Nice article, well written, though I sometimes wonder how much of the 1960s style utopia is a product of boomers remembering the time through a prism of youth, thus remembering the time they were young rather than the period itself.

Indeed, consumption is something that we need to look at, though whether people will be willing if they're not forced... something in me is rather cynical at the prospect.

Dear Readers,
This article, while perhaps reflecting some contemporary factors of great importance, is desperately defeatest and not balanced. It destroys hope for the future and the drive for constructive and innovative solutions. Perhaps it is meant to be an awakening call. But a more positive view of the future would be far more appropriate and more likely to result in positive progress. Sure there are profound challenges ahead, that is not new, but the means for overcoming the obstacles are improving all the time. There is both a downward graph and an upward graph at work, and at some point they will intersect and lead to profound insights, new perspectives and visions of the future. The future is a global one, of that there can be no doubt, and when that is accepted by many people then new possibilities for humanity emerge, latent human capacities will be brought to light and old prejudices cast aside. Hope is essential for the human condition to flourish. Lets not kill it prematurely. The long termn future of humanity is very bright.
Graham N

As noted, the problem is a global one, but every one of them can be traced back directly or indirectly to over population. When will people realise this, although I fear it is too late now.

G.R.
You just don't understand what the good doctor is telling you do you? We must take action NOW not tomorrow, next week, next year but NOW. Listen to what the scientists of the world have been telling us since 1991, unless you are more qualified than they are of course. And just as important is Earth's over population many answers have to be answered politically if we are to survive as a species, here today gone in 50 years it's up to the ignorant to think about this.

I am one of those people who sees the science of climate change as convincing: it is evidenced that the earth is warming. We should be taking action. However that is where the facts end and the speculation begins. As someone who would like to see more action I get dismayed when statements like "climate changes threaten to end civilisation itself" are trotted out. They seem in the same basket as the right-wing US Christians who look forward to climate change and see it as fulfilling biblical prophesy. It's scare mongering and allows oxygen to the naysayers.

In the next 20 years we will probably see 'peak oil' and need to adjust for that. About 80 years later climate change might be really kicking in but what we 'know' will happen comes only from models. As the head of Scripps said recently on the ABC, just try and get a grant for research for a model that doesn't show catastrophic outcomes. Peter should distinguish between what he knows and what is speculation before laying on the shrill observations.

In the meantime millions live with HIV/AIDS or are dying of hunger or diseases or being killed in wars. This is a fact happening now, as you read this. Multiply the deaths today by 365 then by 100 and we see just where civilisation is threatened. But of course, it isn't us in that particular lifeboat.

Reclaiming the Meaning of Human Life.

This article is not defeatist as some might percieve.

If we don't ask ourselves the right questions then how can we ever problem solve.

What is alarming is how many feel that balance must always be about feeling UP. This impedes or prevents entry to valuable discussion and is why the depth of the world problem gets deeper.

As Peter McMahon states; "

a) Most importantly, we need to start talking to each other again and we need to reclaim our time.

b) We have become functions of our possessions, driven by the need for more and better, but losing our emotional and social meaning along the way.

c) Mass-industrial society delivered us from want and disease, but it has become a mad religion that is about to cost us everything.

And for a developed nation this next para is most critical;

"The western lifestyle has become increasingly absurd, resulting in growing mental illness, widespread depression, poor health, social alienation, and it turns out, environmental catastrophe", midst other things!

Who could be affronted by this truth?

I feel this present election is the most important one we have experienced for a long while.

Why?

Because it has synthesised a unifying agenda. It is a chance to move forward by affirming the hope we all have, and gives us all the opportunity to participate and to problem solve.

For me it is not about the leaders and the political parties.

It is about self governance.

It is about each and everyone of us ALL taking "responsiblity, by doing what is required and learning more about HOW.

Well Done Peter these articles are never easy to write. Thank You.

http://miacat.com
.

Peter JH,
I see your point and it is a good one, however 1,600 scientists predicted what would happen in 1991 and gave their report to the UN. Almost half of these scientists were Nobel prize winners, my point is if we lay people don't listen to those brilliant minds, who should we listen to? We send our best and brightest off to Uni if we can afford it, they study, if they pass they get a degree, and go on to work in their chosen field, they gain experience and give an opinion. I can't speak for anyone but me, but if I am having trouble with my car I don't ask the butcher what it might be, I ask a mechanic.

We accept the mechanic's advice freely, yet we argue over the scientist's opinion, why? Because sacrifice and money are involved that's why, it seems inconceivable that we could create a new industry from greenhouse free means and fill the jobs vacuum by employing people in the new industry. This in conservative thinking, cautious thinking, we need progressive thinking on this issue not for us but for our children, and their children.

It is quite appearent that modern lifestyles are unhealthy. In fact quite a large amount are suicidal. Yet, dumping greenhouse gases into the air is genecidal, and approaches misanthropic.

It is one thing to deny that tobbaco smoking is bad for your health, or that eating foods high in saturated fats is bad for your health, but denying our accelerating greenhouse gas pollution of the air is catastrophically bad for the health of the planet is in another class altogether.

The IPCC is coming out with the third report, prescribing things we can do to slow global warming. It acknowledges the inevitability of a 2.5C (or greater, because the IPCC is very conservative, and most likely underestimates the sensativity of the climate to CO2 increases) rise in temperatures.

Since Dr Hansen of NASA makes a strong argument for a 1C tipping point (450ppm CO2), and Sir David King thinks the tipping point is 2C (while acknowledging the political will might not be strong enough to avoid crossing that line), an almost 3C rise is tacitly acknowledging that most humans will die from runaway global warming in the next hundred years or so.

Until the world understands how serious this is, and chooses the risky solution strategy of genetically modifying nature to absorb much more CO2 from the air, we are on a trajectory to stop worrying about all other unhealthy lifestyle choices (i.e. near extinction, and a dramatic lowing of the carrying capacity of the earth to support life).

There are some things that are inevitable. One of those is that this earth has a finite lifespan.

It is generally accepted that life on earth will be impossible in less than a billion years, due to the increased impact of solar activity.

Well before this, human life will be extinguished, either as a result of our own self-destructive urges, or the gradual elimination of the resources we need to live.

So we are not talking about if, we are talking about when. And whether we extend human life here by one, or a hundred, or a thousand years, at some point there will still be a day when the last person shuffles off this mortal coil.

Given this inevitability, how - philosophically - should we prepare for it?

Articles like this one, collecting the comments and views that it does, can only see one solution, which is that we somehow revert to more primitive lifestyles in order to diminish our impact on the earth's resources.

It is a solution that appeals to our sense of fair play (why should we be so privileged in our use of the available resources), but totally ignores that thing we call human nature.

Human nature in this context follows closely Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Once we as a society clamber up the ladder, we are highly resistance to backing down again.

So, call it selfish, call it greedy, call it what you will. Unless and until you can find a way to alter human nature, there is no "solution" to this "problem".

We will all continue as we have always done. Make the best of the hand we have been dealt, and try to hand on to our own offspring the best chance to survive further that we can.

The end of civilization will be unpleasant, however it arrives. In the meantime, we will slowly but surely have to accept that life is going to become increasingly less luxurious, then less comfortable, then less bearable, until finally it becomes unacceptable. The only variable is the speed of the decline, not the decline itself.

Pericles, that post of yours was the most sensible I've ever seen in this "debate." You've hit the nail right on the head. I fear for my kids and grandkids. The only consolation I can take from all this is the fact that it's very unlikely I'll be alive to see the worst of either peak oil or Global warming.
Wildcat.

You're quite right of course, Pericles.

But what about space travel and colonisation? Or the Rapture?

More seriously, while the end is indeed inevitable, I don't think it hurts for the more optimistic among us to strive for ways that we might collectively delay it :)

What will happen in the Arab world if the West reduces its dependance on oil. Their main economic survival seems to depend on oil or do they have other resources that will see them through?
It could bring about a major collapse over there.

Hasnt the earth been covered with water before, so basically if the oceans rise it will not be anything new. Of course it will be a disaster for the generations that will be affected and I dont wish that for my future grandchildren and their children.

If the earth is covered in more water and it is hotter shouldnt that result in more rainfall. My scientific knowledge of this is not great only having watched the odd documentary or two on it so excuse me if I have totally got that wrong.

It seems to me that all of mans inventions are like a double sided coin there is always a huge benefical side and an equally huge down side. TAke the invention of motorised transport, the car etc. hugely beneficial on the one hand. Resulting in the deaths of something like 6million people plus the injured worldwide, on the other side of the coin.

MOdern medicine, saving our children and ourselves from dying young from disease on the good side of the coin but weakening us genetically by not weeding out the fittest for survival. Plus burdening society with longer living older people.

The industrial revolution , bringing prosperity to millions but causing massive pollution that is altering earths climate on the other.

Computers hugely beneficial, but also making the waging of war extremely efficient. Instead of more leisure time it has resulted in one person doing the work of two or more people via computer. The internet also has taken spying between countries to new heights.

I'm not advocating not seeking to improve our lives with research just pointing out that we always seem to have to pay a price for it.

Geez this guy must have a great time in the 1960's....sounds like he has been miserable ever since. Hey Pete try some Prozac. What a drag of an article.

Peter - an excellent article. Some wise words there indeed. In the scheme of things if we all tried to live a bit more simply with less dependence on chasing 'wants' as opposed to 'needs' we'd all be collectively better off I'm sure.

The first positive step is for people to open their eyes to what has happened to the world we grew up in.

On a micro-level action can be as simple as instead of doing over-time for that all-mighty plasma you think your family needs - just leave work on time and take the kids to the park to play...thanks Peter.

CJ Morgan,
Space travel will only be for the rich, we mere mortals will be left behind, the reason this has to be dealt with is the rich have not yet found an inhabitable planet, or way to get there.

I would like to think for the masses, that government's such as ours would do everything in their power to slow the deterioration of our planet. Howard who would not even recognise "climate change" until recently is putting $10 billion in. I'd really like to know how comprehensive plans could have been set up in the short space of time since he first recognised it. Coincidently first recognition came 24 hours after George.W.Bush recognised it in his "State of the Union" speech.

Whilst presenting a well written and, to my mind, an accurate snapshot of modern day as experienced by the relatively affluent in our society, it should be realised that overconsumption is by no means universal. Many people do not have widescreen TV's, Mc Mansions, and huge gas guzzler vehicles. Some people have barely enough to eat. It is all very well to pontificate as to what 'we' should do. It is significant to note that the now eulogised 50's and 60's were produced by the same socio-economic factors that have produced contemporary society - the 50's and 60's were not produced in isolation but were simply part of the same on-going process. The sociological pressures that have produced 2007 circumstances also produced 1907 circumstances. There is no shortcut - the individual is helpless and ineffective against the on-going sociological evolution. Hope and vote is basically all that most of us can do.

Despite presenting an accurate snapshot of modern day living as experienced by the relatively affluent in our society, Dr McMahon seems to overlook the readily observable fact that overconsumption is by no means universal. Many people do not have widescreen TV's, Mc Mansions, and ridiculously over-designed vehicles. Some people have barely enough to eat. It is all very well to pontificate as to what 'we' should do - individual involvement varies across the entire 'we' spectrum. It is significant to note that the now eulogised 50's and 60's were produced by the same socio-economic factors that have produced contemporary society - the 50's and 60's were not produced in isolation but were simply part of the same on-going process. The sociological pressures that have produced 2007 circumstances also produced 1907 circumstances. There is no shortcut - the individual is helpless and ineffective against the on-going sociological evolution that commenced in the caves. Hope and vote is basically all that most of us can do.

Does anyone recall a short story by Doris Lessing, called "Report from the threatened city"? A city is soon to be destroyed either by an asteroid or earthquake.(I forget which it is) The city remains in the throes of denial until the rise of a promise of religious salvation results in a mass evacuation to a safe place.

It was science fiction yes, but I suspect Lessing knew just what it takes to sway people.

Dear Friends,

The views of the original author must be respected. These are times of great concern worldwide as the critical problems facing humanity mount up. And it is quite understandable that there should be calls for us to look for new solutions. But we must look for the fundamental underlying reasons for them and not just look on the surface at the symptoms. In the quest for solutions it is essential to have a hopeful perspective on the future. Cynicism is just going to add to the problems. Sure, there is going to be short term pain, it may even get much worse. But as solutions appear the prospects for a long term future for all human beings become ever brighter. We must not allow ourselves to think that humanity may slide into barbarism. This is defeatism of the very worst kind. We have to have faith in the human spirit to rise to the challenges. These are not utopian solutions. We are capable of coming up with a global order that is much, much better than the present one. The present world order may have previously been ok , but it is hopelessly out of touch with the needs of this age. We live in a global age and we must search out global solutions. This requires a radical change in human perspectives, away from the narrower loyalties of the past, political, national, racial, etc, and the adoption whole heartedly of global perspectives based on humanity as one race inhabiting the surface of one small and fragile planet. Here is the fundamental cause of all our problems. It requires a new paradigm shift in the human mind and heart. It is possible, just as it has occured in the past as humans moved from tribe to city to nation. Overall, each such move was in the direction of greater human unity. Each posed challenges and the surmounting of difficulties. The only difference in this age is the global scope of the issues to be addressed.
I repeat, the long term future of humanity is very bright.
GRN

Interesting about that Lessing story Clink, will have to look it up. You might like ..
Religion and Peak Oil: The City of Progress by John Michael Greer
http://www.energybulletin.net/29177.html

I increasingly think rational plans of action are snowflakes on Bondi, given the superficiality and freq. error that our supposedly rational minds deal in. What we need are some benign cults (ie. not the Moonies, christian 'prosperity gospel' or economic rationalism) that incorporate a much restored sense of responsibility for what we owe the world and all that does or may live in it.

Required is a new paradigm shift in the human mind and heart of politicians, for it is politicians who need faith in the human mind and heart of voters.

Present mock debates amongst politicians taking sides for the sake of being different rather than any real commitment or belief in any need for difference.

Long heated political debates ignoring the voters, all so as to leave decisions to these parties, leave decisions to these our elected representatives.

Ideologically so different and so same, politicans believed voters not knowing or understanding issues to make a decision on whether or not to sell Telstra;

Ideologically so different and so same, politicans believed voters not knowing or understanding issues to make a decision on whether or not to be involved in Iraq, Timor, Vietnam...

Ideologically so different and so same, politicans believe voters do not know or understand issues to make a decicion on whether we develop nuclear power stations in Australia.

The only solution in minds of politicians is "vote and elect me to decide for you" Even the Democrats are drifting down this path, perhaps as result into some minamilist oblivion.

Australia's Constitution only requires one house of Parliament to vote in favour of a Section 128 Constitutional Referenda, so a single House can let voters decide on an issue. [OK the single House may need vote on it a couple of time, but one determined House can send a bill to the voters.]

For this would open the floodgate to popular involvement in self-government...

Liam, the title is "Report on the threatened city" published 1971 in a book of short stories. Here's a short extract.

"‘The trouble with this species is not that it is unable to forecast its immediate future; it is that it doesn’t seem to care. Yet that is altogether too simple a stating of its condition. If it were so simple – that it knew that within five years its city was to be destroyed, or partly destroyed, and that it was indifferent – we should have to say: This species lacks the first quality necessary to any animal species; it lacks the will to live.’

The problem, for the extra-terrestrials is working out why this is so. They conclude, with mounting horror, that among human beings ‘Fear is not experienced, or not in a way that is useful for protecting society or the individual. No one sees these facts, because all the sets of words that describe behaviour are in contrast to the facts. The official sets of words are all to do with protection of oneself and others, caution about the future, pity and compassion for others’ – but the reality is that human actions simply don’t bear it out. The visitors retreat in despair: ‘We have been able to achieve nothing…There is no species like this one on any other planet known to us’."

McMahon is kidding himself if he believes changes in western society would make any difference to climate change. The awakening economic giants of China and India are about to dwarf the West and no matter what we do it will be negated by those two countries; both of which are not signatories to the flaccid and useless Kyoto Protocol.

So are we doomed? Who cares? History graphically shows that all civilisations rise and then fall. Modern civilisation will crash and burn. I, for one, couldn’t care less whether it happens tomorrow or next century. After all, the meaning of life is death.

"...a new paradigm shift in the human mind and heart of politicians, for it is politicians who need faith in the human mind and heart of voters. "

Well said polpak... comments like this give me the strength and heart to engage in this forum. Thank You polpak!

A gift polpak - for our hearts and mind, may we ALL show strength for the people on the street right now..

http://www.miacat.com/ART_Hope_IRAQ.html

And if only we truely had a ...House that aimed to include the popular involvement in self-government...

I think "self-government" needs re-explaining as individuals don't seem to understand we are talking about them as well as their governments in politic's...

Power comes from the Bottom right?

ie: The politics of everyday life has been blunted as something else. Pity.

Perhaps it will change...eventually eh?
.

Pericles, you mention Maslow's hierachy of needs. Isn't that what this article would want you to re-examine? We are talking of needs here, not wants. Wanting to keep up with what society tells you you require in order to be successful and happy doesn't necessariy equate with Self-actualization and happiness. It's interesting that 'rich' nations have a high number of suicides, troubled adolescents and high rate of depression.

Here's the Hierachy:

5. Self-actualization
4. Esteem: Respect
3. Belonging: Family and Friends
2. Safety: Shelter and Security
1. Physiological: Food and Water.

With the way things are going we're going to be flat strap managing rung one. The plasma TV, beautiful cars, plastic surgery, fabulous large home and empty swimming pool isn't going to make more water or fresh food.

I think there's a lot of vested interest to keep us scared of becoming more self sufficient with power and water and more frugal using this.

Anybody who's lived on tank water and used grey water, like we have, or been dependent totally on solar power and gas to run computer and everything else, like a good friend of ours, knows it is possible without going backwards at all.

In fact, I'd say, that on a human evolutionary level, re arts, making music, eating/cooking and conversing/debating with friends, acquiring or making beatiful works of visual art, theatre and books can be done very, very well without being dependent on large corporations supplying electricty and water.

By the way, we're not hippies. I like my fine clothes, my comfortable house and living in a city, but we've stepped off the race track and made some changes.

Very up to date article, Peter, so much needed in the minds of most everyone these days, even us oldies who go back to the days of kerosene lamps and mallee root fires.

Happy enough though, even during the Great Depression, and even glad to leave school early to drive a wagon team carting grain.

Yet wagon teams go back three thousand years, so young 'uns don't want to even think about it, as well as putting old great-grandpop that far back as well.

But now old grandpop has become really spoilt with wide-screen TV and most of the mod-cons, worrying that if there really is an afterlife how in the hell us new/oldies can ever put up with it.

So it is a fact that we've all been caught like a child in a room filled with new gadgety toys - finally going out in the backyard and playing in the dirt.

Aaa, ha, that last clause maybe tells us the story that the change that seems so sure to come about, could be doing the coming generations good, having to go out in the dirt for awhile to start again, maybe even replanting our forests, living in bark huts, our cereals coming from ever-green shrubs whose yearly prunings will supply power, with magnifiers so huge set up on our saltlakes, even a single one able to burn a hole in the earth on a hot summer's day, a hundred meters deep.

There is saying out on the farm about a farmer's wife who told her husband she would leave him if he cleared more
trees out to grow more crops. The answer from the ambitious young farmer was usually well if I've cleared too much, well I can always fix it.

Well, can you just, was the answer, knowing you, it will be all about f-ing it.

That's what all our future schools must be all about, us former idiot husbands showing our wives and kids we really now look to the future of our world rather than to ourselves