Doom. Doooom, we're all doomed

[QB comes back]

Has anyone else noticed an upsurge in doom disussions lately? When I say doom I mean societal and technological collapse.

My local library now has a doom section where you can find out about emergency preparedness, past societies which have collapsed (e.g. Easter Island etc.) and prophesies of the oncoming collapse of European civilisation. It's around the middle of the 300s in the Dewey system.

A new group called the Dark Mountatin Project which is being discussed on the Guardian. (Incidentally did you also see Mooncups on the Guardian front page this week?)

More and more people discussing peak oil.

This raises a number of questions for me:

1. Has eviromental/population/resources based doom gone mainstream?
2. What do we individually, communually, nationally, and internationally do to cope with this on a practical level? Remember, we're Ish-ers not homesteaders or survival nuts.
3. Should we put all our resources into becoming homesteaders or survival nuts?

Thanks chaps,

QB

[KathyLauren]

I think more people are becoming aware that the road our society is on is heading for a train wreck. This awareness is probably a good thing, if it can motivate people to make significant lifestyle changes.

1. Has eviromental/population/resources based doom gone mainstream?

It might be starting to.

2. What do we individually, communually, nationally, and internationally do to cope with this on a practical level? Remember, we're Ish-ers not homesteaders or survival nuts.

Well, being self-sufficient(ish) is probably one of the best things you can do, both from the point of view of changing our lifestyles to head off the doom scenario, and from the point of view of getting ready to survive it when it happens. I and some of my friends are trying to visualize what a low-impact lifestyle would look like. What we come up with is living as locally as possible. So, community self-sufficiency, if not individual self-sufficiency. Community self-sufficiency feels like a nice, comfortable level of "ish" to me. I like being able to buy real fruit and veggies from neighbours instead of buying supermarket fakes imported from New Zealand.

3. Should we put all our resources into becoming homesteaders or survival nuts?

I certainly wouldn't advocate becoming any kind of nut. And "survivalists", at least on this continent, tend to have an excessive emphasis on "defending your stoclkpile", which, to me, just totally misses the point.

Still, becoming more "ish" will probably resemble homesteading. Or, to put it another way, I think that cities will see the biggest crises in the years ahead, and I cannot see city life remaining viable for much longer (time frame: perhaps our kids' lifetimes). Homesteading, or something much like it, is probably one of the best ways to reduce our resource-dependence, and community self-sufficiency is one of the best ways to reduce transportation of the resources we do use.

[contadino]

I agree with Keith. The UK is waking up - too late and too slowly - but at least it's something. It should also be noted that in the UK this is largely a politically-driven thing (the Low Carbon Transition Plan, the Food Security Initiative, etc..)

Survivalism isn't green, ecological, or ethical. In fact, it's the opposite of all three. Homesteading may well fall into all those brackets. Self-sufficiency is open for debate: It's difficult to be self-sufficient without being green (how many SS people can produce their own GM seeds?), and the ethics of trying to exist individually as 'an island' are questionable.

Community sufficiency is the way to go. I'm not sure where that leaves SSish - growing a few pots of basil of a window ledge isn't gonna make a big difference in the grand scheme of things. Producing and sharing/trading/bartering a significant excess is paramount. Without it, the 'professionals'/leaches on society will perish.

[HedgeComber]

I certainly wouldn't advocate becoming any kind of nut. And "survivalists", at least on this continent, tend to have an excessive emphasis on "defending your stoclkpile", which, to me, just totally misses the point.

Still, becoming more "ish" will probably resemble homesteading. Or, to put it another way, I think that cities will see the biggest crises in the years ahead, and I cannot see city life remaining viable for much longer (time frame: perhaps our kids' lifetimes).

Intersting points. Imagine that cities do fail, where does that mass group of people go to get food? If they come knocking on your front door, hungry, angry thet you have and they dont, and quite prepared to take from you and you family, do you defend yourstockpile then or happily give it away?

[MKG]

I love a good post-apocalyptic novel. However, I know where they come from - the Science Fiction and Fantasy shelf.

The first well-documented (in Europe) gathering of fear and doom merchants was at the turn of the milennium (the first one, that is). Another milennium later, and we're still at it.

Society will either collapse totally - in which case, believe me, there won't be hordes of hungry people invading the countryside because they'll all have died as a result of sticking to the cities to the bitter end - or it won't. Consumerist living standards MUST go down, but that doesn't mean the end of the world (unless you're a consumerist).

Sorry, but survivalists are merely another form of the disease which we suffer from at regular intervals - extremism.

Mike

[John Headstrong]

Community sufficiency is the way forward, local food coops, allotments, gardens, Community-supported agriculture, fruit trees everywhere etc. I am working on these things now, My wife and I have helped setup the local community development trust and my wife setup the local food coop and the network of food coops in the county and the wholesale distributor for local food. More plans are to teach people to cook with real ingredients get some more allotments for the town.

I can see a huge problem ahead, it is has many names, peak oil (peak everything), climate change, financial collapse, whatever you want to call it. what we should be doing now is deciding how we want to live within our communitys and learning whatever skills we can to help ourselves and our community change and adapt to what is coming.

The whole 'mad max' style collapse with roaming bands of hungry gun totting angry people is not very likely. like MKG says, most will stay in city until it is to late, also hungry people are crap at fighting, honestlly try it, have minimum to eat for a week then walk from the city to where there might be some food. (see Irish famine for more details)

[MKG]

Couldn't agree more John. And we do have a precedent. Britain (in fact every country, as most survivalists forget or ignore) was, not that long ago, an agrarian economy. OK - there were wars over the centuries, but those involved soldiers, not peasants (no matter what Victorian history tells us). OK, there are always absolutist politicians/dictators, but that's a mere veneer. No-one (sane) killed farmers because it's extremely counter-productive. No-one fought a war to take over a wasteland. Co-operative agrarian societies developed because that's the only way to develop a society. If that hadn't happened, we wouldn't be sitting here discussing it.

Best of luck with all of your projects.

Mike

[KathyLauren]

Imagine that cities do fail, where does that mass group of people go to get food? If they come knocking on your front door, hungry, angry thet you have and they dont, and quite prepared to take from you and you family, do you defend yourstockpile then or happily give it away?

That's why survivalism misses the point. "Stockpiling" does not make any sense.

Yes, it is prudent to have a small reserve so you can ride out a storm or other minor emergency. But we are not talking about a minor emergency. The hard times to come will be the mother of all emergencies. There will be no "after". The emergency will be the permanent way of life.

Stockpiling makes no sense for the same reason that our current extravagant lifestyles make no sense: they are not sustainable. How long can you live off a stockpile? Until it's gone. How long can you burn oil? Until it is all gone. How long can you strip-mine the fish from the sea? Until they are all gone. How long can you dump CO2 into the air? Until it breaks something. It's all the same disease.

That is why community self-sufficiency makes sense. As a self-sufficientish community, your needs are modest and you provide for them among yourselves. What little trading needs to be done is done with neighbouring communities, not across oceans. WHatever waste is produced is recycled locally into useful materials. What you have that is of most value is something that pillagers from cities can never steal - your knowledge and skills.

[eccentric_emma]

My local library now has a doom section where you can find out about emergency preparedness, past societies which have collapsed (e.g. Easter Island etc.) and prophesies of the oncoming collapse of European civilisation. It's around the middle of the 300s in the Dewey system.

Deviating slightly from the main subject point - is the library section actually called the 'doom' section?!!!

[frozenthunderbolt]

Has anyone else noticed an upsurge in doom disussions lately? When I say doom I mean societal and technological collapse.

My local library now has a doom section where you can find out about emergency preparedness, past societies which have collapsed (e.g. Easter Island etc.) and prophesies of the oncoming collapse of European civilisation. It's around the middle of the 300s in the Dewey system.

A new group called the Dark Mountatin Project which is being discussed on the Guardian. (Incidentally did you also see Mooncups on the Guardian front page this week?)

More and more people discussing peak oil.



QB

Dark Mountatin Project, while slightly gothic in decor, is relatively sensible - not so much 'doomer' as realigning societal narratives - the eight points on their site are more accessible than the manifesto.

Peak oil is fact - that it is more prominent in social discussion and consciousness is stressful but ultimately beneficial IMHO it raises the chances of some useful actions, research and restructuring being undertaken in prudent time.

Peace

[Helsbells]

Hi everyone,

I am eally interested in the whole apocalyptic, end of life as we know it, doom etc, I find it fascinating, and love imagining what it might be like.

I have read a few books recently about it actually, particularly relating to peak oil: "The last oil shock" and "Half gone". Both books discuss how we are very soon going to hit a peak of the amount of oil that we can extract, and what happens then?

Also recently read "The world without us" Which raises some really interesting points about the permenant damage we have done to the world.

Basically I think the govornment is running out of time for us to to make a smooth transition from being mad for oil to not having oil any more, if they dont get a move on the it may well be apocalyptic.

I hope it isnt I really hope everyone realises that we cant keep living like this any more and we do become selfsufficient communities and live locally. It would be lovely I think.

Helen
x

[Helsbells]

If you have an hour spare, this is quite a good documentary about the end of oil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3uvzcY2Xug

[Fifer182]

I hope it isnt I really hope everyone realises that we cant keep living like this any more and we do become selfsufficient communities and live locally. It would be lovely I think.

Helen
x

I certainly agree with that sentiment.

This doom thing has been floating around the net for some time now.. I suppose that to an extent it's in our basic programming as humans to fear the doom scenario ( think about the wee guys who used to stoll around town with 'the end is nigh' sandwich boards etc) and that electronic communication has made it easier and faster to 'spread the word' so to speak.
I think the whole thing that ultimately will/has caused the shotrages is based on the human condition of 'more is best'. In other words, imo- the greed of our species has become its ultimate foe. I think some folks are waking up and smelling the coffee and beginning to see the errors of their way of life but as for large companies and power elites - well.. I'm just not sold! I think these guys are the ones who'll pillage and pilfer from others globally with a burning desire to 'control'.. think economy, oil, pharmaceuticals, food sources, water etc... and probably all under the guise of maintaining humanitarian rights and protection of our liberty! Hmmmm....
And all the time.. drilling home the thought that there's not enough of this, that and the next thing and that we need them to save us! Save us exactly from what?????

Anyway.. that's just my tuppence worth

[grahamhobbs]

I think the whole thing that ultimately will/has caused the shotrages is based on the human condition of 'more is best'. In other words, imo- the greed of our species has become its ultimate foe

I do not think people are inherently greedy, it is the system, a system evolved by a rich minority that demands a return on the capital invested, ie. the production of things essentially to make a profit, things are only produced if they make a profit. It is the drive for profit, in competition against other businesses driven by a similar need, that detirmines what is made, how it is made, distributed and sold - it is not necessarily what people want or need.
In so the called developing countries, food is produced and exported to the West, whilst the people of those countries live at almost starvation level.
In this country (Britain), if it wasn't for the fact that a small minority own the vast majority of the land, every family could have 3 acres of agricultural land each. This would be sufficient to provide most of your food and heating, and you would still be able to do 4 days a week working elsewhere.

[Helsbells]

I think I agree Graham,
We are also told that we should want things and that stuff and money will make us happy (through the media) because this is good for the economy. Not good for our mental heath thought.

if it wasn't for the fact that a small minority own the vast majority of the land, every family could have 3 acres of agricultural land each. This would be sufficient to provide most of your food and heating, and you would still be able to do 4 days a week working elsewhere.

This is a good statistic, where did you find this out as I would like to pass this info on to some members of my family who just think there are too many people in the world and so some have to starve!!