We’re all guilty of it — me as much as anyone. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be on guard against it. Automatically dismissing someone’s ideas because that person is a ‘right winger’ or a ‘left winger’ or because they might be a dead-head, or because they have a thing for Jessica Alba is ultimately counter-productive. Pretty much any half-interesting person will have an idiosyncrasy or two that can be spun in such a way as to make them appear absurd or unreliable. If we don’t engage with the ideas, then we end up legitimising those kinds of attacks upon ourselves.

“Mud-slinging” is another way of saying “losing ground”.

Get well soon.

And if we are going to get into a discussion, you need to be dealing with my views, which are more subtle than they first appear. Basically that climate change is happening, and that we are at least in part responsible. However I am not persuaded that a slightly warmer world is a wholly bad thing, that hugely expensive forced carbon reduction programmes are the way to deal with it, nor do I subscribe to the IPCC model, which seems to be based on flawed data. So I’m a climate sceptic, rather than denier. I laid out my views here.

However, you also make a remark that is probably best dealt with here, as it isn’t relevant to the wider discussion.

… I think I would rather bet on the process of devolved development than a society designed by a man whose principle interests involve getting stoned and listening to rare Jerry Garcia records (laudable though that is as a pass-time)

Firstly, far from it being my “principle interest”, I have no interest whatsoever in “getting stoned and listening to rare Jerry Garcia records”. Nothing against Dead-heads, mind. I’ve met plenty of nice ones in my time. But dear god that music is tedious to my ears.

Listening to Bowie, on the other hand (stoned or not) is a great way to chill out. Or The Smiths. Or David Byrne. Or Dexy’s Midnight Runners. Or Bjork. Or Patti Smith. Or… or… or… I love music, but don’t tar me with the Grateful Dead brush. I love the idea of them. But I don’t own a single one of their records. And doubt I ever will.

That said, don’t you think it’s a little… well… weak of you to assume that my “principle interests involve getting stoned and listening to rare Jerry Garcia records” based on a single blog post? Would it be a tad unfair of me, for example, to dismiss your opinions based upon the fact that your principle interest is slavering over pictures of young women? Laudable though masturbatory fantasies about Jessica Alba as a past-time may be.

See, unless you do actually want to start connecting one’s political or philosophical views with how one likes to enjoy one’s spare time (in which case, we’re all in a lot of trouble I suspect) then it’s rather silly to view my position through the prism of a single anecdote about an evening in the mid-90s. Or don’t you agree?

Anyways, I hope — as I say — to address the substance of your comment in the near future. Bear with me if it takes a day or two though. This cold really is a stinker.

Also, I’m going to rewrite the thing for a mainstream audience, so there’s not been quite as much urgency about publishing it in its current format as perhaps would otherwise have been the case.

That said, drop me an email to: blog ‘at’ numero57 ‘dot’ net and I’ll fire you a copy in Word format if you don’t want to wait until I’ve published it online. To be honest, I don’t personally think it makes for great reading (despite the positive feedback I’m getting) which is why I’m doing a rewrite. It feels more like a demonstration of just how much research I did, rather than a paper with its own reason for existing. But yeah, drop me an email if you really want to read it.

So Peak oil or not (and with the oil price collapsing back to $40, I think you’re a bit premature to call peak oil) we will still have something like cars.

My problem with your “sustainability” agenda is that it is merely a cover for your intense distrust of the profit motive as a driving force for change for the better. You see something of which you disapprove – cars for example and you use the language of eco wingnuttery to give a pseudoscientific rationale for what is merely a prejudice.

I like my car. I like the freedom it gives me to go and see friends and family or to go on work errands on short notice. Public transport will never be as efficient. That is genuine freedom, and it is crucial to how our society is structured. The question is whether the violence, chaos and death involved in changing the way society is structured (and I for one will be on the other side of the baracades to you, better armed and probably stronger) is worth it to end what you see as unsustainable resource depletion.

For if as you think, resource depletion is what is going to do it, surely as resources become scarce, they get more expensive. As they get more expensive the incentive increases to find alternative solutions, which become profitable to implement. That is what is going on, and I think I would rather bet on the process of devolved development than a society designed by a man whose principle interests involve getting stoned and listening to rare Jerry Garcia records (laudable though that is as a pass-time)

You criticise Libertarianism for being egotistic. It isn’t. It is an admission that the only thing I am expert at is my own life. Society will develop best if each person is able to develop his own abilities and excersise free will. Capitalist free market economics and liberal democracy remains the best means to deliver that freedom.

It doesn’t even preclude you deciding to live in a commune with like minded hippies – just don’t spring a revolution on me, because I don’t want to die, nor do I want all my things broken. Because that is what happens in revolutions and that is why I called you a loon!

You describe society as psychotic. I say it is the richest, healthiest and safest society yet developed. True we’re under too much pressure, and I blame over-regulating, over taxing nanny state for much of that, but these are issues that can be addressed in time.

You’ve written a lot about your thesis. Any chance that I can get to read it?

Regards,

Michael Arnoldus

Bloody hell! 1,200 words in response. There’s one person in this conversation Descending “into a profound state of psychosis”, and it ain’t me.

Excuse me? This is another “in my head dictionary” thing, isn’t it? Psychosis as defined by verbosity.

If you look at the (admittedly rare) instances where this blog develops a significant comments-thread, you’ll discover that my responses tend to be a good deal longer than my initial posts. As I’ve pointed out previously in the comments here, “my initial posts are as much about provoking discussion as anything else” and it’s those discussions that allow one to work up a good head of steam.

I misunderstood your objection to the word “pinko”. You think that makes you seem moderate. You’re right. You’re totally off the scale, loony, back to the stone-age, ultra-left eco maniac.

“off the scale”: given the narrow spectrum of opinion that makes up the modern ‘scale’, you are absolutely right there.

“loony”: no. Strictly speaking, if you’re going to use the terminology of psychology (loony being short for “lunatic”, implying madness or psychosis) then what I’m proposing is far from that. Having just submit a thesis on the psychodynamics of western capitalism which has recently gained it’s second rave review from within the field, there’s more evidence to suggest that my ideas are — technically if nothing else — the opposite of lunacy.

What is true, of course, is that a culture that has already become psychotic will use a large number of self-reinforcing mechanisms to retain internal coherence; one of those is to make all criticism of it appear threatening, foolish or “loony”.

“back to the stone age”: absolutely not. The very last thing I’m proposing is a form of neo-primitivism. That is almost always one of the first responses to my critique and stems from — I’ve concluded — either a willful misunderstanding of my ideas, or a rather depressing lack of imagination. I shan’t go into the details of why the accusation of neo-primitivism is quite wrong (it would take a little time, and you seem to view “taking the time to clearly explain complex issues” as psychotic. It explains the libertarianism though… nice and simple, just like reality isn’t).

“ultra-left”: Ultra-left to a point. As I’ve already said, so long as an economic activity is strictly sustainable and does not involve the provision of services deemed essential, I have no problem with it being carried out in the private sector. I am a collectivist in a restricted sense.

“eco maniac”: Again, my views seem ‘maniacal’ precisely because you are viewing them from within a culture that is itself maniacal. It’s an easy mistake to make.

Look. I’m no tub-thumper for big, business which I merely regard as an arm of the state, but there are some things that only large organisations can provide – cars, televisions, pharmaceuticals.

Cars? Well, that’s one product of big business that we’ll have to do without. Whether or not anything like my suggestions are adopted. I suggest you read a little about “peak oil” and the consequences for any civilisation of having progressively less net energy available to it. As for televisions and pharmaceuticals; we’ll just have to get along with far less of them. I’m not suggesting an end to all production, but a radical scaling back of consumption. “Television repair” will again become a career with a future. Men will have to return to the days before viagra.

There will be a period, certainly, during the transition towards sustainability in which research and development in many industries (including pharmaceuticals) will be reduced or cease entirely. But once we’ve established a sustainable way of living, there’s no inherent reason why it can’t begin again. However, it will be directed towards genuine needs rather than the fulfillment of desires manufactured by industry itself.

“externalities” are merely an unquantifiable stick with which you people use to beat anyone doing anything which isn’t locally sourced organic yurt weaving or something. I can see the case for pigovian taxes, but fuel duties in the UK are already well over pricing in the externalities.

We’re so far apart here that it’s probably pointless to even get into this one. In my view fuel duties with respect to private cars are absurdly low and fail to take into account the externalities at all.

You think billions will die because of Global warming. I say that might happen, but you’re underestimating human ingenuity when confronted by a problem. What is certain is if you get your way, nothing less than a complete re-organisation of society, Billions will die (like the last time extreme lefties got their paws on power) and that has never been good for ‘the people’.

See, I haven’t actually mentioned Climate Change. I agree that it has the potential (and is perhaps even likely) to cause massive death and social collapse. But my points are actually being made in the context of resource depletion which I believe (a) is a more imminent threat of death and destruction, and (b) will, if we don’t address it quickly and effectively, accelerate and intensify Climate Change beyond the worst fears of the wildest eco maniac.

I misunderstood your objection to the word “pinko”. You think that makes you seem moderate. You’re right. You’re totally off the scale, loony, back to the stone-age, ultra-left eco maniac.

Look. I’m no tub-thumper for big, business which I merely regard as an arm of the state, but there are some things that only large organisations can provide – cars, televisions, pharmaceuticals. “externalities” are merely an unquantifiable stick with which you people use to beat anyone doing anything which isn’t locally sourced organic yurt weaving or something. I can see the case for pigovian taxes, but fuel duties in the UK are already well over pricing in the externalities.

You think billions will die because of Global warming. I say that might happen, but you’re underestimating human ingenuity when confronted by a problem. What is certain is if you get your way, nothing less than a complete re-organisation of society, Billions will die (like the last time extreme lefties got their paws on power) and that has never been good for ‘the people’.