Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Nation of Addicts
Can oil and democracy mix?
When I was a young man, I worked for a while as a drug counselor, first in a methadone clinic, and then in a heroin detoxification unit. I have seen and know something about addiction. I later earned a PhD in political science, in the process acquiring an idea of what the Founders of the American political system were trying to accomplish. If we take seriously the news that Americans are "addicted to oil," it means we have become a nation of addicts, and the question that must be addressed is what a democracy composed of addicts portends for our future. Reconciling a population of addicts with the principles and practices of the American political system will not be easy. In fact, it will be impossible: democracy wasn't built for addicts.
The Founders of our democracy bequeathed to us a legacy of cultural values that display the diversity of their social perspectives. One group argued that politics was about the public, patriotic pursuit of the common good of the community. Americans were viewed as citizens who would be willing to sacrifice for the general welfare. Other Founders asserted that humans are essentially individuals and not community members. These consumers are primarily motivated by the passionate pursuit of their economic self-interests and should be given the freedom to seek their unique pleasures in their unique ways. Over the years, we as a nation have never totally accepted nor totally rejected either vision. We have ignored the logical contradictions and constructed a society where people are encouraged to be both patriotic and self-interested.
But where do addicts fit into this picture? Surely the addict cannot be considered a virtuous citizen. The essence of citizenship is a concern for the community and a willingness to forgo personal pleasure for the common good. The addict cares nothing about others or tomorrow, and for this reason, addiction and civic virtue are antithetical. Either the craving for the addictive substance will destroy all other pursuits, or the republic must cure the addiction and convert the addict into a citizen.
On the surface there may appear similarities between the addict and today's consumer, but these melt with closer scrutiny. Like an addict, the consumer may be a pleasure-seeking (an economist would say "utility maximizing") individual, but consumers know there are costs and benefits associated with their various choices, and they are rational enough to engage in calculations regarding these trade-offs. For the addict, there is no alternative to acquiring the addictive substance, and that is why they will pay any cost and ignore any harm their addiction will cause. Economic markets, built upon the assumption of rational consumers, are institutions ill suited to restrain addicts bent on ever greater overindulgence, even unto death.
If America is "addicted to oil" we will have to reach deep into our Founders' legacies for the strength to struggle against what we have become, for the truth is that there is a citizen, a consumer, and an addict in each of us. Citizens and consumers might grimace at the difficult policy choices lying ahead, but they will acquiesce in the face of necessity and move to have tough energy policies that restrict our addiction to oil put into practice.
It is urgently important that Americans not let our inner addict supersede our citizen and consumer. Imagine, just for a second, what would happen if we let the addicts run the methadone clinics and the detoxification units. Imagine what will become of America if we let our oil addiction determine the fate of our democracy.
47 Comments so far
Show AllAnd not a word about the CONgresspeople/politicians who enable this addiction catering to the oil lobby and special interests? This reminds me of the bogus "War on Drugs". Put everyone in jail, but forget about the policies formulated by the elite that allow drugs to innundate this nation and enslave the citizens......prescription drugs. If we lowly citizens are addicted to oil, put the blame with the suppliers, not the users.
The geological record shows us that over and over, from the blue-green algae, to the coleocanthic bivalves, through the dinosaurs then to the gigantic sloths then to us. An organism will find a ecological niche, exploit it until it is gone, flower for a spell then expire leaving a changed landscape behind it.
Our oxygen atmosphere for instance is the result of the algae mats that suffocated themselves, creating opportunities for more complex creatures to come after.
Our situation is neither good nor bad, we are organized cells, exploiting our environment for whatever we can get out of it, when its over. its over.
This is what organisms DO.
Oh but now we diagnose it and call it "addiction", oh well...
At least we leave behind the odd love song.
Lets not forget the difference we have and can make use of, critical thinking. Its what we do with it that can distinguish us from algae.
I agree that our ability to think distinguishes us from algae. Of course, evolution doesn't care one whit for intelligence. So when our intelligence ceases to be an advantage (which occurred about the time we industrialized and our population went from about 2 to about 7 billion) our species will be eliminated as quickly and easily as any that failed to adapt.
People hoot and laugh at the notion of lost wisdom, the notion that life pre-civilization could have been wonderful. Most 'primitive' cultures existed for at least tens of thousands of years. Industrial civilization? About 180.
One cannot escape the conclusion that that way of living, despite the lack of ipods and Priuses, was correct. Population reduction on a massive scale will be here shortly, via wars, disease (gov't sponsored or otherwise) famine and just plain ol' harsh winters.
For some lighthearted, uplifting analysis (sarcasm) on this topic, see Gerry Mander's (his real name ) In the Absence of the Sacred. Read it during the day, as you'll be driven to despair.
Humans are capable of saving ourselves, sure. But I see no signs that we will. Not on purpose.
"Humans are capable of saving ourselves, sure. But I see no signs that we will. Not on purpose."
I do. Not the entire species, certainly. (Or not on the path we're following.) But, unlike algae, we are a pretty flexible creature capable of both adapting our own behavior and changing our environment to suit us. Even if we wind up post-Apocalyptic stragglers hugging the edge of survivabilty, some of us are likely to be left. Just like cockroaches. I'm not saying we can't render the planet incapable of sustaining human life but I think we'll fall short of that and, since we breed like crazy, if there is a sufficient gene pool left to replenish our stock, we will.
Cold comfort for the billions who will die if our species keeps pissing in its well but it's something, I guess.
Well said.
"At least we leave behind the odd love song."
That's the heartbreaker.
You've contradicted your point by using your conscious mind to communicate a thought. We are conscious beings. It is imperative that we use our conscious minds, our reason and ethics, to limit/stabilize our impact on the biosphere. To argue otherwise would be to suppress this element, the human conscience, that is as much a product of nature as anything else. US elites would be thrilled for you to continue suppressing the human conscience with US-style petro-fueled ivy-league bizzaro liberalism.
Interesting and stimulating. Thank you.
So now that there is so much talk about "going green", we are unconsciously planning on completing the cycle by becoming green or blue-green algae?
Perhaps, but IF we can colonize other planets, the equation will change. The perverse streak of obssesive control of other humans in our society will either be subdued or we will perish. We now have the knowledge, skills and machinery to provide everyone a BIG (basic income guarantee) in return for a maximum of one offspring for every two people and other required sustainable behavior. The work ethic is dead. There is so much knowledge out there that if the only requirement most people had was to study, no one would finish in their lifetimes. The STUDY ethic is what we need to institutionalize. MIT now has its' 1900 courses with u-tube lectures and all course materials free (except for text books) and downloadable without a required subscription. No, you don't get a degree but you get the knowledge. Some of the Physics lectures are quite entertaining. I've just scratched the surface but I'm sure there is something for everyone there. In the civil engineering department there is some couse data involving the construction of the world trade center. That may be of interest to more than a few people here. It's all free to anyone with an internet connection anywhere in the world.
I don't think we're done yet.
The algae mats did not posess the (at least alleged) intelligence of our species.
I was shocked at the "Cash for Clunkers" program. It was expensive but, at first, I assumed it was FINALLY a push and assistance from the government to move folks to non-petroleum fuels, so it might be worth it. Nope. It was just trading in one obselete vehicle for another obselete vehicle. What a wasted opportunity.
I do believe seeing a study by someones regarding such a program.
He claimed that as an enviromental/energy saving device Cash for clunkers was a total fraud.
The amount of energy and pollutants used to build a NEW Car would exceed the amount of pollutants dumped into the atmosphere and extra energy consumed because of poor fuel economy had the old clunker been kept running. This study was comparing an older car buring gasaline with the bang up latest in technolgy hybrid.
Now this study was done in North America. North America uses TWICE the energy as does Japan to build the same car. In very many ways being an Island nation with limited natural resources is a blessing. It forces a country to become more efficient when using resources.
We then get right back to Militarism . The USA has to IMPORT a lot of resources as they consume far more then they produce AND even as one of the largest countries in the world have shortages in many of the raw resources.
Rather then "economize" and become more efficient and do more with less through technologies and sound Policy , they have decided to build a large Military to steal the resources of other nations.
Militarism fuels inefficiency. If the US economy is to wean itself off its addiction to oil and hydrocarbons, it is going to start with weaning themself off Militarism.
Democracy wasn't built for addicts.
This is an appropriate epitaph for America's tombstone. However, it's stupidity we're primarily addicted to, even more than oil, personal consumption, television or anything else.
Let's not forget the other forms of addiction rampant in the US: Religion, narcissism, wealth, power, celebrity-worship, guns, fast food.
Altogether, they can be summed into a single addiction: Fantasy.
"democracy wasn't built for addicts."
Au contraire, the plutocrats built it for them.
The war in afPak is not just to fuel our addiction to oil, but also our addiction to heroin...
I would think that someone with a Ph.D. In PoliSci would have known this...
Since many of the Bankster families made their fortunes while involved in the Opium Wars in China...
(edited by GoldenMean)
the author closes with: "Imagine, just for a second, what would happen if we let the addicts run the methadone clinics and the detoxification units. Imagine what will become of America if we let our oil addiction determine the fate of our democracy."
well sorry to say sir, the lunatics are running the asylum - they are called corporations and they are - in your degreed pedigreed world, anti-social psychotics with a level of depravity and dissociation that would see a citizen put into protective custody.
you write: "Imagine what will become of America if we let our oil addiction determine the fate of our democracy"
gee maybe that kind of malady would see us running around foreign countries killing and destroying every living thing that either walks or crawls.
mr author, your fretting about addictions is a dollar short and a day late.
our republic is gone and we are now a mercenary killing machine answerable only to corporate bottom lines.
fret about that for a while sir
ZUT, lebeau, you beat me to it. Everybody else, what he said, re-deux.
Good article and it rightly spreads the blame for our addiction.
And once again, some miss the point. Why to we get all prickly whenever someone points out that we are part of the problem, and as such, part of the solution? A lack of imagination, perhaps?
Anyway, I grok the author's intent.
I dig the word "grok":)
That's kind of simplistic, isn't it?
I'd rather not spend 5 hours a day in transit, or buy my food wrapped in 6 pounds of plastic, or take all that medication to offset the effects of constant stress.
Am I the one who squanders fossil fuels and chemicals on military ventures and global junkets for methane festivals such as Davos? Did I design the internal combustion engine, which, BTW, I need to make it from my urban-planned development to the urban-planned commercial district eons away? Do I ship groceries all over the planet from huge agri-plantations in lands whose names I can't even pronounce? Am I the genius who invented the 8-glasses-of-water-a-day mantra so I could get rich on bottled overpriced tapwater? Am I the one who makes every electronic tool in my world obsolete every 18 months so I have to keep replacing all that crap?
The writer completely fails to define what the problem actually is and to place the locus where it belongs.
The issue is bigger than oil. Fossil fuels have given us our technology and moblie lifestyle, and helped the world population soar.
The fossil fuels age will come to an end either from Climate Change and ocean acidifcation devastating our environment or peak oil, and then peak coal, making fossil fuels too expensive.
We can go cold turkey in 20 years or so when this all comes crashing down on our heads, or the governments of the world can help us wean off fossil by promoting cap and trade or carbon taxes, renewable energy technologies, and conservation. Even nuclear.
Its encouraging to see the car companies getting serious about fuel economy and fossil fuel alternatives, and they finally realize that Big Oil is not their ally.
BTW: Setting the cruise control at 65 on the PA turnpike the other day, and watching the SUVs and contractor's vans passing me like I was sitting still (I even created a bottleneck a couple times), indicates fossil fuel is still way too cheap.
We need to get Waxman-Markey or better passed ASAP to start the weaning process and ensure atmospheric CO2 never exceeds 450 ppm before it starts back down to 350. The US needs to be a world leader on this, not a derelict expecting a free pass. If the Fox News hate Obama/ GHG denier / drill baby drill crowd prevails, we are toast.
Nuclear is not an option. We won't be able to cool them in a climate where droughts will likely be more severe and prolonged. Nuclear plants need reliable water sources, and these will be increasingly difficult to guarantee. We have already had nuclear plant closures due to low river levels in the Southeast.
I recently was injected with radioactive Tecnicium to test for blockages of my arteries (I have one stent in my coronary). The substance was produced either in the Canadian reactor at Chalk River or in he Dutch reactor at Petten. Unless you come forward with an alternative non-intrusive test, or alternatives for other medical uses of radioactive substances a few nuclear reactors will be needed to satisfy the needs.
Of all the issues upon which so-called progressives take their all too ofen wishy-washy stances, I find the nuclear power one the most frustrating and offensive.
There is nothing cheap, abundant, clean, intelligent, safe or moral about nuclear power.
On a percentage of output, it is the most -- by far -- subsidized energy source on the planet. Virtually ALL costs associated with it are externalized. If those costs were not, nuclear power, already a costly source of energy, would be prohibitive beyond recognition. If you wish to support these monsters, at least argue that they pay their own way.
The fuel used for producing nuclear energy, uranium, is an extremely limited, finite resource. We will likely run out of it long before we run out of oil. It is hardly the resource we should be depending on to fuel our future.
The idea that nuclear energy is "clean" is provably and laughably wrong. The front-end process of extracting this resource is extremely dirty and dangerous. And there is absolutely no foreseeable solution to the radioactive waste storage or disposal. That alone should stop all future generation of these plants. There is not a known material in the universe that does not break down under radiation. Period. It means that there will never be a safe storage solution. Perhaps for the remainder of our short-sighted and pathetic lives, but for the necesary quarter of a million years? No way.
What is intelligent about a technology that uses this crap to heat water? And in a country supposedly obsessed with the threat of terrorism, why are we planning to plop more of these nuclear bombs on our soil. How convenient for the next madman.
The lies have been most blatant when it comes to safety. With a technology that needs to be perfect, there are hundreds of known "near-misses" in its very short lifetime.
If none of that convinces you, at least answer this. Where is your moral outrage?
We have no right -- religious, spiritual, humanistic or otherwise -- to foist this deadly, radioactive waste on tens of thousands of future generations just because we are too lazy and selfish to figure out a truly clean and sustainable solution to our energy gluttony. I am as adamant on this as the so-called "pro-lifers" are with their abortion issue. Only in this case, we ARE murdering future unborn with our garbage.
No nukes.
This is the sort of nonsense that can give those of us concerned with these issues a bad name, seems to me.
We have things called "cars."
The run on "gas."
This is not an addiction, ( as George W. Bush claimed, by the way) it is an essential part of our lives.
Find something else, for a similar price and better for the planet's health, and I'll be first in line.
If it is an "essential part of our lives" how am i alive? i have never driven a car.
This is the kind of unwilling-to-actually-think "thinking" that is leading us to the collapse of civilization. "My car is ESSENTIAL! i'll DIE without it!"
Well, you will certainly die when the disrupted climate kills you and a few billion other humans. Keep on drivin', baby!
Call it what you will - addiction, essential, whatever - it is disrupting the climate (and multiple other ecological disruptions) and we do have choices about how we live.
i know, i know, i know, believe me i know, many systems in our society have been designed to "require" cars. Still, we have choices about how we live. And we had better start choosing to move without these "essential" or "addictive" machines.
I'm not wild about motor vehicles myself.
But when I moved to Beijing nearly 20 years ago, there were so few cars you could hear the tinkle of the bike bells.
And you could ride your bike all over town after 8 at night and own the road.
There are now millions of private cars in the city, and it takes longer sometimes to get across town by car than it used to by bike.
I also live without a car, but to pretend this is a choice for the planet seems willfully blind.
I ditched my car one year ago today, and though I live in a harsh climate, I've never felt freer or happier. Yes, cars are like addictive things. The first thing I noticed as I started to wind down my car use was that every time I drove, I arrived with elevated heart and breathing rate. And this was even on short trips, and I'm a very patient and calm driver. Habitual drivers are so used to this, they don't notice -- I didn't either until I stopped driving everyday. Add in all the fretting about encountering bottlenecks, fussing about parking, worrying if the thing will start, if you'll make the payment, etc. and you have a major source of anxiety.
Addiction is an inexact analogy, but it's close. See how you feel when you think about the possibility of not being able to drive anywhere you want whenever you want. A bit like an addict worrying about the next score, no?
We have things called cars. They need not run on gas. Anyone who thinks so has been brainwashed by the auto and oil industries.
Give me decent public transportation (both local and transcontinental) and I'll get in line.
This was part of the 'change' promised by Obama. Seems not.
I'm surprised that this author, having worked in drug rehab, is not aware that many detox units and methadone clinics as well as Alcoholics Anonymous are actually run by, yes, addicts. Usually the ones that have beaten their addiction and no longer use, but addicts nonetheless.
That kind of ruined the whole analogy for me, but I'll try to work with it. In my experience, the difference between a casual user and an addict is that the user stops voluntarily and the addict stops when they pass out. So if we try to control and curtail usage, are we addicts?
If we need something to survive, like food, are we addicted to it? Many people would say that they definitely do need oil: to get to work, to run the factories at which they work, to run the machines that harvest our food.
An addiction supersedes all else, the need to use the substance one is addicted to is all-consuming. An addict will give up everything to use again. I don't see this as being parallel to our oil usage. We'd all feel compelled to be out joyriding till we were broke and our cars were out of gas at the side of the road in the middle of nowhere. Most of us only use what we feel we need, and that's not addictive behavior. I understand that if we keep using oil we are eventually going to be forced to stop using it because it will be all gone or our world will have become uninhabitable. I applaud the author's effort to exhort us to use less oil, but I don't think comparing oil usage to substance addiction is valid.
I do see one comparison perhaps and it is this: when an addict is able to overcome their obsession with their subtance, another obsession often is substituted, whether it's Methadone or Meetings, something takes the place of the constant need to use. What have we got to replace our need for oil? Find that answer and we may be able to create AA for OIL.
I think that he meant active addicts rather than reformed addicts running the shop. I've heard of sex-aholics that had no desire what so ever of kicking their addiction taking advantage when running sex-aholic groups.
Greed is also an addiction.
RE: An addiction supersedes all else, the need to use the substance one is addicted to is all-consuming. An addict will give up everything to use again. I don't see this as being parallel to our oil usage.
There is oil in the Alberta oil sands - and it is causing a lot of damage getting the oil out of the sand and into our cars. Just the damage to the oil sands alone can mess up the climate quite a bit.
Probably a better analogy would be the drug pusher so addicted to the profits from oil that he will kill bills which would increase the fuel efficiency of cars, spread lies about how human action causes climate change, and justify wars which increases their share of the oil products. In a way, America starting wars in the middle east is like the turf battles in urban centres between rival gangs trying to gain control of the cocaine market. These rival gangs would not want their clients to decide that they no longer need cocaine. Just like the oil companies would not want their clients to figure that they can live without oil - and if we try to either get off oil or reduce our consumption of it, they try to convince us otherwise.
Note that last year there was snow in Alberta in July - something that just usually doesn't happen.
Note also that while we need to heat our homes in the winter and to get around (with cars or buses in the winter) that it is only because our dealers prevent us from getting treatment - of getting off the oil and dealing with our problems in a way that is less harmful to ourselves, our neighbours and our environment - that we remain addicted to oil.
---------
Since we are talking about addictions, my pet peeve is those who use air freshener or air freshener laced products and don't consider themselves solvent abusers! Hey, you have turned yourself into a walking huffing rag so you don't have to hold it up to your nose. And you can convince yourself that you are not a solvent abuser because you only feel more relaxed with it - you don't go as far as the stereotype does. And, like with any substance that addicts use, some can handle more of it than others. All an umbrella term, such as Multiple Chemical Sensitivity means is that it take us less to get wasted than everybody else. You've heard of second hand smoke - well we get wasted from your second hand sniff and we don't like it.
i think the analogy is apt, since the collective 'we' who own and drive our private cars as though they were extensions of our bodies (through the insanely enabling infrastructures we live in designed more for cars than for pedestrians or any actual LIFE form) are supporting astronomically pricey wars in pipelineistan to support our habit and our enebriated media enables the status quo of that habit to the extent that awareness of 'cash for clunkers' probably resonates more for the average american than any cognizance of glacier melt or corporate-supported coups or parasitic insurance/big pharma deals that MIGHT grab our attention and motivate action, were we SOBER enough to snap out of our denial.
replacing our 'need' for oil with a focus on liberating our agriculture from the fossil-fuel industry would be ONE good start...it's not like there aren't a multitude of useful enterprises we humans could be engaging in to replace the manufacturing of useless, wasteful crap. individually and collectively imho it is the folks intentionally extricating themselves from the grid's trance who are the trimtabs that may shift this mess yet..... been keeping an ear to the ground for years hoping some aa groups specifically for fossil-fuel addiction would spring up.... but 'sponsors' of a sort ARE springing up in energy descent, species-preservation initiatives like the 'transition towns' folks and an upsurge in gardening.... but an 'intervention' of the scale required for substantive 'recovery' from this mess will take a pretty massive global effort and other than comedians like jon stewart and stephen colbert or reverend billy somehow achieving prophet status and clout and the forlorn hope that amy goodman'll run for prez or stuart smalley will save not just his family, but our entire species from its denialholic ways, i just don't see it happening.... of course it's hard to see a 100th monkey type shift before its tipping point.... where are we at? 44th monkey? 98th? maybe the critical mass just hasn't been reached and humankind WILL get off the sauce and soon we'll have all those cable channels putting out USEFUL, INTELLIGENT programming (and powered by solar and wind or recycled bikes hooked up to generators) and human beings actually cooperating to undo the damage done by the wild frat nonrenewables-guzzling party of the past century..... hey, come on, it COULD happen.
One recovering alcoholic once told me: "when I wake up in the morning every cell of my body yells there is not enough ethanol in your blood".
He also said: "drinking is not a sin; it is just stupid when you are an alcoholic".
For me, these two statements define "The Problem". Don't fight "drinking" per se, forget about expensive "treatments", don't blame society, laws, habits, so-called experts, academics when that fails with some individual alcoholics, but try to get alcoholics into AA.
The addiction to oil is more due to the addiction of energy, the ablility to get from place to place quickly, to be entertained, lit, fed, clothed, warmed, etc. and until recently the cheapest, fastest energy was provided by fossil fuels. With the development of alternatives to petroleum pruducts that are cheaper, more widespread, and available, we will easily break that addiction and do what is right for the situation and the planet. It disturbs me to hear the drill-drill-drill, when it should be research-implement-survive...enough already with the drill mentality, it just gives the few greater financial resources to destroy our only life support, earth.. can we all just have a big DUH here? EVERYONE needs to SLOW DOWN and think this out..where are they going to so fast?
You're right that ultimately it's about energy, but you miss the point that not all energy forms are equal. We're "addicted" to fossil fuels, and especially oil products, because they are by far the best form of stored energy for the purposes that we use them for. For instance, until the laws of physics change, there will never be a battery powered 747, nor even one powered by Liquefied Natural Gas. There will also never be any energy source that is as cheap and easily available as oil was for its first century. (This involves the concept of the ratio of energy in to out, and nothing on the horizon -- including solar, wind, tide, fusion, etc. -- comes even within an order of magnitude of the charge we got out of pumping easily available oil.) So your hope for cheap abundant alternatives is misplaced. OTOH, your exhortation to slow down is not only wise, but will soon be our only option.
Something the world is finding out!
Let's get down to it!
Just the first addiction issue (of 12) that must be addressed:
"As summarized by the American Psychological Association, the process involves the following: admitting that one cannot control one's addiction or compulsion"
UNTIL we, the citizens of the U.S., come to this conclusion/understanding/acceptance, we won't get anywhere!
"...democracy wasn't built for addicts."
The more dangerous American addiction is to Money. Oil addiction is just a part of that.
'Too much is never enough' is why the majority of our wealth is in the hands of a few who continue all efforts to accumulate more than could be spent in 100 lifetimes - Greedaholics cannot help themselves, and do not care about the damage their uncontrollable behavior causes - and it's also why we've allowed that to happen - because so many of us are so deluded, we don't wanna spoil the pot before we get our shot at the brass ring, even though we know, inside, we ain't never gettin the shot.
Call it what you will. Blame it on whomever. Bottom line is that we are headed for a "bottom" of apocalyptic proportions.
Exactly what the addict goes through, and from which he/she
either dies or turns their life around. It is now about perception, choices, and karma.
Producing and consuming without enough concern for the negative effects -- that is what mass of us humans is doing that is so irrational. That plus over-populating relative to our lifestyles.
One term for this phenomenon is Instant Gratification (yes, even the long-range planning that is required for building hundreds of coal fired generating stations is instant gratification, under today's circumstances)
Has consumerist/industrial instant gratification become an addiction?
Yes, I think it has for millions (soon to be Billions) of people. No doubt because the instinctual areas of our brains are hard wired to seek pleasure and avoid pain, and because our economic system teaches us from infancy to seek pleasure through mindless consuming.
Our brains' higher reasoning centers, which ought to tell us that our present way of mass-allowing instant gratification is going to produce mass future pain and even masss disaster, are unfortunately easily defeated by the overriding power of our primitive pleasure-seeking instincts.
I suppose that unless our collective reasoning capacity quickly intervenes in a big way to re-craft industrial society so as to allow our pleasure seeking instincts to be gratified more sustainably (which also means population control), there will be plenty of pain to potentially re-empower Reason after the deluge -- for those, if any, who remain.
Whatever if anything Nature intended by evolving the conflicted, wobbly human brain to be as-it-is to-date, it would seem that it is now entirely up to us to determine whether we and our brains evolve any further.
"a willingness to forgo personal pleasure for the common good"
When will USans learn that maximum personal pleasure is derived from a balance of self-interest and common-interest?
USans don't want to face it, but the reality is they have been dragged into the swamp of self-interest extremism by elites deterimined to make them into consumption slaves..
FACE IT, PEOPLE. YOU ARE ENSLAVED!
there are yet many pockets of sanity
all that is needed is for one state to enact legislation for media and election reform. Without media reform we have only small chat groups to commiserate online. I am certain the rut can be broken. Need just one state to begin the crack. Sleep on that CDers
There is certainly room for debate on whether or not we NEED cars.
Assuming that answer is yes.
Do we a new one every 10 years? When Henry Ford built his first Model T , that car was able to stay on the road running for many decades.
The owner of Chevrolet felt that silly and introduced planned obsolesence. He designed cars that were to be "replaced" every 5 years.
There should be NO reason we can not design in permanence wherein the Car one buys today is running 30 years from now.
The new flat screen TVS by design all but fail when the warranty runs out. Older technology by design is impossible to source parts for.
There used to be TV shops all over to repair broken TVS. They no longer exist. The parts are either not provided by the manufacturers or the costs to repair them excessive.
Our Families first TV was used for some 15 years until the Internals melted by lightning. I know people already getting a new flat screen of the latest technology while having one that is only 3 years old.
I used to repair TV's for several decades. The things you say are true. The new TV's are disposable garbage. Neither could I make a living repairing computers. Now I am failing (along with a business partner) putting in solar electric systems. Yes, America is a nation addicted to cheap, plastic crap, mostly from China. If I survive much longer (iffy since I have no access to meaningful medical care) perhaps I will be able to mine the landfill and eke out a living. But will it be worth it? Thank God I don’t have any kids to worry about. Will the last person out the door please flush yourself down the toilet.
"In fact, it will be impossible: democracy wasn't built for addicts."
Another excellent example of improperly framing the debate.
Why?
1) We are a corporatocracy, not a democracy.
2) Corporatocracy requires addiction in order to guarantee profits. It's called cornering the market or monopoly.
3) This system is the end result of corporate investments in PR. Slowly but surely they convinced us that optional conveniences were indispensable.
So the author goes back to the time tested media sadism of blaming the victim. We're geting just a little tired of this shit, sir.
At any rate, we're all in detox now. We see this materialism thing was just a hook to get us dependent so they could jack up the prices once we were hooked. We've learned our lesson. Corporations are never to be trusted, period.
We may get a democracy yet if Ron Paul and Ralph Nader get together against the wars. But that's another subject. Or is it?
I have a Honda Fit and with obligations that are mine to do it is necessary for me to have this car.The Fit is my guilt appeasement for having a car period.If there were another way for this over 70 guy,I'd do it in a minute.Addiction?This I know something about;Been dry for over 20 years,my biggest acomplishment in this life,and then had a triple bypass and quit smoking too.BOTH cold turkey.Dont know why but AA scared me.Just watching the whole political party thing it seems to me that even folks outside of asshole dem/reps; they are all frgmented because each party;be they Green or whatever wants a piece of the action for themselves.What if they all got together,talked over their differences and put up one guy for prez.Of course this could work at the lower levels also.One independent on the ballot everywhere!That would get some attention!Would they do it?Dont think so,to easy.Tony