behaviour of certain nations violating any concept of due process, right to not be tortured, etc?

Since when did governments ever tell their people the truth?

[wanderer]

Remember the Pentagon Report from 2003 - they know ;-)

http://www.climate.org/topics/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

[ccgwebmaster]

Remember the Pentagon Report from 2003 - they know ;-)

http://www.climate.org/topics/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf

I don't agree 100% with their analysis* - though to be fair they did that a full decade ago! (I bet they wouldn't release an up to date one    and also wonder what the classified versions would say even from a decade ago)

I have to ask myself why I bother to argue the toss with people, when a lot of the key arguments are in there (they even mention that paleoclimatology suggests we may be close to abrupt changes...) and have been available for so long already. I'm pretty sure I've read it before, but I've read so many hundreds (probably thousands) of different things by now it all tends to blur together somewhat. I didn't construct my world view from a single document or idea after all.

*particularly around self sufficiency - I can see they might think to use the "no regrets" approach identified to justify plundering other people for commodities like oil, but it's a little harder to relocate things like Chinese manufacturing capacity...

[Amaranthus]

I'm virtually certain a significant number of governments know what is likely to happen and have known for some time.

That has occurred to me in relation to Stephen bloody Harper's campaign to silence Canadian scientists on the repercussions of the tar sands and the effects of climate change.  When the Prime Minister of a high northern G8 nation institutes what amounts to a gag order on government departments covering environmental heath and welfare...it looks suspicious.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/04/01/information-commissioner-to-investigate-harper-governments-muzzling-of-federal-scientists/

The report, Muzzling Civil Servants: A Threat to Democracy, says the government has implemented policies that “routinely require political approval before scientists can speak to the media about their scientific findings.”

It points to Fisheries and Oceans Canada where communications staff “now comprehensively control interviews” with scientists: “No journalist is to be granted an interview until the minister’s own director of communications has been notified.”

Natural Resources Canada has adopted “particularly strict rules restricting the ability of scientists to talk to the media about ‘climate change’ and ‘oilsands,’” the report says.

One scientist I read an interview with said she had to clear her coversation with the reporter 3 weeks in advance with the communications officer and a monitor (read 'nanny') had to listen in on the phone call to make sure the conversation didn't include 'prohibited' subjects.  Sounds Stalinist to me.  Big Brother is alive and well and his name is Stephen Harper.

[Artful Dodger]

Keeping seed, and gorilla gardening, ...

Haha, Bruce! Love the Freudian pratfall.

[Artful Dodger]

That has occurred to me in relation to Stephen bloody Harper's campaign to silence Canadian scientists on the repercussions of the tar sands and the effects of climate change.  When the Prime Minister of a high northern G8 nation institutes what amounts to a gag order on government departments covering environmental heath and welfare...it looks suspicious.

Hi Amaranthus,

There is a very simple explanation. The Government of Canada concluded some years back that climate change will be a net benefit to Canada.

It's the same reason why Canada withdrew from the Kyoto protocol.

So an even simpler explanation is plain old greed. 

An even more scathing critique / take-down was published in Jan 2009: Is Global Warming Good for Canada?

[Artful Dodger]

So an even simpler explanation is plain old greed. 

From the sad-sack news Department comes this embarasing public statement from a Canadian Government Minister on April 5, 2013: 

Global climate efforts threaten oilsands growth, memo told Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver

OTTAWA – The economic benefits to Canada from oilsands industrial expansion may be “considerably less” than what the Canadian government and industry representatives predict, if the planet collectively takes action to slash the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver was told in an internal memo obtained by Postmedia News.

[TerryM]

Nice catch Lodger.
I liked the following


"The report said the impacts on oilsands investment would, as a result, be “clearly negative,” but it also noted that political resistance from governments could help slow down climate change negotiations and protect the oilsands industry."


Perhaps a look behind the curtains at the Conservative's goals when muzzling science.


Terry