Teaching Students About the Coming Crises

What We Are Currently Teaching

Education is in a difficult position, and most educators don't yet realize it.

The world as we have known it ever since humans started keeping records has been one where there was always newer sources of higher power energy discovered and exploited. To be sure, the rate of discovery and adoption was slow at first (fire and clothing), but picked up the pace considerably at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution (coal) and really took off about 100 years ago with the discovery of oil and electricity and all the wonderful machines that could use those energies to do our work for us, and at an ever increasing speed. Everyone who has lived over the last two hundred years or so could believe that the world their children would inherit would be at least as good (easy to live in) as they had and possibly even better.

For my entire life, parents have been telling their kids that the world is full of opportunity and the route to 'happiness', or at least wealth, was through good commercially desirable education. Our education system is geared to promote this myth. It is set up to teach children and young adults knowledge and skills that would have been appropriate in a world of continued growth and development. In the world that we have known through history we taught our children that they should expect more than what we had and provided them with educational pathways that would have presumably produced that result.

Now that is going to change. We haven't discovered any really substantial new sources of high powered energy, at least that didn't have very significant problems associated with them, since the advent of oil. We have not discovered new high energy return on energy invested technologies that might have been able to capitalize on abundant, but low grade solar energy. In short, it looks like we've come to the end of the line in terms of the growth of volume and power of energy to drive the growth and development of society. As things stand right now, the future does not look brighter than the past. We are headed for an energy decline which translates directly into an economic and, ultimately, a population decline unlike anything that humanity has ever experienced. Writers like James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, and John Michael Greer, author of The Long Descent, both emphasize that the process of economic and cultural unwind will take perhaps several centuries (hence the word 'long' in both titles). I am not so sure myself. I imagine a number of scenarios that may hasten the process and in at least the worst case scenario lead to catastrophic collapse. Long or short, the collapse is underway and the capabilities of our future world look abysmally dim.

And how do we tell our children this?

The only message we have been trumpeting to our children is the one I mentioned above. The world of tomorrow will be better than the one today (in a material sense) and you need to be prepared to both make it that way (from your education) and take advantage of it through your lifestyle. Some of us have pointed proudly to our houses that are bigger than our parents had lived in, or the bigger, more powerful cars we drive, as evidence that our world beat their world. And the inference is simple. Your world will beat my world.

In this fog of materialistic value we have changed education from being about understanding how the world works, i.e. nature and mind, to how to cram enough facts and skills into those brains so that you become a much more useful cog in the wheels of wealth-creating commerce. Of course we tolerate the occasional do-gooder who goes to work for an NGO for a cause. But even they need to have the basic skills society deems worthy of someone who will be productive, for profit or not.

Educators Still Haven't Got the Big Picture

And so as things stand the whole process of education is preparing for a future that will not very likely come to pass. I know this at a very personal level. Every day I go to teach courses in computer science to eager young people who have every reason to believe that ten years from now, after proving themselves as worthy computer programmers and engineers, they will be making really big bucks as software designers and program managers. They expect technology to just go on getting faster and more pervasive. They expect job security. They come to class to learn what they need to know to be successful in this endeavor. A few, from time to time, come to class sincerely interested in understanding the theory of computation and to gain an appreciation for the beauty of algorithmic design. The rest are mostly interested in learning which button to push or which command code to use to get something to happen on the screen. This is because this is what we have taught them to believe they should want to know. It's all about the job and the prospects for money.

I often feel like a hypocrite for teaching the button pushing and coding. My gym friend Rudy (hi Rudy - told you I'd mention you one day!!!) is always chiding me for teaching my students stuff they won't need if I really believe the world is going down hill. But I do attempt in my meager way to try to get some ideas about learning computer science for the sake of grasping something fundamental about the world across to them. Mostly they politely pay attention, but when I ask a thoughtful question on an exam, I see the degree to which my poor attempts worked. I want them to get that computational science isn't just about programming computers to do nifty things that customers are willing to pay for, but that the principles underlying computation are universals and most can be applied to completely different lines of thinking. I'd like to believe that my own thinking, as represented in this blog for instance, demonstrates this. Computer science has both informed my understanding of so many things from how brains work to how organizations process information, and my CS has been informed by those subjects as well. Of course, the secret of seeing the breadth of application of computation to understanding other areas of knowledge is keyed by general systems theory (in one sense CS is a sub-field of GST). But nevertheless, the principle is true.

My hope is to impart just a seed of this idea to as many students as I can so that they might one day realize, when the Internet goes down for lack of power, or some similar contraction in the field of information technology takes away their identity as CS workers, that they can still use their knowledge to tackle other real-world problems, even in no keyboard is involved!

But what of the rest of the world of education? The biggest problem is that the field of human endeavor that should be leading the thought of society is, in reality, exceptionally conservative when it comes to recognizing that the world is changing in completely unpredicted ways and to do something about it. Most higher ed academics are buried deep in their disciplinary silos. Most interpret the events they see going on in the world in terms of those disciplines and thus miss the deeper implications and consequences. In truth, how many psychologists do you know who deeply grasp the Laws of Thermodynamics, or systems ecology? How many literature professors understand energy and work principles and how they apply to economic activity? Indeed, how many physics professors doing work in, say, materials science for semiconductors (for example as applications in solar photovoltaics) know much about how much energy it takes to gain one more unit of energy from oil?

This is the way we have evolved our system of education. Specialization and deep penetration (expertise) have been a winning strategy for the reductionist world of academia embedded in a world of growth. Competition for disciplinary niches literally forces professionals to ignore the bigger world, except perhaps for the bits and pieces they might catch on what we laughingly call the NEWS. Even the most intelligent scientists have great difficulty even seeing the dots let alone connecting them. And this, very unfortunately, translates into what gets taught to students. Every 'major' is a channel to further specialize and narrow the interests of students as they progress in their studies. After all, that is the route to financial success.

Educators may do a fantastic job of teaching that which they have greatest expertise in (though by the state of education in the US one wonders even about this claim). And that is the problem. They cannot address the big picture because they simply don't have it. And even though students from young ages up are actually capable of grasping more meaning than we give them credit for, they will never be exposed to it because the teachers don't have it. [I hate to speak in generalizations, but this description does cover the vast majority of cases. I personally and by reputation know many educators who face my same conundrum and are attempting to produce curriculum that addresses the big picture as best they can. It's just that we are in a tiny minority and we are working against the expectations of brain-washed students!]

In one sense it is true that maybe there really is nothing to teach students about a bleak future. If it is going to go to hell in a hand basket anyway, what is the point of teaching anything? Why not just go along with the delusion of endless growth and let the students have their dreams of a better life? Yet somehow that just doesn't feel right (it would probably make my job easier and get me better student evaluations though!) I guess my values dictate that understanding is the supreme human endeavor of the mind and even if what one is to understand is not wonderful it is still our human nature (you might almost say responsibility) to make the effort. I want my students to understand that the world is far more complex and subject to real physical laws that don't always go along with what you can make happen in a virtual world. I want them to be ready for the future. I want them to recognize that they will need to adapt and change to survive. Yes, I want them to get prepared to live in a world that may yet use their nominal expertise in computers while that is still needed. But I want them to be ready to abandon the belief that their identities as humans is defined by a machine.

But Don't Cause Depression

Here we have the real sticking point in teaching students that the world is contracting. What do you tell them about the whole process that won't be depressing or de-motivating? This is something I really struggle with. I'm perfectly open in telling my educator colleagues what I think is happening and what the consequences will be (various possible scenarios, that is). But what should I tell the students that won't devastate them?

Last quarter I taught a general audience course on Energy and Society. I had quite a mix of students from other majors, most of whom had not had any physics or chemistry, or much more than algebra for math. I would like to believe that in spite of that handicap I was able to teach them a great deal about the laws of thermodynamics, work, and energy's role in economics. But then we had to face the reality of peak oil and peak fossil fuels. This was sobering news for the majority (only one student, a more mature individual, had heard of peak oil). We went through all of the science, the data, the models, everything that drove home the fact that we are going to run out of a fixed, finite resource and the effects are already being felt in the economy. They got that.

But then I had to decide: do I paint a rosy but dishonest picture about alternative energy sources picking up the slack so that business as usual will just go on and they can proceed with their happy careers? Or do I lay out the realities of the obstacles to a sustainable future? For the first half of the course I tested their capacity to hear potentially disturbing news with little probes here and there. Mostly I asked them questions that relied on what they had learned about thermodynamics. I challenged them to analyze the claims about biofuels as a viable replacement for oil and in class discussions we worked out the fallacies and facts. They, themselves (or rather the majority) realized that biofuels as advertised was a boondoggle and so in the end I decided to lay out the whole picture for them toward the end of the quarter. They were sober but I couldn't detect any depression. I hope I'm right.

My friend Rudy is also always chiding me that after you tell people bad news you have to leave them with hope. He is right of course, but hope for what? Certainly not a false hope that some miracle will put things back to the way they were and we can all get on with life as we have known it. Here is what I tried. No matter how long or short one lives on this Earth, the purpose of life is to learn and understand. That is the basis for adaptation and if the world is going to change in radical ways, knowledge of what might be happening can only strengthen one's propensity to survive and, maybe even thrive, in spite of the coming decline. It is those people who have ignored what is happening and failed to try to learn what might be the causes even if they see things as going wrong (the Tea Party comes to mind, but then so do economists and politicians!) that will fail to adapt and thus succumb. So even though one might bear a heavy burden of knowledge of a coming long or short emergency, one is always better off for dealing with the future.

I will continue to think about this conundrum. Our children should be told the truth and be prepared for what the world will really be like. We cannot go on teaching them to be bricks in the wall (Pink Floyd) when the wall is about to crumble. But how to go about it in a positive way, that remains an open question.

Comments

[Georgi Marinov]

As you said, the problem is that very few see understanding how the world works as a clear and significant goal. And that's how even many people working in the physical science think of their work. What finally killed all my illusions about this was what I saw coming from people arguing over the compatibility of science and religion - they are completely incompatible as ways of understanding the world, yet a disturbingly large number of people insist that because there are scientists who are religious, there is no contradiction at all. Which can only be because they never see improved understanding of the world around us as the major outcome of what they do. What is even more disturbing is the fact that it is very hard to convince those same people that they are not right, even when you tell them that understanding the world around us is precisely what we have science for. They simply ignore that, and these are people who are supposed to be persuadable by logic and facts, and use such when trying to show that the other side is wrong...

This is, of course, not very helpful at all, but the way I see it, it is simply impossible to get rid of all the historically accumulated cultural and psychological baggage that prevents us from seeing the situation as it is. You are on a planet you have no way to get out of, with limited resources that you need to stay alive, you want to survive as long as possible, what do you do? It is a quite straightforward question when posed in such a way, but in order to get people to see it like that, you need to make them forget pretty much everything they have been told all their life. Not going to happen.

A lot of really cherished stuff has to be thrown away even regarding what is being studied in schools and universities if a curriculum that produces students "getting it" is to be designed. One has to make absolutely sure that anthropocentrism is purged from students minds, as this is a very fundamental part of the problem, yet the vast majority of what is considered classic works of art, literature and philosophy does nothing else but promote anthropocentrism and distract us from reality. So they have to go or better, be taught as examples of anthropocentrism and what's wrong with it. But such a thing will be a very tough sell even to maнy people who mostly "get it". My guess is that even getting general systems theory type of thinking to be the center of a university program will be a very tough sell in the current environment, let alone anything more radical that that...

[t0wnp1ann3r]

Not to sound like a nihilist, but when it comes to searching for a “purpose of life,” each individual makes up their own purpose. And in reality, absent our own second-order consciousness, there can’t be any empirically-proved “purpose” for life. Evolution moves along, and we’re just a particular iteration. We create our own value of life and divine our own purposes (or some people just accept the purpose of life as dictated to them by their friends, family, religion, or society).

I feel intermittent sadness for my lack of attachment to the survival of this species. I guess since we aren’t aware of any other beings in the universe possessing second-order consciousness, there would be no one to mourn the extinction of our species, as such.

You responded to a comment of mine by saying “you seem to cling to the notion that somehow you can get through and change minds, presumably just in time to save the world?” In truth I don’t think it’s possible to save the world. I enjoy little exercises, little projects to focus on, as I simultaneously realize that I’m just a breathing organism flying around for a short time on a watery planet going who-knows-where.

I will continue to try to refine my incomplete map of the world; I will continue to try to expand the worldview of the people around me; I will continue to ponder how to affect the worldviews of a greater portion of the population; I will continue to learn more about systems and the limits of biofuels and discrete math; and I will continue to breath as I hurdle inexorably towards a time when I am no longer a part of this planet’s living creatures.

These entertainments, these projects, these ponderings, all contain their own enjoyment. I take the enjoyment I can from them. I try to spread a little joy to some people. I try to feel the phenomenological falsehood that we call ‘time.’

I support changes to the teaching of our youth not because I think it’s possible to arrive at a more sapient version of business-as-usual, but because for whatever time our species has left on this planet, people with higher levels of cognitive development seem to experience less pain. If changes to teaching can do this, at least it would do some good.

[porge]

George,
Take heart........I have had this very conversion with several acquaintances recently and was surprised at the depth of thought that they had given to the topics.
So I guess the awareness is beginning to ramp.
Incidentally, I gave them a link to QE and also the oil drum. I think that here are enough of us out here we are just not organized.

TOwnp,
Hurtle not hurdle. Got Ya!

PS..George, I hope you heal up 100%

[porge]

correction:

.......there are enough of us out here...........

[t0wnp1ann3r]

porge: You're right. I don't use metaphors much in my writing. Maybe it's because I'm just no good at them.

[Molly Radke]

THANK YOU for being the kind of teacher we need. In my small way, when I was in the high school classroom, I tried to so the things that you try to do - ALWAYS to teach in the context of larger, verifiable, if often inherently complex, realities.

In my experience, I think that some of the most important things any teacher can do are first of all, to teach with honesty, caring, respect and compassion for one's students, and secondly to trust in the basic interest and intelligence of many, if not most, of one's students - to remember that they appreciate being treated with respect and HONESTY. Yes, some will NEVER "get it," will remain tied to inherited prejudices and illusions, but many will begin to move beyond cultural straight-jackets and to think independently and originally. Yes, some will be rather disheartened by the inherent cruelties of many aspects of "reality, " but aren't we all? Still, to feel the caring and intelligence in the mind and heart of a teacher who is trying to do his/her best by their students, in my experience, both personally with my own teachers, and with my students, is an essentially up-lifting experience. To find connections to people with similar hearts and minds is an ultimately reassuring experience.

[Nathan]

Hello George,
I think you might find that more young people than you imagine are already disillusioned with the endless consumption cycle. You could approach your role as one of "The Liberator". If you're the guy who tells stressed, depressed and soon to be debt ridden students that they don't need any tertiary quals for the future that's coming, you will be lifting a huge burden from their young shoulders. Young, fit, people who can think and are not afraid of hard physical work will not have much to worry about no matter what is coming. There is something extremely satisfying labouring to provide for yourself and your loved ones. You sleep like a log. Encourage ingenuity, practical aptitude and an enquiring mind and you'll have earned your paycheck.

[Robin Datta]

An educated person, it had been said, "is one who knows a little of everything, and everything of a little". That makes education a journey, not a goal: a lifelong endavour.

And again, as a Chinese saynig from a long time ago says:

For a return on investment in one year, plant rice. For a return on investment in ten years, plant fruit trees. For a return on investment in a hundred years, educate people.

I am reminded of the terminology used, appropriately, although perhaps without full awareness of the implications: surgical training, and medical education.

There is a distinction between education and training. Training can be quite sophisticated, depending on the complexity of the skills being imparted. It can (and these days often does) masquerade as education.

[xraymike79]

"Writers like James Howard Kunstler, author of The Long Emergency, and John "Michael Greer, author of The Long Descent, both emphasize that the process of economic and cultural unwind will take perhaps several centuries (hence the word 'long' in both titles). I am not so sure myself. I imagine a number of scenarios that may hasten the process and in at least the worst case scenario lead to catastrophic collapse. ..."

What are these fast collapse scenarios you imagine? Not to be overly morbid, but I'd be interested to hear your take on such possibilities...

[Facts Analyzer]

George,
This might be easy question, but for newby like me can you say what you think in a nutshell about the book Bottomless Well by Peter Huber and Mark P. Mills. I watched a youtube video about the book and authors state that the oil will never run out, it will only run out of cheap oil, not of oil in general.
Big Thanks

[George Mobus]

Georgei,

...you need to make them forget pretty much everything they have been told all their life. Not going to happen.

I agree, not going to happen in any sense that will make a difference for the whole of humanity. But in bits...?

A lot of really cherished stuff has to be thrown away even regarding what is being studied in schools and universities if a curriculum that produces students "getting it" is to be designed.

In a sense my attempts at writing an introductory text book on systems science is an experiment in what needs to be thrown out vs. what needs to be kept. From my POV an awful lot of details from all of the sciences can be "compressed" in the form of the general principles of systems science and the patterns that recur over and over again throughout all disciplines of knowledge. Preserve the principles of systemness and you maintain the capacity to regenerate the details again later (when needed).

George

[George Mobus]

T0wnp1ann3r,

By "purpose of life" I am not necessarily concerned with one's personal concept of their own purpose. Rather I am addressing a more general purpose of ALL life. Learning and understanding within a single entity is essential (to whatever extent necessary) to continuance of life itself. And, as far as I can tell, life seems pretty determined to maintain itself on this planet (even if humans got it screwed up).

My teaching (and this blog) are dedicated to filtering out those few individuals who are strongly motivated to UNDERSTANDING as this is a possible sign of higher sapience. My objective is simple: create a community of sapient people who stand a chance of making a difference in a new world to follow this one. I have no belief that I am going to change minds of those who don't already want to change.

George

[George Mobus]

Porge,

It is that organization of like sapients that occupies my thinking these days.

George

[George Mobus]

Molly,

Your comment prompts me to clarify something I just told T0wnp1ann3r. In truth, I actually do hope to change some minds. There are a lot of very intelligent people out there who may not be quite as sapient as I suspect will be necessary when the collapse starts in earnest. However if these people at least can understand what and why the world is collapsing they may see the value in assisting the more sapient individuals to prepare for the possible bottleneck situation.

That is, if more young people can learn about the impending demise of the current economic and population system and NOT fall into despair, they may actually see how they can help prepare the world for what will come tomorrow with some joy in knowing they are part of the solution. So I hope that teaching may lead to that result as well.

George

[George Mobus]

Nathan,

Thanks for the observation. That helps. Also see my response to Molly re: teaching to everyone, not just the highly sapient.

George

[George Mobus]

Robin,

You have probably read some of my choice comments about our so-called education system. Don't get me started...!

George

[George Mobus]

xraymike79,

Several things I have mentioned in the past: A major concern is how people who are spoiled by a high energy lifestyle are going to react to the loss of material wealth - riots and regional resource wars are likely to accelerate the decline.

Our ability to adapt to the problems that will come with climate change (which now seems to be coming on faster than even the IPCC estimates) will require a lot more energy than we will have available.

Our economic systems are so intertwined, interrelated, and somewhat brittle (think about the modern just-in-time supply chain, esp. for food production) that even small breakdowns in key areas could cause an amplified cascade of breakdowns.

Imagine that one day the food delivery trucks just stop bringing food to the supermarkets. Imagine the electricity going out in major metropolitan areas, or water supplies.

Within a few days of major breakdowns people start looting and killing to keep themselves alive.

The big question mark has to do with how humans react to it all.

George

[George Mobus]

Facts Analyzer,

Haven't read the book, nor read a review of it. As to the fact that there will be lots of oil still in the ground after peak oil, that is true. The problem is that it will take too much energy to do the work of extracting what is left. Unless you get more net energy for your efforts you don't put in the effort. The energy in the oil left in the ground is there, it just won't be available (unless, of course, someone figures out how to overcome gravity!)

George

[Justin Ritchie]

Brilliant post George! I just ran across your blog after it was linked to on Energy Bulletin. I struggle with these same issues, but perhaps in the opposite direction.

As a grad student, in my class and group presentations I try to bring up issues of net energy to frame motivation for why we are researching better solar cell processing methods. When I do, my engineering professors seem oblivious and sometimes perturbed that I'm saying human civilization won't continue in exactly the same form it has for the last few decades. I suppose I eventually realized they are just a product of the same educational system that handicaps students when dealing with our present crisis.

Great to know there are some university professors with the foresight to discuss these issues with students.

[Guy McPherson]

Great essay, George. I've been teaching reality for years, which made me persona non grata at the University of Arizona. So I left my position as full professor at the height of my career, at the age of 49, to pursue an alternative path. I've written often about this choice, most recently here: http://guymcpherson.com/2010/08/cleaning-up-2/