Omigod: toads are exploding in Germany! Eeek.

Sure, the tendency to fret about potential catastrophes is a human universal. (Women generally are prone to dwell on personal and health catastrophes, men on global/abstract/tech catasotrophes, it seems.) The commenters here who say they don't spend mental energy dwelling on potential catastrophes of course aren't lying, but they're talking about something different: how-they-cope-with-anxiety, which they may do brilliantly. But here's the question I'm posing: What's the anxiety?

Another question: where does it come from? A small example: will FedEx really get my resume to that guy on time? Because if it doesn't I won't be getting that job. That's a typical small-scale way of fretting about potential catastrophe. The person who has this concern may be calm about it, and may not get overwrought about it -- I assume we all negotiate life pretty well most of the time. But the concern is still there. The mind seems to generate, unbidden, scenarios of disaster and catastrophe. How we deal with that is a great question, but a different question than the one I'm suggesting, which is: What kinds of disaster-scenarios is your mind most prone to dwelling on or inventing?

The human mind seems to spend a certain amount of time imagining what would happen if something-or-other became a crisis -- it crisis-ifies life. What'll happen if I don't make that payment? What becomes of my retirement fund if the bottom drops out of the economy?

Evidence from the general culture: The news business turns much of what they sell into a crisis -- why? Because ... it sells, and it always has sold, which is a pretty certain indicator that it appeals to some innate tendency/taste/preference we have. Fictional narrative depends on suspense, and what does suspense have to do with? Something awful will happen if something isn't done about it, and pronto. Many religions and mythologies have stories about floods and apocalypses. Disaster movies aren't a specialized taste -- they're as broad-based as can be. (Think "Titanic.") Magazines that sell to rambunctious 25-year-old women are full of articles about breast cancer and bad food additives -- why? Because even splendidly healthy young women seem to like (or be drawn to, or however you want to put it) worrying about these things. They like (or are drawn to, or whatever) imagining catastrophes. The mind does these things whether we want it to or not, and we're drawn in the cultural sphere to this kind of material in the same way that we're drawn to sweet tastes. The urge/preference/desire is unavoidable and built-in.

In day to day life, people routinely worry about what'll happen if property values go down, if college tuitions go up, if that workman doesn't show up or makes off with the downpayment ...

Another example: the libertarian blog ChicagoBoyz. Love it, and this isn't a criticism. But the ChicagoBoyz crew gives every evidence of being drawn to fretting about over-regulation and over-intrusive government. If we let government get away with too much, why ... well, it'd be a catastrophe, or disaster, or crisis, or just plain awful. Why does the ChicagoBoyz crew do this? Partly because it's a reasonable thing to worry about and dwell on, but partly because ... well, the Chicagoboys crew is prone to fretting about these things.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 5, 2005 10:58 AM

I saw an interview last night where the Saudis said that they have enough oil to serve the world's needs for at least another 100 years. Shortage of oil is not the problem, although dependence on Saudi oil might be.

I'm far more worried that I'll ever be able to retire, if I want to press the panic button.

Posted by: annette on May 5, 2005 11:02 AM

Michael: Count me in with the ChicagoBoyz. I am still very concerned about socialism taking over the US in covert form. I actually think my fears are rational and based on evidence but maybe I am just fooling myself.

Interesting thread. Thanks.

Posted by: JT on May 5, 2005 11:37 AM

JT - I'm in the same trench with you, Chicagoboyz and Samizdata (f.ex).
If government overregulation and steady socialism advance over this country is not a catastrophe in itself, it sure makes all other catastrophes much more likely and resolutions of them much more unlikely: tested and proved by that big chunk of unhappiness over at Eastern hemisphere.

Posted by: Tatyana on May 5, 2005 12:33 PM

Our fixation on crises reflects our need for simplicity. Our world is mind-bogglingly complex, frustrating our need to figure it out. A crisis is simple, boiling everything down to one variable, an "if x then y" construct, something we can understand in less than one minute.

One thing I can't explain is our fondness for doom and gloom. Why aren't we just as attracted to simplistic explanations that promise nirvana? We tend to treat those who predict dystopia as respected prophets, while those who promise utopia are treated like snake oil salesmen.

Posted by: Outer Life on May 5, 2005 12:47 PM

Why does the ChicagoBoyz crew do this? Partly because it's a reasonable thing to worry about and dwell on, but partly because ... well, the Chicagoboys crew is prone to fretting about these things.

There is something to what you write, at least as it applies to me (I can't speak for my colleagues). However, one thing that I have noticed as I get older is that I am decreasingly inclined to fret about Big Issues, which seem anyway to be working themselves out without me, while I am increasingly inclined to fret about personal issues -- where the effects of my own decisions (and most especially, my mistakes) are becoming clearer with time.

Posted by: Jonathan on May 5, 2005 01:41 PM

"The U.S. Army, a ragtag collection of illiterate drug addicts in that post-Vietnam era, would be swept aside with massive casualties, while the European NATO armies would mostly just get in the way."

A friend of mine was in that U. S. Army in Europe. One day he happened to read his tank unit's mission statement in case of Soviet attack. Their mission consisted of delaying the Soviet advance for five minutes, until the American tanks were all "put out of commission".

The U.S. troops in Europe were just triggers for nuclear war. The U.S. could just as well have lined up few thousand Rachel Corries against the Soviet tanks, because our tanks weren't going to stop them.

Posted by: John Emerson on May 5, 2005 02:20 PM

Mr. Kellogg writes "[a]ccording to recent reports oil is being produced by anaerobic bacteria living way below the sea floor."

Although a layman to this issue, I have been following it and have read some of what I could find of and about Thomas Gold (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0387985468/lewrockwell/102-4118000-7339342) and Jean Whelan (google her & Woods Hole) and others in support of the alternative theories for the origin oil, as well as both recent books by Deffeyes and several other pieces that support the conventional "fossil fuel" theory, but I have not seen any recent reports definitively supporting the anaerobic or abiotic theory or theories, nor have I found what I would call a definitive debunking of what appears to be established consensus opinion.

Nonetheless, even if there were life forms currently living deep and, presumably, excreting what we call fossil fuels, then questions still remain regarding their digestion rate versus mankinds burn-off rate.

Please send links.

Posted by: Chris Collins on May 5, 2005 02:31 PM

Mr. Emerson:

I worked with a guy who had been a colonel in the U.S. Army and who was quite clear that there was no real obstacle to the Russians taking over Western Europe via conventional military means--they had assets to do it. However, what such a scenario obviously didn't take into account was the strategic issues. Could the USSR "afford" to take over Western Europe? Could it garrison Western Europe while also guarding against potential U.S. reinvasion? Moreover, how about internal uprisings, which would have been virtually certain if too many of their assets were engaged far from home. Sensibly, the Politburo was never really very interested in such "adventures."

Posted by: Friedrich von Blowhard on May 5, 2005 02:50 PM

The mind seems to generate, unbidden, scenarios of disaster and catastrophe.

From the Theocratic Right Wing Nutjob In-A-Nutshell chapbook: that's the result of Original Sin, and it's what we have to live with in a world with free will. The answer, of course, is to turn to the Lord in prayer. So, to answer your question, I don't fret much, except about having enough time to get done all the things I need to Get Done.

Digression about Peak Oil from the 'I'm Living It' Dept.: Ft. Worth, TX, and about six or seven other counties, are sitting smack on top of the largest natural gas field in North America. Until 10 years ao, there was no technology to get it out of the ground. Today, we have the technology, and the 'fretting' today is over having drilling rigs in people's backyards for a few weeks and not owning mineral rights. Now, who believes that we're going to stop the March of Science, and just give up on finding oil?

My point is only this: Doomsday shouters will always have a market, and they'll generally do well, because so many people are just plain negative. It's the easy way to be.

Posted by: Scott Chaffin on May 5, 2005 03:50 PM

FvB, a small note (generally I agree with what you're saying): I think hypothetical possibility of local uprisings back in the rear at discussed time is far from certain.
I was an observant teenager in the 70's and I can tell you for sure: the country was uniformly Soviet, dissidents were at a very small percentage to general population, and even the nationalists on territories acquired 25-30 yrs prior were thoroughly subdued. Economically, Brezhnev's rule haven't bankrupted the country yet, Reagan haven't succeeded at the Evil Empire campaign yet and there were simply not enough incentives for repressed to act against more or less satisfying political system.

Posted by: Tatyana on May 5, 2005 04:47 PM

JT: Oops. I erred. I thank you for the correction.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg on May 5, 2005 06:31 PM

Tatyana, no it's North Korea that's saber rattling over there. I was worrying about my physical therapy appointment today when I wrote it....

Posted by: Deb on May 5, 2005 06:45 PM

kunstler is an idiot in the paul ehrlich mode. You can safely ignore him for several reasons.

First, as technology improves the oil fields we can explore continue to expand. There are actually more proven reserves today than they were 50 years ago - largely because we have better drill bits, better geological models, satellite imaging, and so on. That trend shows no signs of slowing down.

Second and more important, we have nuclear power and fuel cells. If and when it becomes cost-ineffective to use oil, we will switch to nuclear power. Nuclear power can be used to generate electricity which can power fuel cells for transport. Case closed.

All the talk of nuclear waste is more idiocy. Nuclear waste is concentrated, and is not soot belched into the air. For this reason it is cleaner. Disposal methods are well developed. Japan gets 90% of its power from nuclear energy, and France more than 30%. The technology is mature.

There is no way we will allow ourselves to suffer economic decline rather than switch over to nuclear power. Any leftist who tries to tell you otherwise is a liar or a fool, as they don't understand human nature. After all, even Berkeley has roads.

Posted by: gc on May 6, 2005 01:10 AM

Sometimes even people who are so extreme, off-the-wall, and hey! even kooky as to be dead-wrong on the substance of an issue provide the very useful social function of getting people to discuss the matter.

Of course if their portrayal of a situation is so bizarre as to conjure up a cartoon then you have a less positive outcome.

Posted by: David Sucher on May 6, 2005 01:14 AM

In terms of the impact of Peak Oil -- assuming it is so -- the critical and unknown question is whether the decline is a cliff or a gentle slope.

Big difference.

Kunstler assumes --- but offers no facts or reasoning to explain why it is so -- that we are at the edge of a cliff.

Posted by: David Sucher on May 6, 2005 01:18 AM

Kunstler assumes its a cliff because he desperately wishes it to be so. He has an absolute aesthetic hatred for the suburbs, and has convinced himself that anything so ugly must offend the universe on some basic level. He might as well be in a rivival tent on the outskirts of town, preacher fire and damnation for this generation of sinners, since the signs point to Judgement Day...

Posted by: jimbo on May 6, 2005 10:36 AM

GC sounds like a jackass.

"First, as technology improves the oil fields we can explore continue to expand."

There he assumes ever lasting technological improvement. No mention of possible diminishing marginal returns or other complicating factors, e.g. a couple of well placed nukes, America's trade deficit, immigration, etc. etc.

"There are actually more proven reserves today than they were 50 years ago - largely because we have better drill bits, better geological models, satellite imaging, and so on." Tell me more about the word "more". How much more? Double? Triple? 32% And do you mean the rate of discovery is accelerating? Oh, it's not? Gee, what's that portend?

"That trend shows no signs of slowing down." What trend? You mean the trend of technological developments making marginal gains while there have been no "elephant" size oil field finds since the early 60's? Is that the trend you are talking about and implying will save us and let us all live like George Jetson real soon now?

"Second and more important, we have nuclear power and fuel cells." That's a little bit of BS since, if you actually read Kunstler, instead of spouting off like a trained seal, you'd now that of the so-called alternatives (as in alternatives to fossil fuels (I leave aside questions regarding the fossil fuel origin theory)), he addresses both nuclear and hydrogen fuel cell power, and, while acknowledging their potentials, nonetheless has some non-idiotic criticisms.

"If and when it becomes cost-ineffective to use oil, we will switch to nuclear power." Get your head out of your @ss. No, really. Do you think costs are just completely abstracted from reality, like, big whoop prices will go up and they'll build more power plants and la dee da salaries will go up too and bills get paid by the tooth fairie?

"Nuclear power can be used to generate electricity which can power fuel cells for transport." Yes, it can! And the Pharoahs built big stone piles. But at what about the costs. Quiz time, straight from that idiot Kunstler's new book: If gas stations gave out hydrogen instead of gas, as your imaginary fuel cell replacing gas transport system is presumed to work, how many trucks per day would have to show up to load that station? How does that compare with today's situation? What difference do you think it would make to the economy, not to mention the political situation, overall?

Agreed that if a meteor is on the way then we roll over and play dead, but otherwise we work and figure out a way to beat this peak oil thing. I'd just rather address the criticisms of a realist like Kunstler than dismiss them outright because someone believes The Force will save us.

Posted by: Chris on May 6, 2005 10:49 AM

Fun debate! But let's cease-and-desist on the name-calling, please. Civility's important-- it helps enable the free flow of ideas, which is a big part of what's great about blogging. Thanks.

BTW, part of what I like about Kunstler is that he's so fire-and-brimstone. He's a Jeremiah. I guess my figuring is that cultures always have Jeremiahs -- it's a standard cultural role -- and that Kunstler does a very entertaining and provocative job of playing the role. I'd rather watch his fire-and-brimstone act than just about anyone else's.

Then, of course, comes the moment to semi-rationally discuss things ...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on May 6, 2005 10:58 AM

Sucher and jimbo commit the sin that they accuse Kunstler of. Have you read the books? How about the website? How about the link above to the Rolling Stone article?!

"...That argument states that we don't have to run out of oil to start having severe problems with industrial civilization and its dependent systems. We only have to slip over the all-time production peak and begin a slide down the arc of steady depletion.

"The term "global oil-production peak" means that a turning point will come when the world produces the most oil it will ever produce in a given year and, after that, yearly production will inexorably decline. It is usually represented graphically in a bell curve."

I defy you to show me where, solely in terms of
Peak Oil, which I take to mean the theory that oil production is at or near a peak, Kunstler states, in contrast to the theory, that the back end of the curve is cliff-like. Go ahead. Read the books. Check the website. Show me where he says oil production will fall off a cliff.

The cliff, and the tone he adopts regarding decline, has to do with the several other facts, including foremost in his writings, the non-sustainability of our current suburban living arrangements.

Your attack on his motive can be turned around: It is you, presumably enjoying this lifestyle, who cannot imagine a drastic change; cannot even hold the argument in your short-term memory system long enough to weigh it critically, but instead you seek any means to delete it.

Posted by: Chris on May 6, 2005 11:00 AM

All I'm saying:

There are a lot of very smart people out there who are very interested in making lots and lots of money. Kunstler has an esstentially static view of technology that assumes that all these people will simply throw up their hands and give up, and everybody will simply decide, collectively, to return to the 19th century. Ain't gonna happen. If oil goes to $100 a barrel, or $200, it will cause a readjustment, but it will not require the sort of complete reordering of society that Kunstler desperately hopes for.

The raw, physical fact is that we have a proven technology that can provide enough energy to run our civilization as currently constituted essentially indefinitly: nuclear fission. We do not require some fairy godmother to come down and give us some magical new energy source. All we have to do is fully develop one we already have, but have not used to its full potential for political and economic reasons. What do you think is more likely: the entire world will give up on cities and move to "small communities surrounded by intensively farmed hinderlands", or the political restraints that have retarded nuclear development will come off?

Look, I agree with a lot of Kunstler's points about the aesthetics of suburbs. I remember reading and liking "The Geography of Nowhere" back when it came out. But he has convinced himself that everyone will be forced to adopt his ideas by some kind of natural law, and I'm just saying he's fooling himself about it...

Posted by: jimbo on May 6, 2005 12:21 PM

One more thing about Kunstler:

Never trust a man who wears a bow tie.

Seriously.

Posted by: jimbo on May 6, 2005 12:56 PM

Michael: "But I was hoping to get y'all talking about which impending crises you tend to think about, when you're in the mood for thinking about impending crises."

Yellowstone: a major eruption could be unpleasant.

Influenza pandemic: My son, wife, and I are all asthmatic.

Not that I worry that much, though. I grew up on pretty highly ranked targets (Colorado Springs, CO; Cheyenne, WY; Ramstein AB, West Germany; Hampton, VA) and lived through the Ford and Carter administrations. I'm somewhat inured to the possibility of nuclear disaster, economic collapse, tornados and blizzards, etc.

Michael: "The mind seems to generate, unbidden, scenarios of disaster and catastrophe."

Outer Life: "One thing I can't explain is our fondness for doom and gloom."

I think this is easily explainable in evo-bio terms. If you aren't prepared for a windfall, you might be unable to take full advantage, but it's not a disaster. If you aren't prepared for a disaster, you might not survive. The ability to speculate about potential disasters is one of the biggest advantages of an abstract intelligence (in evolutionary terms).

Posted by: Doug Sundseth on May 6, 2005 01:01 PM

My big worry?
Bark beetles.

Seriously.
I live in the mountains near Yosemite. In recent years we have lost more and more Ponderosa Pines to beetles. The drought-weakened trees can't produce enough of the sap that fights off the beetles -- and formerly beautiful tall trees are suddenly yellowed and dead.
This worry is compounded by reports of beetles killing nearly all birch trees [I think that's the tree] in the east...
This spring has been a wet one, so I am a bit less worried than last year... but if it gets too hot and dry again, I am putting drip irrigation lines out to the biggest pines on my property that I would hate to lose.

Paul

Posted by: Paul Worthington on May 6, 2005 01:30 PM

Chris, I wouldn't be so quick. I have not and will not have a chance to read his book. But I have read Kunstler's web site for years and in fact have blogged on his obsession with peak oil. As well, I heard him on the radio about a month ago. And there is absolutely no doubt that he see the impacts of the fall-off from peak oil as being catastrophic and cliff-like. He envisions a new feudal age, for example, and I consider that to be a "cliff." he does not appear to think it possible that we can slowly adjust over a period of decades to continually rising prices.

Whether he correct or not is one thing; that he considers the impact of peak oil to be something to which we cannot adjust without enormous, catastrophic impact seems to me to be beyond dispute.

Posted by: David Sucher on May 6, 2005 04:35 PM

Oil has a demand CURVE, not a cliff on the edge, and as prices rise so will production.

For those who are poo-poohing the fact that proven reserves are up, go read Oil and Gas Journal a bit, and STFU.

My personal main concern with exhaustion of oil supplies in the future are that oil is much better used for other things than energy. Nuclear power will indeed be able to pick up the slack, and modern reactors are 'walk away safe'; in other words not only does Homer Simpson not need to stay awake on the job, terrorists a la this season's "24" CAN'T make them meltdown. The physics of their construction does not have meltdown as a possible reacton chain.

And we currently spew about a million or more times the radiation every year burning coal for electricity than has been released in even old dirty nuke plant designs in all of history.

But asteroids from space scare me, a LOT! Cheap space access now! Get all of humanities eggs out of this one basket! **/rant** :-)

Posted by: David Mercer on May 6, 2005 10:08 PM

Perhaps it should be pointed out at this point that Kunstler supports nuclear power.

Posted by: Ilkka Kokkarinen on May 11, 2005 05:31 PM

Ah so, then in that case he is probably merely a dishonest propagandist, and fully understands the nonsense of this supposed production cliff he's hawking.

I've worked for Big Oil (part of my time on the Dark Side as a consultant), and believe you me, lots of things as replacements get economical as oil goes up towards $100/barrel, and those replacements WILL show cost decreases with succeeding technology generations, and oils demand will eventualy fall off of a cliff, as everyone by that point uses cleaner, cheaper things. Happens all the time to commodities in the industrial era, and is a pattern that has held for past resource based energy products as well.

Posted by: David Mercer on May 14, 2005 04:21 PM

allergies

allergy relief

allergy control products

allergy relief product

natural remedies

http://allergy.pedronetwork.com

Posted by: allergy control products on June 1, 2005 06:19 AM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?