Am I Living in a Nightmare?

My dreams contain more rationality and even my nightmares are not as frightful as what I observe when I am awake. The State of the Union Address and the Republican rejoinder afterward underscored this living nightmare reality. The talking-head commentaries afterward confirmed the madness.

I had planned to deconstruct the President's comments on energy as an example. As I went through the text of the speech, about energy, I realized how hopeless it would be to simply point out the inconsistencies and outright non-truths. There were too many, and the common person won't care anyway. Governor Mitch Daniels' responses regarding energy issues were just as insane, of course. And all the talking heads could do is analyze the whole thing in the framework of things like “energy independence” and “jobs creation”.

Now I understand why zombie movies are so popular. The vast majority of people appear to be zombies. And clearly the so-called leaders (political and thought) have had their brains eaten.

Here is the President enunciating what is essentially a drill-baby-drill (Republican) notion:

Nowhere is the promise of innovation greater than in American-made energy. Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources. Right now, American oil production is the highest that it’s been in eight years. That’s right -- eight years. Not only that -- last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past sixteen years.

What can we possibly conclude from this statement? Does the President really believe that opening lands for drilling is going to substantially increase our oil production, or even if it did (marginally) at a cost that would make it economical? More still does he grasp the energy cost of retrieving energy? Does he get that drilling more holes and deeper for a marginal increase in flows is just plain dumb? And does he realize this is not likely to produce any real improvement, even in the short run? I won't try to point out all of the illegitimate notions expressed here. For better analysis than I can do go to The Oil Drum or Our Finite World for high-quality analyses of the oil and natural gas situation in the US.

The highlight in my view was the fact that he did not use the phrase “clean coal”. He alluded to clean energy. After repeating the hyped claim about America having one hundred years of natural gas (very likely a completely fabricated claim by the gas industry), he went on to say:

What’s true for natural gas is true for clean energy. In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world's leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries. Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled. And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it. [Emphasis mine.]

High-tech batteries! Great. And just what will we fill those batteries with? What will generate the electricity? Renewable energy use has doubled? I suppose a 100% increase sounds impressive until you realize that we are starting from a miniscule base. And, thousands of jobs when there are tens of millions who could work but are not? Is there a disconnect in scale here? The real cost-effectiveness of solar and wind is still hotly debated, but when you add in EROI and external costs the evidence strongly suggests that these sources can never produce the wealth of energy needed to run our current kind of economy, nor will they ever scale up effectively. Moreover, where will the money come from to make investments? Will we borrow it? Will capitalism suddenly discover that the return on investment in alternatives is really so great that capitalist will race to pump money into the industries? Get real.

Later in the speech he asserts that he will direct the military to make substantial uses of alternative energy (the military has already been experimenting with several forms with mixed results). I suspect he believes that an economy of scale phenomenon will drive down the up-front costs (investment in energy production equipment) and help make solar and wind capital more affordable to Americans. That isn't an unreasonable assumption if it were not the case that right now it is fossil fuel inputs to the manufacturing costs that subsidize the production of that capital equipment, as well as being needed to maintain the systems once built and installed. Until alternative energy sources can produce enough excess energy beyond what is demanded from the consuming economy to build their own replacements, we do not have a true renewable process. The current approach is not sustainable, nor will costs ultimately go down as much as might be expected. The reason is simple. The costs of fossil fuels will continue to rise because of the twin phenomena of peak production and declining EROI. These increasing costs could easily negate any economy-of-scale effect. I have heard from a military insider that people in the Pentagon have, in fact, derived that same model and are quite worried that this “political” move by the administration will end up costing the military much more in the end! Of course there are many Pollyanna types even in the military who are convinced this will all be obviated by technological breakthroughs. They don't know what those breakthroughs are going to be. They just have faith that technology will always come through with solutions. Ah well, just one more scary thought to deal with.

Mitch Daniels, in his Republican response speech said, “The extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy, or cancels a perfectly safe pipeline that would employ tens of thousands...” He obviously feels that Obama has not allowed enough drilling. He also asserts, without any evidence in support, that the proposed pipeline from Alberta tar sands to Houston (which Obama has temporarily suspended - not killed outright) would be perfectly safe. How in the name of all that is holy (or unholy) could he make that claim in a rational world? There is so much evidence that pipelines are dangerous to the environment. There is more than enough evidence that increased production of really heavy oil from Alberta will produce many times more CO₂ than just from refining and burning the fuel products.

It doesn't occur to either of these men that their statements are empty words, unsupported claims, and generally internally inconsistent (as well as usually inconsistent with reality). Moreover, it never occurs to the electorate that both sides have it so horribly wrong. Most people are choosing sides in meaningless debates. They go for ideological-based faux-reality. And it never occurs to any of them that most of what passes for assertions about how to best govern are just ludicrous gibberish. It's the rhetoric not the substance of the messages.

And this attitude, or lack of awareness is everywhere. Is it any wonder that I would feel like I am living in a nightmare? George Orwell came pretty close to inventing a fictional dystopia in which double-speak was the norm, in which truth is lie and lie is truth. But in “1984” the powers that be actually had a rational plan in mind. They were forcing society to conform with constraints through their manipulations (we never learned exactly what those constraints were but assumed they were simply based on power struggles). Our leaders have no real plan. They are bumbling through and by helping the 1% get richer just hastening the day of demise for all. Orwell's world might have been frightening, but it didn't have the seemingly random logic of a dream/nightmare. Our world is completely out of control and chaotic, even as political and thought leaders try hard to produce the illusion of rationality and even progress (or promised progress).

The SOTU address, the rejoinders (even the Occupy response), and the analyses by political experts, all demonstrate just how far from reality our political and economic worlds are. It was somewhat amusing to watch the Republican candidates (read that clowns) perform in their debates and speech venues, as well as revelations of their complete hypocrisies with respect to their behaviors in life. But that race is just one small piece of the overall picture. What is happening in Congress, the Executive branch, the Supreme Court (where corporations were afforded the right of free speech - using money to talk) would have been considered totally unrealistic in former times. Completely, and totally, those governing the US have demonstrated that the United States way of life and means of government are without reason.

Yes those governing, and would-be governing, are without a shred of understanding of reality. But they are there largely because the electorate shares that same fate. Most people in this country are generally ignorant, undiscerning, selfish, unempathetic, and lazy. I think I know why (lack of sufficient sapience) but that is of no avail. This is just the way it is. So with a general population of people who are in this situation, what else should we expect from our leaders? People get elected when they make promises to people that those people want to hear. It doesn't matter if the promises can be fulfilled because they correspond to reality. All that matters is that they get the power and the wealth that comes with modern elected offices. Damn everyone else.

And that is exactly what is happening. Just how bizarre will this nightmare get?

Comments

[step back]

"It doesn't matter if the promises can be fulfilled ..."

George,

I think those few, well chosen words of yours sum it up not only for the energy issues but also for the financial crisis issues.

At the end of the day, an advanced civilization relies on people making trustable "promises" to other people, most notably to strangers and living up to their promises.

Here is a simple example. I promise that when you and I go driving in opposite directions on a same 2 lane road, I won't cross the double yellow line and I trust that you won't either.

Here is a more complex example. Boss to worker: "You have have worked hard this week and in compensation for your hard work, I give you this "money" stuff. I am not personally obliged to make sure you get fair value for this "money" stuff and the minute you accept it, I wash my hands of all responsibilities, but trust me, it will get you fair value (from unnamed strangers out there) for the valuable services you rendered to me."

And finally of course, we have the "promises" made by politicians to the citizenry where the politicians never intend to personally be obligated to seeing to it that any of those promises are kept.

[Bruce]

George, the human ape species IS collectively insane. One is not permitted to claim sanity among the mass of insane apes or be called delusional, deviant, unmutual, or worse.

The more insane human apes among the rentier-oligarchic top 0.1-0.4% of households in the English-speaking world are even more insane, and dangerously sociopathic to the rest of us, because they perceive themselves and their progeny as worthy of having it all, and they fully intend to have it all in a winner-take-all, last-ape-standing contest to the bloody end.

In the meantime, the mass of insane human apes, pardon me, f&@k and consume ourselves to certain mass die-off and extinction.

What is a sane human ape to do in such a situation?

[Molly]

Yes, of course you are (living in a nightmare) and, alas, there will be NO morning in which to awake from our collective BAD DREAM. Because the "dream" is the INSANE reality into which we are all locked by the willfully ignorant political-economic powers that control our fates. What the hell to do? Damned if I know.......

[step back]

@Molly,

You have to read.
Read from many sources and juxtapose the contradictory pieces next to each other.

Then ask yourself what allows the human mind to hold itself together in spite of all the contradictions?

Here is an example:
1. First consider this "free market" theory
Laissez-faire economics where everyone is just out for himself (individual greed)

2. Next consider this recent NYT times article about the collapse of the fisheries due to Laissez-faire economics, Mackerel's Plunder

The line that should catch you eye is this:

"We’ve got to fish harder before it’s all gone."

How can human beings think this way?
But we do.

Hat tip to Ugo Bardi

[Robin Datta]

One may recognize the disconnect between the "politician" and the "state". The "state" is an oversized organizational chart personified. There is no such thing as Country X, but its organizational chart specifies and defines the location and status of everyone in the hierarchy. When the politician makes a promise, much of the responsibility devolves on the personified chart. This is particularly true for promises that are to come to fruition after the politician's term(s) in office.

This adds to the surreality of the circumstances where diving into deNile with ignorance of or blindness towards the approaching crocodile of reality.

[property for sale in the usa]

Oh, at first I really wonder about why it title like that. Maybe you have to read lots of information about that. Thanks a lot in sharing this to us.
[Moderator edit: removed commercial URL]

[Aboc Zed]

George did a good post again.

It is a pitty that George and community of the commenters here has no chance to have any influence on human condition at the moment.

On the other hand this is only at the moment.

Eventually the species (aka organism-whole) will learn.

Of course during and after a mass die-off of drone/burden overpopulation from the bottom all the way up.

Bruce is pointing cortrectly that the mass of the humans can be called "insane".

Take this exammple: the guy who I used to work with just sent out the picture of his new born daughter. Because his mom recently died he called his message "Circle of Life".

We are not close with the guy so that I would tell him: Are You Crazy? How can you have the guts to _knowingly_ to have a child? Given what is coming. How can you? But then I thought to myself: his daughter is most like is simply a failure to properly use protection. Simple as that.

Until someone ot top refuses the bottom to breed freely we will continue to have the problems we have.

And it is all because most of us believe in such thing as "human rights".

Soon there will be only one right for most: to die.

What to do?

Stop pretending that believing in "human rights" and morality is doing humanity any good. Not to mention it is only on paper.

those of us who understand what our children and grandchildren will have to go thru must get together and start working on the siode of their "daytime jobs" to begin new ways of icommunication and interaction in order to kick start a community that will prepare the grounds and be transitional environment for Homo Cogitans of the future - the subspeciated of shoot of homo sapiens sapiens which will inherit the planet (waterver will be left of it after homo sapiens sapiens "watch")

there is a lot to be done

and it all starts with connecting to the fellow men and women who understand

remeber Avatar?

"I SEE YOU"

[Aboc Zed]

@ step back

Although I agree with your portrayal of homo sapiens sapiens as species incapable of thinking consistently I think your presentation leaves out an important observation.

EVOLUTION never stops. For as long as there are sufficient number of replicas of homo species ( at the moment 7 billion and counting) and some of them have the time in excess of the time needed for basic survival (pretty much anyone in “first world” countries who has food to eat and shelter to sleep and does not have to spend all their time to procure the money for these necessities) the species as a whole will continue to accumulate KNOWLEDGE. This process is best represented by the view of SCIENCE as machine-that-goes-by-itself, independent of idiosyncratic beliefs of any particular individual.

It is only a matter of time before a group of highly wise men and women will realize the inevitability of sub-speciation that is ALREADY under way. George identifies such people as having more “sapience”. I make more emphasis on organizational aspects of our interactions including communication and using language as representational system giving rise to human condition that is essentially as primitive as it was when cavemen spent almost all their time for activities securing basic survival. Either way the "transitional" group will emerge.

To the extent each of us understands our configuration space and can trace our human condition to our evolutionary origins as warm blooded vertebrates he or she can comprehend the fundamental incompatibility of “having beliefs” and necessity of managing system rebalancing that we as the species will be forced to do because this rebalancing is predicated on the laws that govern matter and energy, laws that are _independent_ of beliefs, laws that are _phenomenological_

I have said it before and I will say it again: as long as wise men and women of science allow themselves to have luxury of beliefs in “right” and “wrong”, “morality”, “human rights” and other noumena that simply reflect our evolution out of ignorance these wise men and women of science will not comprehend that they are the ONLY agency that can ACT on their knowledge consciously adding their individual efforts to the vector of EVOLUTION.

We cannot “speed up” EVOLUTION of the organism-whole. But we can learn and MANIFEST it in our individual life and the way we interact with each other.

Belief-free scientists will have no choice but move into government and "manage" the transition from arrogant Homo Sapiens Sapiens to unassuming, constantly learning and heuristically rebalancing Homo Cogitans

[George Mobus]

All,

I couldn't agree more with Bruce re: the insanity. My own view is that the source of this insanity is really an inadequate average brain trying to cope with complexity it was never designed to deal with whilst still maintaining the biological mandate to survive and procreate. I rail against the system but I do not rail against this natural outcome.

My complaints against the system are in order to spur concern and thought among those of you who grasp the bigger picture so that we can consider what kind of system would be a more ideal social environment for future humans to occupy. At the same time considering how it might come about that those future humans are on an evolutionary journey toward becoming a more fit species. That means a species with all of the intelligence and creativity we have now but with the increased sapience to manage that cleverness to remain in balance with the rest of the Ecos for the long haul.

Even though I feel trapped, at times, in an insane world of human creation, I still maintain a conviction that this is just a way station on the path to the greater organization of life on this planet. We cannot change things in the present. The die is cast. The roles are being played out in the drama of evolution. But we can, perhaps, have an influence on the future if we have a vision and develop a plan.

George

[Molly]

@ step back - Been there, read that, and a whole hell of a lot more..... e.g. Griftopia by Matt Taibbi, etc. etc etc.........

[Florifulgurator]

Methinks a good part of the insanity can be excused/explained by the trappings of the ego. (Yes I tend towards a Buddhist philosophy/theory of mind.)

It is hard to accept/admit to have lived in a pipe dream of eternal growth, compound interest and cheap energy. It's even harder to admit/accept to have partaken in the destruction of one's children's future. It's not easy to admit that one's pension funds were "earned" at the expense and detriment of others. For the middle class, this ego challenge is magnified by the fear of descent back into the proletariat. For those who can't get above their ego and its conflicts with outside reality, the result is a paranoid worldview.

Insanity as a consequence of a mental defense mechanism.

(Heck, I've for many years witnessed elderly Germans (and their later born children) "explain" Hitler. The psychopathology of Auschwitz denial is strikingly similar to climate science denial.)

Methinks a good deal of sapience can be achieved by getting aware of and then transcending the psychotic powers of one's ego.

[Tom]

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/26/410149/bill-gates-climate-change-food-security-genetic-modification/

Thanks for the comments everyone and for your thoughts which provoked them, George. i've been thinking along these lines since Nixon, but once GW took office, it became abundantly clear that the U.S. has lost its grip on reality. Now it's just a race to the bottom.

[Tom]

i also wanted to present to you the Green Party candidate Dr. Jill Stein's version of the peoples' state of the union address:

http://www.jillstein.org/text_psou

for your consideration.

[Aboc Zed]

Bruce,

I am worried for your state of mind.

I just saw your comment at Dave Cohen's site and I se recurring theme coming up again.

I feel that you are not letting out your energy and unnecessary focus too much on negatives even when you know that it is only names with negative connotations.

We can call 'human condition' insane. And we can notice suicide rising. On the other hand we can focus on the fact that without agriculture and subsequent overpopulation tour species will not have an abundance of man-hours to spend on science.
And here is the positive: the science that explains 'human condition' exists. the trajectory of the evolution is discernable. If one person or a group of people (George, you , me, others) can see the big picture then the big picture CAN BE SEEN. In other words it is _guaranteed_ that for as long as science continues our collective understanding of the BIG PICTURE will only improve.

Yes now those who see big picture are scattered voices on the fringes of society.

Yes the momentum of overpopulation, overconsumption and irreversible destruction of biosphere supporting viability of our species is only getting bigger.

And this hurts us. And it pains us to think that as a species we are so "stupid" as let this happen.

But on the other hand we should be looking at the positive side of this. We are the ones who care about us all. Together. We care about thinking for the solutions for us all. And we create mental environment that is propagating this caring.

Mental environment that allows those like us (who cares) to find understanding and those who will listen.

We simply need to organize and implement the strategy of our survival as a group over the collapse of the civilization based on ignorance and emergence of civilization based on knowledge.

And that will happen.

Simply because life-forms are driven by genetic imperative to survive.

And genus homo is life-form too.

At the end of the day, when we are drowning in our own poop some of us wil say: enough is enough; forget right and wrong; let's just do what is needed for survival

And those people will be raised from their infancy to adulthood by people who were exposed to the understanding of big picture that we are building now.

We simply need to keep doing what we are doing. Learning as we go. Refining our language. And be prepared to pass this process to our children.

There will be a time on this planet when homo species will look back and think :"Homo Sapiens Sapiens was our ancestor but they did not know what they were doing; We now know and we will manage ourselves and the planet wisely, for as long as we receive the energy of our star, and who knows - one day we may receive visitors or even send ourselves into outer space."

[Bruce]

@AZ, thanks for your concern. I take your point and appreciate your saying so with such clarity and passion.

The risks we face at this particular moment in time are so immediate and grave that it is my personal experience that most of us are virtually clueless as to the extent of the financial and economic destruction that awaits and the mass-social and political madness that will thereafter descend on us.

Perhaps your personal situation is not imminently at risk, or you are confident in your understanding that you have sufficient contingencies in place; however, knowing what I know and perceiving the implications for me personally, I am not confident that I am adequately prepared, nor will I likely have the luxury of remedying this condition in the time allotted.

And I say this knowing that I am relatively more prepared than the overwhelming majority of my fellow humans.

As to the positive and the negative, I understand the desire to frame issues as positive so as to motivate or encourage oneself to take affirmative steps individually and with other like-minded individuals. Perhaps I am older than you are and have grown somewhat weary over time in attempting with little success just what you wisely suggest.

[Tom]

i hear you Bruce. i've been "this way" for too many years now and it seems that people would rather live in a fantasy world than come to grips with the (practically insurmountable) problems we now face. i'm confident that when it all starts crashing down that most of humanity can be counted on to go berserk and act chaotically with guns and such rather than group up and cooperate to survive, but i still try to get the message out and keep trying to prepare for the eventual (probably imminent) collapse.

[Aboc Zed]

Bruce,

It is not possible for us to prepare for the collapse of the civilization. When it happens we all will be affected. And we all already are. Since we have this conversation at this particular place in the blogosphere I would think that neither you nor I are high in the pecking order structure. If we were we would not be talking. :) I therefore think that should things unravel faster than we would want them from our individual perspective we may go through similar fate (lose our job if we have any; lose our comfortable life, etc, etc.) We may even die. So for that I do not think our situation can be substantially different.

In terms of being older and weary (burned out?) I could not comment because I do not know enough about you to have an opinion.

You certainly sound tired of dealing with idiots and those who would not listen but whether you really ARE like that I do not know.

From my personal experience I know that somewhat more sophisticated minds tend to perceive reality more adequately than less sophisticated minds. They call themselves ``realists``. But then this `realism` turns into pessimism simply because real human condition is mostly made up of pain and suffering. In fact even children who grow up protected by harmonious relationships of their parents eventually `learn` to be like everybody else which means they learn to worry and be unhappy.

I am sure this popular psychology is nothing new to you. And I am not trying to suggest that if we adopt positive attitude we will solve problems of humanity. That would be foolish. Mindless optimism is not only stupid but very dangerous. And there is abundance of it all around us: Obama`s SOTU address is a fine example of that.

All I am trying to do is to remind ourselves that our productivity and our reactions are linked to our emotional states. Our emotional states both shape and are being shaped by our physical environment. Because we think in words it is important what kind of words we chose to talk to ourselves. If we keep on talking to ourselves in negative terms we simply rob ourselves of the mental energy that we could apply to alternative uses.

This is why I said what I said. I have been reading your insightful comments for a while now. I have no doubt that you understand the big picture in all its depth and breadth. I also noticed that there is an element of pain in all of your writings. And that I perceive as inconsistent with true understanding of human condition. In my opinion, life is neither good nor bad. The upcoming (or already under way) collapse is neither good nor bad. It is just there. It is the reality we have to deal with. It is not much different from the reality cavemen faced when they stepped out to search for food. They did not know what awaits them outside. They did not know if they will come back. And so are we. We live one day at a time. On the other hand we know so much more than cavemen. We know what is coming. Shouldn`t we feel less scared than they did? And shouldn`t we always be able to `draw` optimism when we need it in the fact that evolution never stops and homo sapiens sapiens will give rise to the species that will do it all quite differently? Don`t you feel good about having the chance to contribute to that? Wouldn`t you feel excited merely about understanding this?

[Bruce]

@AZ, your points are well taken, deeply insightful, and encouraging.

In my case, I concede that "realism" has turned pessimistic in the perspective of most observers. One wonders if the most successful of your cavemen were optimistic or pessimistic "realists" or not "realists" at all.

In the US, optimism is a commodity to be sold juxtaposed against the mass-media messaging intended to condition personal dissatisfaction in order to persuade one to spend money to assuage the feelings of dissatisfaction, boredom, envy, fear, loneliness, etc. An optimistic predisposition that one can buy something to feel better is required.

It is often said that we cannot predict or anticipate the future; however, when couples choose to have children, they inherently are optimistic that their offspring will succeed. When we borrow money, we are optimistic that we will have sufficient future financial resources to service the debt. We are quite good at optimistically extrapolating linear "knowns" and "wants" into "the future".

Whether we perceive it or not, we are collectively optimistic that we can successfully compete as individuals and social groups in an increasingly competitive, resource-constrained "full world" of 7 billion human apes and growing. To perceive otherwise is to know that one is not likely to be competitive under such conditions, one does not really want to subject oneself to such competitive conditions, or to be "realistic" about one's lack of competitiveness and that of most everyone else.

Is it "realistic" to think that one can compete successfully against 7 billion and more human apes for scarce resources on a finite planet (or within the confines of Spaceship Earth)?

Is it "pessimistic" to perceive or conclude that one cannot compete?

Should one then by default internalize that one has only the choice to be "optimistic" that one can compete successfully and thus proceed with learning how to be as competitive as is required, including against one's siblings, social group, and neighbors?

And this is certainly what the elite atop the current hierarchical system of power relations, division of labor, and wealth and income distribution promote as the ideal type: ruthlessly competitive winner-take-all, last-man-standing system in which a vanishingly small number are "winners" gain at the expense of the rest of us "losers".

But this situation lends itself well to what you suggest. Thus, one should be encouraged to "feel good" and be "excited" about the prospect of encountering and working in a cooperative, collaborative, creative relationship with like-minded individuals and functioning social groups in a mutually beneficial way that might reduce individual competition and encourage cooperation and group success.

[mikkel]

The more insane things get, the more comedians are the only serious ones.

Check out this recent onion article http://www.theonion.com/articles/scientists-look-onethird-of-the-human-race-has-to,27166/

[Oliver P]

Hello George
I am delighted to have accidentally discovered 'Question Everything' when I was so frustrated with Life that I googled "what is going on?"
I have now read several of your posts and I believe you are the right person to ask about something that has tickled my brain cells for years. Let me first admit that I am not an academic, and I profess no specialist education beyond a BA in Law and Philosophy way back when. So here's my question: Is psychopathic behaviour indicative of a sub-species of homo sapiens?
I have looked into psychopathy fairly extensively and it seems to account for the ostensibly insane behaviour of our political and corporate classes (the 1%), in the sense that these so-called "top people" behave on a daily basis in a totally self-interested manner, with no empathy for the well-being of others, except possibly their offspring for genetic reasons.
I am interested to learn your perspective on this matter. If it so happens that we have been led towards the forthcoming evolutionary bottleneck through our blind and I guess lazy acceptance of psychopathic leaders, who are different from us in the way their brains work, there is a chink of light that the emergence of an alternative leadership among non-psychopaths could help build the ark on which our common future depends.
Thanks in advance for any words of sapience.
Best wishes, Oliver (living in England for my sins)