Different Judgments, Same Narrative

On page 95 of The Energy Reader,  authors Tom Butler, Daniel Lerch, and George Wuerthner discuss the idea that there are two pervasive myths about the future in our society; the myth of progress and the myth of apocalypse.

The first, they posit, is the idea that “human history… is a grand tale of human improvement” (Butler 95).  It is a belief that throughout human history, our species and the societies we create have been getting progressively better and better.  Humans used to be primitive and superstitious, this myth says, but then something changed and led us on the path to where we are now; civilized and have scientific knowledge that allows us to lead better lives and have a greater understanding of our world.  Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner further posit that the myth of progressed in predicated on the idea of limitlessness.  In the past, limits (such as that on the amount of energy available to us) gave way before us as we gain technological knowledge and skill, so the impending limits (on fossil fuel use, CO2 production, and population, to name a few) will give way as well as our knowledge increases, posit believers in the myth of progress. 

The myth of apocalypse, on the other hand, is a myth that “people once lived in harmony with their world, each other, and themselves, but that golden age ended with a disastrous wrong turning and things have gone downhill ever since.”  According to this myth, at some point, things changed and led us out of harmony and into a chaotic world where priorities are misplaced and people are frenzied and lonely.  Our society, posit believers in the myth of apocalypse, is on a collision course and will soon fail in an epic manner.

Neither of these myths are correct, say Butler, Lerch, and Wuerthner.  Contrary to the tenets of the myth of progress, there truly are limits, and progress is not always good.  Also, our society did not actually change as radically over the centuries as believers of this myth think.  Progress is also not inevitable; when we run into limits, progress will slow down begin to move in the opposite direction.  On the other hand, our civilization will not crash and burn.  Yes, there will be famine and war, the authors say, and people will eventually be using technology of the level available before the industrial revolution, but society will remain intact.  Also, this regress will not happen immediately, but rather will take many decades.

What I find interesting is about these two myths is that in fact they are incredibly similar.  They have make different value judgments about what is right, and different beliefs about what is successful, but ultimately the narratives they describe are the same.  In both beliefs, life used to be simpler, people had less knowledge, and humans and nature had much closer interaction.  Then, something changed, and society became more complex, humanity conquered nature, we gained greater knowledge, our social mores changed, and individuals had greater opportunities.  And we are going to continue along this trajectory to its natural conclusion.

The disagreements, then, are about whether these things -- complexity, knowledge, dominion over nature, current social mores, and greater individual opportunity – are good or bad.  But neither belief questions whether these things are the case in the first place, and maybe that is the problem.  We tend to underestimate how advanced previous civilizations were, or, even when we recognize the complex of an ancient civilization, are surprised and consider it an anomaly.  But really, there were many complex ancient societies – and not just Western ones.  The Mayans, Egyptians, and Chinese come to mind.  As for dominion over nature, regardless of whether it’s good or bad, I don’t think we actually have it.  We may think we do, but massive destructive storms and impending climate change disprove that thought.  I recently watched a video that illustrated this fairly well – in a community meeting in Hawaii, several people of European descent argued for trying to divert a lava flow despite a poor track record of success with this technique, until native Hawaiians reminded them that lava doesn’t work that way – it’ll go wherever it goes and you can’t control it.

In conclusion, I think the myth of progress and the myth of apocalypse, while seemingly opposites, actually share the same narrative as a premise.  I don’t think that this premise is accurate, however, which is why the myths’ predictions are not accurate. 

The Illusion of Limitlessness

In my last post, I discussed the phenomenon that brought us to our current state: the more energy was available to us, the more we used, and the more we grew to depend on having that level of energy.  But there is an additional, and, in my opinion, more dangerous, thing our energy usage patterns have taught us.  In addition to become accustomed to large amounts of energy, we also became accustomed to the fact that energy availability always increased.  As such, our societies and economies became based on the idea of growth.  On page 47 of The Energy Reader, its authors compared this practice to a global Ponzi scheme, and I think that comparison is accurate.

In addition to, or perhaps because of, our being accustomed to energy increase, our lifestyle is based on a general idea of limitlessness. We consider an economy to be successful when it is growing.  We constantly consume resources as though they are endless.  As Barbara Kingsolver says in her book Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, we seem to be a people allergic to limits.  This is expressed in many ways, and exists to differing degrees in different countries.  The US, from my observations, seems to be more afflicted by the idea of limitlessness than other countries.  Politically, the US places more value on concepts of freedom than do other countries, especially Europe.  In some ways this is good, as when we value individual rights, but in some senses it exemplifies an idea that everyone deserves to be able to do whatever they want, without regard to the negative consequences others will suffer.  Economically, we certainly buy into the delusion of capitalism that you are entitled to whatever you can buy, and limited only by inability to monetarily afford something.

People are beginning to realize that we are running out of money and other resources, but their proposed solutions still follow the narrative of limitlessness.  Some people (as evidenced by the Unbridled Energy summit in Louisville Kentucky, discussed on page 34 in The Energy Reader), are striving to find ways to getting the most energy we can out of existing sources of hydrocarbon-based fuel.  Others put their faith (which The Energy Reader points out as, ironically, unscientific) in solutions based on science and technology.  The solutions are based on the idea that if we just invest more energy, expertise, and innovative skill into the problem, we will solve it.  The issue there (at least, if we agree with The Energy Reader’s argument) is that word “more” – a problem created by assumptions of abundance cannot be solved by yet more abundance.  The way to solve the problem, then (at least according to The Energy Reader, is first to accept that we are limited.