A new issue of Resurgence is out. I was particularly interested to read an article by Andrew Simms called Planet Crunch where he puts together a range of issues from the links between our attitudes to credit and money and how that links to resource use. I was also interested to read his account of the way in which oil tanker drivers were able to bring the UK to its knees because of the "just in time" nature of oil distribution through the UK. This didn't just affect people's capacity to travel - it had a major effect on food distribution to the point where Simms suggests the UK was "9 meals away from anarchy". This of course links up social unrest with food distribution and in the longer term with access to a resources that people need to live their lives. Given the fact that the world human population is growing and that food reserves are at their lowest for a long time food security is becoming something to think about for all of us - rather than only those living in poverty. As Jared Diamond put it in Collapse being rich only gives you the capacity to die last when the ecosystem on which you rely collapses.
Not a happy thought but one that might be worth pondering in terms of what action is needed as we head into a world of diminishing resources.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Changing for the times ahead
I've just read an interesting account of how the current bailout packages and focus on
"getting people spending again" is not going to create the shifts that we need as we move up against our biophysical limits. Interestingly I see Chris Martenson has also just released a new report that discusses the need to think about how life might change in future as we move up against those same limits. To me, the way we do this as the pressure comes on will stem from the state of our communities at local level and the nature of our political and social system.
Dimitri Orlov confirms this in his account of what happened over the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. He also offers some analysis of how he thinks a similar collapse might be played out in the USA and in another article some ideas about best practice for social collapse, in which he points out that goverments might be better to focus on how to provide Food, shelter, transportation, and security on an emergency basis. It was interesting because it contrasts with the sense of success that one gets from reading about what happened in Cuba as a direct result of the Soviet collapse but with what seems to have been a slightly more 'together' set of communities. Orlov points out some very important aspects of the political set up in the Soviet Union and how that assisted or exacerbated recovery and the lives of people on the street. He notes also that money becomes quite irrelevant but social connections, access to needed resources are invaluable in a post collapse scenario.
"getting people spending again" is not going to create the shifts that we need as we move up against our biophysical limits. Interestingly I see Chris Martenson has also just released a new report that discusses the need to think about how life might change in future as we move up against those same limits. To me, the way we do this as the pressure comes on will stem from the state of our communities at local level and the nature of our political and social system.
Dimitri Orlov confirms this in his account of what happened over the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. He also offers some analysis of how he thinks a similar collapse might be played out in the USA and in another article some ideas about best practice for social collapse, in which he points out that goverments might be better to focus on how to provide Food, shelter, transportation, and security on an emergency basis. It was interesting because it contrasts with the sense of success that one gets from reading about what happened in Cuba as a direct result of the Soviet collapse but with what seems to have been a slightly more 'together' set of communities. Orlov points out some very important aspects of the political set up in the Soviet Union and how that assisted or exacerbated recovery and the lives of people on the street. He notes also that money becomes quite irrelevant but social connections, access to needed resources are invaluable in a post collapse scenario.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
lots to be happy about
Its been a while since I wrote here. What can I say? it's summer here and I've been on holidays. I"m just back from a couple of days at a retreat in Mid Canterbury and I'm feeling very relaxed and, well happy - despite all the bad news around the place!
A new blog talks about this a bit. It's one of the thing that constantly delights and amazes me that there is so much pleasure in working in the garden, reading a book, doing chores around the house, going for a wander or visiting friends. It's all a matter of having the time and I wonder sometimes what all our working working working is for when it just seems make us so time poor and to try to squeeze so much into so little time. I"ve had a month on holiday now and I"m just starting to feel like I"m getting down to a reasonable pace and starting to enjoy those small things that get lost in the rush.
roll on the next month!
A new blog talks about this a bit. It's one of the thing that constantly delights and amazes me that there is so much pleasure in working in the garden, reading a book, doing chores around the house, going for a wander or visiting friends. It's all a matter of having the time and I wonder sometimes what all our working working working is for when it just seems make us so time poor and to try to squeeze so much into so little time. I"ve had a month on holiday now and I"m just starting to feel like I"m getting down to a reasonable pace and starting to enjoy those small things that get lost in the rush.
roll on the next month!
Monday, January 5, 2009
Genuine progress indicator
I heard an interview on the radio the other day and it sparked my interest. the interview was with Ronald Colman and it was about the genuine progress index. The idea that GDP does not measure wellbeing or indeed progress is not new - I have read numerous articles about this over the years but what interested me that here is an organisation actually working to develop and use an index that might be useful instead.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
A small problem with awareness raising!
I used to work at a busy youth hostel. In that job I was required to communicate with a lot of people who did not have a good command of English. It could be a stressful struggling to communicate and I never quite stopped trying to speak louder to the person opposite me or to try to say the same thing in different ways.
One evening, my Japanese counterpart answered the phone. The caller from another hostel spoke fast in English and when he asked her to repeat it, she spoke increasingly louder until eventually my colleague finally handed me the phone. He didn’t need her to speak louder. He needed her to speak slower and to repeat exactly what she said so that he could put more of it together to understand it. Instead she phrased her request differently which only gave him more work to do to understand her.
My observations are that although this may be obvious, it is not easy to put into practice. The first thing that most of us do when we are not understood or not heard is to assume that we need only to speak louder and the problem will be solved. Alas, speaking louder can actually prevent your message going across at all in the wrong situation! It can be useful to speak loudly to a deaf person or to speak slowly to them. To someone who speaks a different language, slower will make a difference, louder won’t. In a crowd of noisy people, speaking may not be the best way to communicate although observations indicate that most of us just try to yell louder than everyone else. In a crowd of foreigners, it may be most effective to hire the services of a translator and to use a completely different language. It is often as effective to say less rather than more. As I found when I was teaching, better to get a small amount across well than to put lots across badly.
This seems all self evident and yet it is clear that people are great at filtering information before it gets anywhere near our brain if it is irrelevant or just perceived as noise. Rather unfortunately, that noise can stop the useful information getting through!
As Bickerstaff and Walker (2002: 2175) note, “there is now a myriad of awareness raising campaigns urging members of the public to take responsibility for improving their environment.” As they note, these campaigns have not been very successful. Such campaigns assume that people will passively soak up information and then become actively responsible for simple changing their own behaviour in line with that information. At best this is somewhat contradictory! At worst it misses completely the complexity even of making relatively simple changes.
One evening, my Japanese counterpart answered the phone. The caller from another hostel spoke fast in English and when he asked her to repeat it, she spoke increasingly louder until eventually my colleague finally handed me the phone. He didn’t need her to speak louder. He needed her to speak slower and to repeat exactly what she said so that he could put more of it together to understand it. Instead she phrased her request differently which only gave him more work to do to understand her.
My observations are that although this may be obvious, it is not easy to put into practice. The first thing that most of us do when we are not understood or not heard is to assume that we need only to speak louder and the problem will be solved. Alas, speaking louder can actually prevent your message going across at all in the wrong situation! It can be useful to speak loudly to a deaf person or to speak slowly to them. To someone who speaks a different language, slower will make a difference, louder won’t. In a crowd of noisy people, speaking may not be the best way to communicate although observations indicate that most of us just try to yell louder than everyone else. In a crowd of foreigners, it may be most effective to hire the services of a translator and to use a completely different language. It is often as effective to say less rather than more. As I found when I was teaching, better to get a small amount across well than to put lots across badly.
This seems all self evident and yet it is clear that people are great at filtering information before it gets anywhere near our brain if it is irrelevant or just perceived as noise. Rather unfortunately, that noise can stop the useful information getting through!
As Bickerstaff and Walker (2002: 2175) note, “there is now a myriad of awareness raising campaigns urging members of the public to take responsibility for improving their environment.” As they note, these campaigns have not been very successful. Such campaigns assume that people will passively soak up information and then become actively responsible for simple changing their own behaviour in line with that information. At best this is somewhat contradictory! At worst it misses completely the complexity even of making relatively simple changes.
Saturday, December 6, 2008
New Scientist article on economic growth
I spoke to an economist at the conference last week and asked him about steady state economies. He (and he is an economist who works in the same environmental science institution as me so I found this pretty depressing) dismissed the idea - positing the idea that we can grow the economy through the knowledge sector.
I"m not so sure and even less sure now, given the New Scientist (18th Oct. 2008) article I've just read called 'Beyond Growth'. In the end the basis of our economy is consumption and actually from the point of view of the sustainability of our society in a world that has shown time and again that it has limits, consumption is something we have to cut.
I suppose from a positive point of view the economic crisis that looms might offer some ways for us to look hard our our economic system (after all, it has already made governments throw out the idea of not intervening in the market!) and to find some new ways of providing for our needs. Or of course, it might not.
I"m not so sure and even less sure now, given the New Scientist (18th Oct. 2008) article I've just read called 'Beyond Growth'. In the end the basis of our economy is consumption and actually from the point of view of the sustainability of our society in a world that has shown time and again that it has limits, consumption is something we have to cut.
I suppose from a positive point of view the economic crisis that looms might offer some ways for us to look hard our our economic system (after all, it has already made governments throw out the idea of not intervening in the market!) and to find some new ways of providing for our needs. Or of course, it might not.
Friday, December 5, 2008
What of holidays in a post peak oil world?
I"ve just returned from a tourism research conference up in Hanmer Springs. Overall I enjoyed the conference - it gave me the opportunity to meet and talk with some very interesting people.
One of them was Ian Yeoman a futurologist with a tourism focus, who, as he put it, gets paid to "make stuff up" - although it does appear that there is quite a lot of interesting thinking behind the er ... stuff! It struck me that "futuring" is something that really benefits from integrating the information and knowledge from a very wide range of stakeholders.
I guess as someone who spends quite a lot of time thinking of the future in terms of environmental sustainability and who has a head full of books/ information like Jared Diamond's "Collapse," Rob Hopkins' "Transition Handbook" and of course Chris Martenson's Crash course, (amongst others) I would say Dr Yeoman is perhaps more positive about the future of tourism than I am ... (although to be fair he talks in terms of scenarios but I do note that people travelling a lot less did not seem to be one of them!).
I would hope, for example, that we don't have space tourism because something like that would indicate to me (and this is just an opinion here!) the likelihood of a an unstable society in which the gap between rich and poor is just massive (when in my opinion it is already too big).
Personally I'd much prefer to live in a stable and happy society in which people know and appreciate each other and there is a more even spread of opportunity across the population of the world. Such a society could work together constructively to cope with the changes that face them - whether they be positive or negative. And , I suppose, to those ends I remain interested in the question of how we create the positive futures we want.
Looking at this I guess I could seem like a bit of a grump who doesn't want to to create fantastic tourism futures. I suppose I would prefer to work toward seeing a more even spread of opportunity across the population rather than preparing for amazing opportunities for a priviledged few. In the end, like any decision or use of intuitive processes, it's all a matter of what and how you prioritise information and principles.
;-) CH
One of them was Ian Yeoman a futurologist with a tourism focus, who, as he put it, gets paid to "make stuff up" - although it does appear that there is quite a lot of interesting thinking behind the er ... stuff! It struck me that "futuring" is something that really benefits from integrating the information and knowledge from a very wide range of stakeholders.
I guess as someone who spends quite a lot of time thinking of the future in terms of environmental sustainability and who has a head full of books/ information like Jared Diamond's "Collapse," Rob Hopkins' "Transition Handbook" and of course Chris Martenson's Crash course, (amongst others) I would say Dr Yeoman is perhaps more positive about the future of tourism than I am ... (although to be fair he talks in terms of scenarios but I do note that people travelling a lot less did not seem to be one of them!).
I would hope, for example, that we don't have space tourism because something like that would indicate to me (and this is just an opinion here!) the likelihood of a an unstable society in which the gap between rich and poor is just massive (when in my opinion it is already too big).
Personally I'd much prefer to live in a stable and happy society in which people know and appreciate each other and there is a more even spread of opportunity across the population of the world. Such a society could work together constructively to cope with the changes that face them - whether they be positive or negative. And , I suppose, to those ends I remain interested in the question of how we create the positive futures we want.Looking at this I guess I could seem like a bit of a grump who doesn't want to to create fantastic tourism futures. I suppose I would prefer to work toward seeing a more even spread of opportunity across the population rather than preparing for amazing opportunities for a priviledged few. In the end, like any decision or use of intuitive processes, it's all a matter of what and how you prioritise information and principles.
;-) CH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
