Friday, June 11, 2010

Bookthumping

It seems to me that in our effort to affix blame and responsibility, to reassure ourselves that the Deepwater Horizon incident represents something incidental rather than fundamental to our civilization, we engage in a grave and ridiculous misapprehension about the nature of the world we've made for ourselves. Does it ever strike you as odd that the extraction of a toxic and flammable organic substance from deep beneath the crust of our planet is our society's most essential activity, that without it we couldn't support our numbers--grow our food, power our industry, make our construction materials, travel, etc. etc.? It strikes me as a little odd. The fact that we've "spilled"--isn't released a better word?--enough of this stuff to remake ecosystems just doesn't suggest to me that we have a problem with BP, or a problem with the Coast Guard, or a problem with the Obama Administration, but rather that we have a problem with industrial civilization, namely, and I hate to repeat myself, that its most basic and necessary activity involves poking holes in the Earth to get at this stuff in the first place. I know that environmental types like a story in which technology and moderation first stem and ultimately reverse the changes we have wrought, but--those of you in recovery can bear me out--addicts cannot moderately imbibe. So what does that tell you about "reducing your carbon footprint", mes potes?

24 comments:

Mr.Fundamental said...

dude, we're carbon based life. whatevs.

Montag said...

i came.

it is what it is, yo.

IOZ said...

Soylent Green is people?

Mr.Fundamental said...

is!

Mr.Fundamental said...

it only makes sense when you think about it.

Anonymous said...

If you haven't read Black Blood of the Earth from Things That Never Were, well, you should

Anonymous said...

that without it we couldn't support our numbers--grow our food, power our industry . . .

And make vuvuzelas. Millions of fucking vuvuzelas.

Leonard said...

Oil is the least of it. At least with oil, it is an abnormal condition that we remake ecosystems with it. The stuff is valuable, so using it to kill wetlands is not economical.

By contrast, regard the sorry state of this former wetland. My god, we're surround by unnatural, human-caused environmental devastation!

Pliggett Darcy said...

Good post.

drip said...

Well put. Now try out your Google earth and take a look at The WV, KY, Southern Ohio area. It puts the Gulf thing in perspective. It shows what we'll do if we really want something. The costs of every kind are not even a part of the calculation. As far as anyone can tell, we will pay what we have to to turn on the lights.

Happy Jack said...

Your etc. is the most important point. We could all drive solar cars, but until green tech can power an F-16, or Abrams, etc., the train keeps a rollin'.

Anonymous said...

Nucular

NewClear

Nuklear

Nuclear

Capt'n O

Enron said...

"Remaking ecosystems" is positive thinking here.

Michael said...

Good line about addiction. Basing civilization on a fundamentally nonrenewable resource surely seemed like a good idea at the time, but nature has a way of eventually making you pay dividends for stupid decisions.

Nonny 1:29, the problem with having miniature nuclear reactors everywhere is that there is no way to shield the radiation without using incredibly heavy lead curtains. It works just fine for electricity generation from a stationary plant, but using it for personal transportation is a challenge to say the least. See also the Ford Nucleon.

stras said...

The message of the mainstream environmental movement, in a nutshell, differs little from that of crackpot techno-utopianism: all we have to do is wait for someone to develop some yet-to-be-discovered technological breakthrough and all our problems will magically go away - except, of course, for the problems caused by those technological breakthroughs, for which we'll wait for some subsequent technological breakthrough which we assume will solve them, except for... and so on until the end of time.

And so we have all the country's leading environmental lights droning on and on about "sustainable growth" - as though the constant growth of the economy, which is to say the feverish need to consume more and more resources at an ever-increasing rate, could ever be sustainable. It's a desperate, pathetic mantra, and addiction is pretty much the perfect metaphor - frantically jabbing oil rigs, power plants and wind turbines into our landscape like junkies trying to locate a usable vein.

Anonymous said...

'Lectric cars, hydrogen cars, and synth fuel cars - all possible if you have cheap steam generation around.
.
The three 500 MW-1.5 MW negative void negative temp coefficient reactor types (CANDU, BWR, and PWR) have been around for 50 years now. Hundreds of them been running for 2-4 decades. The worst accident has been TMI, now 30+ years ago.
.
Fancier "new systems", while more profitable for the builders, are to be regarded (IMO) with a great deal of skepticism.
.
Capt'n O(bvious)

Anonymous said...

I booked you and Jimmeh Howard Kunstler for Leno's show on the 29th. Should be a hoot.

Careful tho', Jimmeh doesn't much like Mexicans.

Anonymous said...

Read Derrick Jensen.

Anonymous said...

Don't read Derrick Jensen: "Me wants stone age right now, by whatever means necessary!"

Anonymous said...

Politics aside, he makes interesting reading.

demize! said...

I shoot dope once a year.

frijoles junior said...

Biology teaches us that populations expand to meet the supply of available resources, overshoot them, have a population crash, and then reach a new level of equilibrium at a level defined by the amount of resources left after the overshoot.

If you take cities (the core of human civilization) as colonial super-organisms, the only question is how drastic an overshoot is necessary to correct the current unsustainable situation. My own unscientific, off-the-cuff estimate is 2 orders of magnitude, or about 60-70 million people left.

Getting there won't be pretty.

Anonymous said...

I'd beg to differ.

The crash would be ~1 order of magnitude (if at all), and will leave 0.5-2 billion hombres.

Expect the crash to bring a huge leap forward in nucular technology, hopefully, opening the road to the stars.

On the flip side, we're counting angels on a pinhead.

Capt'n Obvious

NutellaonToast said...

Holy shit you're an ignorant fuck, junior. There where around 50 million people living in the Americas when Columbus landed....