Abundance in a World of Limited Resources (Blog)

[Savage]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Abundance in a World of Limited Resources

[Elfwing]

What helped me most was thinking about what my life would be like if I actually became homeless. I could live on the beach and sleep under the stars each night. I could work on my social skills. I could learn to get better at drawing. I’d have lots of freedom. I could learn new languages from bilingual homeless people. I could go to libraries and read. I could meditate and go running each day. I could write a book about the experience. I could even do volunteer work to help people. I soon realized that even if I had no money at all, I could still live a pretty cool life. It was within my power to do so.

This paragraph makes me want to up and leave, if it weren't for the fact I like having regular meals. :P Still, a very interesting take, and I can easily have that life without needing to be homeless.

[crescentia]

As someone who has been heavily influenced by environmentalist and anarcho-primitivist ideals, this is the post I have been waiting for. Thank you Steve for sharing a different way of looking at things!

[bright]

Some people desire to create more sustainability in the world, which is partly about shifting away from non-renewable resources and towards renewable resources.

I don’t presently consider myself a proponent of the sustainability movement though. I think there are more beneficial growth lessons to be learned from cycles of excess and scarcity than there are from long-term sustainability.

If we went along with this idea and used up all the available fossil fuels as part of the 'cycle' of scarcitiy, how will the 'cycle' of excess start? Will new oil magically be found pouring from the ground, or perhaps it will rain? And if the cycle of excess will simply mean using solar energy or renewable energy sources, why not try to use them as soon as possible, why wait until all the oil in the world has run out?

If we went along with this idea and completed the 'cycle of scarcity' for oil, are you considering the damaging effects it will have on the environment of the world during this time, with all the added pollution and the greenhouse effect?

There's no such thing as 'cycle of excess' and 'cycle of scarcity' in nature. That implies that nature owes us excess after scarcity - it doesn't. The history is full of species for whom the resources got scarce and they never got the abundance back, they simply died away. Examples: mammoths, neandrethals, sabre tooth cats, etc. If we're to survive, we mustn't rely on nature to go through 'cycles', we must find intelligent ways to sustain ourselves, something that you're disagreeing with here.

If my own life had been more balanced, I doubt I’d have learned as much as I did. I think it would be boring and depressing to live as many animals in nature do

So what particular enjoyment do you get driving a car that runs with oil, verses one that drives with solar energy or bio degradable fuel?

[Rachelle]

Originally Posted by bright

There's no such thing as 'cycle of abundance' and 'cycle of scarcity' in nature.

Actually, there kind of is.

Rabbits and foxes: biological population cycles. is a well-known example.

This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in nature, but it does indeed exemplify alternating 'cycles of abundance' and 'cycles of scarcity' that exist in nature.

[bright]

Originally Posted by Rachelle

Actually, there kind of is.

Rabbits and foxes: biological population cycles. is a well-known example.

This doesn't necessarily apply to everything in nature, but it does indeed exemplify alternating 'cycles of abundance' and 'cycles of scarcity' that exist in nature.

Rabbits procreate and their numbers can increase, whereas fossil fuels and other resources humans depend on are finite.. they don't increase for millions of years once they've been used up.

[Savage]

Fossil fuels will be essentially gone when they're used up. Much of modern society depends on them now, so there will obviously be big changes when that happens. We can attempt to devise alternatives now or do without later. I think either option would make for an interesting story.

Biofuels aren't much of an option yet. Ethanol, for instance, costs more energy to produce than it gives back. The most viable options would be solar and wind.

[James81]

Originally Posted by bright

There's no such thing as 'cycle of excess' and 'cycle of scarcity' in nature.

That's spoken like someone who rarely ever gets out into nature.

Last year, in my area, we had a pretty harsh winter. We had two blizzards (over 24 inches of snow, and one was 36 inches of snow), and the snow laid on the ground from December through March.

This year, when people went deer hunting, they commented on how little the deer were moving this year, when the truth is that last winter probably killed a lot of them off naturally because they had no access to food (they usually eat grass, acorns, etc.).

This year, there are acorns EVERYWHERE. I mean the woods are just full of them. Assuming that we don't have a similar winter this year (lots of snow), I fully expect that NEXT year we will have deer coming out our arses.

And it's a cycle I've seen my whole life, being one who has went hunting every year since I was 8 years old and someone who likes to hike and go out in the woods and stuff like that.

There's a natural rhythm to things. Some years, you have an abundance of food available to the wildlife (acorns and stuff like that)...and you see the effects of that in the NEXT season. Some years you have harsh winters and times when the trees aren't producing acorns...and you see the effects of that as well.

[Rachelle]

Originally Posted by bright

Rabbits procreate and their numbers can increase, whereas fossil fuels and other resources humans depend on are finite.. they don't increase for millions of years once they've been used up.

Where did fossil fuels come from? Fossil fuels are made from buried dead organisms. It's very possible that millions of years from now our dead bodies and the bodies from many other creatures on Earth will have turned into fossil fuel. It may be a *very* long cycle, but it's a cycle none the less.

[Elfwing]

Originally Posted by Rachelle

Where did fossil fuels come from? Fossil fuels are made from buried dead organisms. It's very possible that millions of years from now our dead bodies and the bodies from many other creatures on Earth will have turned into fossil fuel. It may be a *very* long cycle, but it's a cycle none the less.

It'll be a bit late by then!

[supertom]

for those of your interested theres actually a field called abundance economics/ post scarcity economics. For when we have "abundance of fundamental resources (matter, energy and intelligence)"

[Supertramp]

I don’t need to make more money or acquire more prestige or gain more web traffic in order to be happier. I can be happy simply expressing my creativity. Certain tools like a computer and the Internet help me do that, and I’m grateful for them as well, but if they were all stripped from me, I could still express my creativity with sticks and stones. Even if I ended up paralyzed, I could build new creations within my mind, and I could still feel grateful for the ability to do that.

you remind me of Stephen Hawking Steve!

[Xamuel]

In a world of scarcity, there are giant 30-story Super-8 Motels, and dinky little 2-story MGM Grand's.

Does that sound like the world which we live in?

[Rachelle]

Originally Posted by Elfwing

It'll be a bit late by then!

Of that I have no doubt.

I was merely trying to put forth the idea that there's still a cycle in effect, even if the cycle is millions of years long.

[supertom]

Does abundance come under polarity as in lightworker?

[escapeplan]

I agree with Bright.

Since Steve has started with oil as the example I think it's probably fair to say that Michael Ruppert has the correct predictions about the fate of "civilised society" when we reach breaking point.

The real alternatives to oil seem so far away and the problem so close, that a realistic solution is looking increasingly unlikely. I suspect a world that comes to such a situation will not afford us the safety or peace of mind to happily be homeless gazing to the stars, and writing books.

I'd even go further than that and suggest it's time that this abundance mentality is put to bed once and for all. We can theorise, talk about this being a dream state, and so forth- but that doesn't alter reality. Resources are scarce, things will run out, evolution and natural selection does not "provide abundance for all".

If things like the real problem with oil, limited food and so forth are to be addressed, then glossing over the issues with abundance mentality is not the answer- nor does that fit into the TLP framework when, as Bright already mentioned- creatures do become extinct.

I've been on these forums long enough to know that people will now start highlighting words I've used like "reality" and asking me to define it, in order to prove a tangent counter argument. Nevertheless, all the clever wording in the world will not alter a very real issue that we don't have much time to solve.

[Tanja]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

The real alternatives to oil seem so far away and the problem so close, that a realistic solution is looking increasingly unlikely.

I'd even go further than that and suggest it's time that this abundance mentality is put to bed once and for all. We can theorise, talk about this being a dream state, and so forth- but that doesn't alter reality. Resources are scarce, things will run out, evolution and natural selection does not "provide abundance for all".

Resource are scarce, yes.But maybe it depends which ones? If we're talking about oil/fossil fuels I agree,and I'm aware of how much our society depends on them. However, we have ''abundance'' of other alternative energy resources solar/wind/ tidal power (as already mentioned).

I think now is the time to start with ''smaller'' changes in the way we get and use energy, for example, I've read that 45% of Portugal's electricity is now from renewable resources, and I think Germany and Belgium subsidize passive houses (solar panels).
I'm aware that in the industry things require bigger changes..but, you have to start somewhere?

I guess what it all boils down to is money...again..

IMO, the same goes with abundance/scarcity mindset in our personal lives, we tend to focus on the things that are ''running out'' and fail to see other alternatives..

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Tanja

Resource are scarce, yes.But maybe it depends which ones? If we're talking about oil/fossil fuels I agree,and I'm aware of how much our society depends on them. However, we have ''abundance'' of other alternative energy resources solar/wind/ tidal power (as already mentioned).

I think now is the time to start with ''smaller'' changes in the way we get and use energy, for example, I've read that 45% of Portugal's electricity is now from renewable resources, and I think Germany and Belgium subsidize passive houses (solar panels).
I'm aware that in the industry things require bigger changes..but, you have to start somewhere?

I guess what it all boils down to is money...again..

IMO, the same goes with abundance/scarcity mindset in our personal lives, we tend to focus on the things that are ''running out'' and fail to see other alternatives..

I agree, you have to start somewhere, and it actually worries me more when you say it boils down to money. If some of the greediest companies, utilising some of the brightest minds cannot find real alternatives, then it demonstrates how serious the situation is. I don't think we are anywhere near to a time when renewable sources can replace what we have.

One of my biggest "issues" with this particular article is that it detracts from the severity of the issue by approaching it in a positive light. Now I'm all for positive thinking (believe it or not!) but this is something the human race needs to tackle head on. Burying our heads in the sand is of little use.

When people start talking about natural cycles they don't see the whole picture. Maybe a more positive approach would be to recognise that there is a huge problem and take it from there- but the truth is it's largely out of our hands. While we may get a fuzzy feeling from using energy efficient lightbulbs, switching our TV's off rather than leave on standby and re-cycling the milk cartons, I'd question whether this will make any difference to the overall outcome.

[James81]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

If some of the greediest companies, utilising some of the brightest minds cannot find real alternatives, then it demonstrates how serious the situation is.

"I know that we can have alternative energy. And I know this because I have this. I'm holding an iphone in my hand....I can download 3 million vaginas a minute into this thing, don't tell me we can't have alternative energy." --Lewis Black

Originally Posted by Tanja

I guess what it all boils down to is money...again..

You're right...it does.

There's some very powerful, very rich people who stand to lose a lot of money if alternative energy sources became mainstream.

The problem isn't finding a way to mainstream these alternative sources. We've already got all the technology in place to do that at any time we wanted. The problem is that we are going to have to wait until the oil supply is exhausted so that these very rich, very powerful people can get all their money out of it that they can and then safely get their foot in the door on the new source of energy that comes out.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

One of my biggest "issues" with this particular article is that it detracts from the severity of the issue by approaching it in a positive light. Now I'm all for positive thinking (believe it or not!) but this is something the human race needs to tackle head on. Burying our heads in the sand is of little use.

You seem worried. What's your concern about what might happen next?

[Savage]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

When people start talking about natural cycles they don't see the whole picture. Maybe a more positive approach would be to recognise that there is a huge problem and take it from there- but the truth is it's largely out of our hands. While we may get a fuzzy feeling from using energy efficient lightbulbs, switching our TV's off rather than leave on standby and re-cycling the milk cartons, I'd question whether this will make any difference to the overall outcome.

It sounds like you want to make a change in the world, but you feel powerless to do so. If you'd like to change such things, you're hardly powerless. It may take time, but you could build up the strength to make a global change if you really had the will to do so.

The problem is only out of your hands because you make it so.

Or you can give up without even trying and encourage people to panic instead.

[Jeff Lilly]

The story I'd like to see is for people (myself included) to learn that good lessons and good stories don't have to involve pain. Deep beauty -- the highest goal of art -- comes from contrast, but the contrast doesn't have to be pain/not pain.

[escapeplan]

Originally Posted by Savage

It sounds like you want to make a change in the world, but you feel powerless to do so. If you'd like to change such things, you're hardly powerless. It may take time, but you could build up the strength to make a global change if you really had the will to do so.

The problem is only out of your hands because you make it so.

Or you can give up without even trying and encourage people to panic instead.

As for what may happen next- like I said, I think Michael Ruppert has it right. I'd love to change the world and on this example, I am handing my power away intentionally to those who are certainly better suited to solve the problem than I am. This is one battle, I'm sitting out of.

To a degree I think an element of panic is needed. Many of the best technological advances happen during times of war out of necessity. Perhaps a growing urgency is what is needed...

[fizzleboink]

I think this was one of Steve's best articles of all time. I think he just pushed himself to a whole new level.

I really enjoyed reading about your point of view on this, Steve. I've been battling with the abundance/scarcity mindset for a long time now.

[crescentia]

@escapeplan Sounds like you're afraid that the world is going to end and that you'll lose everything that you have. I do agree that it's something more people need to pay attention to, but if anything this post by Steve shows that an abundance mentality and recognizing the limits of our current situation are not irreconcilable.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by Tanja

I think now is the time to start with ''smaller'' changes in the way we get and use energy, for example, I've read that 45% of Portugal's electricity is now from renewable resources, and I think Germany and Belgium subsidize passive houses (solar panels).
I'm aware that in the industry things require bigger changes..but, you have to start somewhere?

I happen to be a bit familiar with this because my dad has his own company (plumbing) in the Netherlands. According to him, the cost of getting solar panels or at least your water heated from solar energy is still to high.

You would get your money back, meaning the money you save on electricity vs the purchasing cost of the equipment in about 7 years. However; the average life span of the equipment right now is between 5 and 7 years...
Not saving money yet.

There are subsidized plans available but 1. they are complicated and usually come in the way of a tax return and 2. they are not enough to offset the balance or the initial purchasing price.

The problem you have here is that until more people buy it the purchasing price will not go down because producing more (and creating economies of scale; meaning production cost will go down) is not worth it for the companies yes. However, people will not buy more, unless the price will go down.

There is a balance tip somewhere, and things will go slow until they reach that point. At that moment, things will improve faster then you can imagine.

A 100 years ago the Internet was unimaginable. 50 years ago, we could imagine it. 30 years ago it was semi reality (for the lucky few). 20 years ago it started seeping into the common house holds. Now, it is impossible to imagine a world without internet.
When change comes, it always seems far away. And then suddenly within 20 or 30 years it is part of reality.

I am not worried at all. Humans will adapt and survive. We are worse then cockroaches!

[Savage]

Originally Posted by escapeplan

As for what may happen next- like I said, I think Michael Ruppert has it right. I'd love to change the world and on this example, I am handing my power away intentionally to those who are certainly better suited to solve the problem than I am. This is one battle, I'm sitting out of.

To a degree I think an element of panic is needed. Many of the best technological advances happen during times of war out of necessity. Perhaps a growing urgency is what is needed...

Then I would suggest that you're part of the problem you've identified.

You're essentially being the problem... and projecting it outwards. You can't sit out a problem that's within you. It's already under your skin, so to speak.

All you can do is shift between varying degrees of hope and denial, which as you've seen, isn't particularly effective.

You're still 100% responsible for it.

[secrets0stolen]

I found it really interesting to see you address this Steve! You had some good points, but overall I agree with escapeplan that the article minimized the real problem. Recently, I've been taking the perspective that the material, physical world is primary (things have been working out great with that and make a lot of sense!), and I think that's mainly the perspective that's appropriate here.

[Savage]

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

I found it really interesting to see you address this Steve! You had some good points, but overall I agree with escapeplan here.

You believe the world is doomed, and you feel powerless to do anything about it?

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by Savage

You believe the world is doomed, and you feel powerless to do anything about it?

I elaborated in my edit

I don't believe the world is doomed at all. The world will almost certainly go on--and industrial civilization is likely doomed. Which mainly means two things a) lots of people will die, b) the earth will recover (anyone see how well Chernobyl did? Chernobyl: Nuclear Wasteland? Or Nature Reserve? - ABC News). People will likely stick around too in smaller numbers. We've already drastically overshot the earth's carrying capacity, and so our own mistakes will bring us down one way or another. The variable is what we'll take down with us.