Day 1 of the India Project:
For tonight (and the next class),
1) read the first chapter of White Tiger
2) read through the following link on the documentary "Collapse"
3) post a response to Michael Ruppert's thesis in the documentary "Collapse" (feel free to add any addition research that you come across pertaining to "Peak Oil" or commentaries on the documentary). For assistance, respond to this question:
"What is Michael Ruppert's fundamental argument in the documentary "Collapse"? In what ways do you agree with him and in what ways do you consider his argument untenable and why?"
Links for reviews of "Collapse":
Collapse Review from Variety
Collapse Review from Roger Ebert
Collapse Review from the WSJ
P.s., Make sure that you respond in "comments" to this blog post for your answer to the above response question, and please do not respond as "guest".
Best,
JMN
13 comments:
The argument: Dependence on oil will eventually lead to the collapse of civilization because the exponentially growing world is reliant on a finite amount of energy. He also advocates that the world economy is one large bubble waiting to be popped and that this scarcity of resources will cause the world economy to be exposed as one giant pyramid scheme, therefore ending the basis for civilization.
After watching "Collapse," it is apparent that Michael Ruppert's logic and understanding of history are critically impaired. Although he makes several insightful observations about the danger of relying on finite resources and the constant battle between countries over control of these resources, Ruppert ignores facts that are inconvenient to his argument and fails to understand the big picture.
First, Ruppert does not apply logic and reason to his argument, but simply correlates a slew of random facts that seem to support his argument. For example, he grounds much of his argument in social darwinism and the competition for resources; however, he fails to apply this principle consistently regarding human's ability to evolve and adapt to their conditions. Ruppert makes a big point about how during a complete worldwide economic and political collapse, humans will revert to their primal instincts doing everything and anything just to survive. While this psychological observation holds true, he fails to apply it consistently. If faced with a life or death situation humans will rise to the occasion. Thus, if confronted with an impending oil crisis or epidemic, humans will adapt and find ways to solve these problems. In fact, this is the basis for the theory of evolution, and has been proven time and time again. When confronted with a lack of clean water in cities the Romans built aqueducts. When confronted with the black plague, humans gradually discovered preventative measures. When confronted with the difficult lifestyle of agriculture, humans domesticated animals to make their labor easier. Essentially, humans are adaptable and different from most if not all (my biology is sketchy) other species because of their ability to think critically and problem solve. I can't say what will save the world from the growing scarcity of energy, it could be the recently discovered nuclear power, the highly efficient hydro power, or some extraterrestrial moon rock like unobtanium, but if history has shown us anything it is that humans adapt to their circumstances. Ultimately, the logic to Ruppert's argument is inconsistant and ignores historical facts. This makes for a wonderful one-sided conspiracy, but fails to hold up to any counterarguments.
Next, his assertions about population growth rely on faulty statistics and an inability to look at the big picture. His assertion that population growth stagnated from the classical era to the black plague seems like a somewhat unsupported assertion. If there is evidence to support this I would love to see it because census records have gotten considerably more accurate over the last 2000 years, and I wouldn't trust the estimations based on incomplete government and parish records. Additionally, much of Ruppert's argument relies on the idea that population is growing infinitely, which is not the case. As any demographer can tell you, post-industrializing countries frequently experience a decline in population growth. Look at Europe or the United States. This phenomena will certainly be true for India and China, which are still rapidly industrializing much like 19th century Europe and America (USA). As economic conditions in third world countries continue to improve due to the economic pyramid scheme that is the world economy, population growth will slowly curb itself. India and China may still be the two largest countries in the world, but their population will cease to expand so rapidly. In turn of the 20th century America, there were deep-rooted fears that the influx of immigration and the large birth rate would create conditions of eternal poverty. This view was also held in 19th century Europe (Malthus); yet these pessimistic predictions did not come to pass. Consequently, Ruppert's assertions about population are made with zero precedent and should therefore be ignored.
Ruppert's economic conspiracy also fails to base itself in precedent; therefore, it does not hold any intellectual power. Yes, economies are simply one giant pyramid scheme. However, the origins of this pyramid scheme are somewhere in Afro-Eurasia, ten thousand years ago, when one villager stopped plowing his field to become a blacksmith. Neolithic farmers did not constantly need new plows, so a tradesman would have to constantly market his new product in order to obtain enough food to survive. This was the origin of a consumerism; this trend still continues today. The trend has remained continuous, despite several disastrous attempts to curb it (Pol Pot and Mao). Furthermore, the extensions of credit that Ruppert so readily criticizes have been largely responsible for the growth and improvement of the world economy over the last ten thousand years. Banking does in fact create money out of thin air, however, every successful economy from the Romans to the Abbassids to the Venetians has relied on these techniques, so to say that they will lead to a sudden collapse of civilization is foolish. Yes, economic bubbles frequently pop, and the geo-political and economic strength of regions is constantly shifting. However, never in the history of mankind have these economic conditions led to a full-scale worldwide economic disaster. Lastly, concerning his argument that investing in gold is safe. This just further shows his inconsistency. Gold is just as useless as fiat money. It's value is determined by the market and the government just like any other currency. For those that argue that gold is useful because it limits growth because of its scarcity, they are mistaken. More gold is constantly being put in the market, and gold is constantly being refined and combined with other metals which allow it to circulate more widely. Ultimately, Ruppert refuses to acknowledge that economic growth has been an inevitable trend since the dawn of man, and instead chooses to assert his own wildly unpractical economic theories.
The last bone to pick with Ruppert is his failure to look at the big picture. His here and now hysteria is similar to that of apocalyptic religious sects who have been expecting the second-coming since a year or two after Jesus died. Fact, the economic conditions, populations, and life expectancy of humans has grown fairly consistently as long as written records have been kept. Fact, humans have relied on different forms of energy be it oil, coal, or oxen, all of which exist in finite amounts; yet, scarcity has only encouraged pursuit of newer and better forms of energy. Fact, a push towards self-sufficiency would be detrimental to the human population; trade enhances the wealth and well-being of people everywhere. Fact, scarcity and competition breed innovation. All of these are irrefutable themes of world history, which Mr. Ruppert attempts to refute using inconclusive evidence and hysterical diatribes.
A fervent theist once told me that "the absence of evidence, is not the evidence of absence." This person strongly believed that a lack of evidence should not curb a believers beliefs, and frankly that is a reasonable assertion. However, my objection to Ruppert is that he attempts to pass his unprecedented beliefs off as more than just beliefs. When their lack of evidence, precedent, and logic makes them nothing more than beliefs.
Lastly, from a film makers point of view, the movie was brilliant. It is technically sound and institutes a feeling of chaos among the viewer. Despite my objections to the content, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie.
These reviews seem to focus a lot on how well put-together the movie was, and how rhetorically strong Ruppert is. Which is true- he speaks in a way that you want to believe him, but of course the assignment was to analyze the argument...
I basically agree with Moody- the argument is basically that the world has a finite amount of resources, which challenges our problem of exponential population growth. From an evolutionary biologist's standpoint (I believe Jake had something to say about this in a calculus presentation), yes, Moody is correct. Finite resources doesn't mean population will collapse, it just means that growth will not continue to be exponential. In fact, as Moody and Jake would point out, population growth follows logistic models. (which basically means after exponential-type growth, population levels off once it approaches its carrying capacity).
With regards to Moody's economic argument, I partially agree and partially disagree.
I agree in the sense that I don't believe full scale economic collapse is eminent, but not based on historical trend, but simply based on the validity of his facts. I don't think the world faces an energy crisis so deep as Ruppert makes it seem. His argument against ethanol, and the oil in Alaska, and offshore drilling, and the oil sands is sound. Especially ethanol. There is no point in extracting energy from a source when the energy of extraction is more than the energy you get. But, his argument against nuclear power is not. Ruppert argues that the initial energy investment in nuclear power requires oil, but that is /just an initial investment/. There have been many large scale investments throughout history whose initial investment was great, but led to a far greater return. For example, look at the Grand Canal in China, or the Transcontinental Railroad in the United States. I believe that nuclear power is a similar investment, and as technology improves, the return will be greater.
That said, I don't think Moody's economy argument by analogy is fully valid. Moody writes,
"Yes, economic bubbles frequently pop, and the geo-political and economic strength of regions is constantly shifting. However, never in the history of mankind have these economic conditions led to a full-scale worldwide economic disaster."
That is true, but never before has the world market been so globally interdependent. There have been regional collapses that have not affected other regions, simply because regional economies in the past were not dependent upon the world economy as a whole. But the world is, metaphorically speaking, getting smaller. We all witnessed how rapidly the world is becoming integrated when we watched the half-second of stock trading video. If we are to assume that we will fail to find an alternative source of energy, then the world market would indeed collapse. Now, the collapse may not be so dramatic as the asteroid that hit the earth, but it would set human civilization back to times when our source of energy was not primarily oil (I'd say between 1700 and 1800.) The world wouldn't be able to support the population it has now because it lacks the energy to efficiently produce on the scale it does now. With a quick mathematical calculation, that would mean a 92% population decline (of course, not immediately, but following the biological patterns I mentioned earlier.). I get that it's hypothetical, but that possibility is definitely drastic.
To sum up my argument there, I don't believe that the world will run out of energy based on existing technology, but if it did, we would be in serious trouble.
It's not truly a lack of evidence: there is evidence to suggest that we've hit peak oil. But there is a lack of evidence that other energy sources are ineffective (mainly it's just the nuclear power argument that stood out and bothered me), and a lack of evidence that population growth will fail to grow logistically.
An awareness that oil is not the answer is by far the most compelling point in the movie, though, and it would serve us well as a species to internalize that sooner rather than later.
I thought "Collapse" was an entertaining movie, albeit it was on the verge of becoming a conspiracy theory. However I thought Mr. Ruppert's claim, that a global economy dependent on a limited resource could lead to a full-scale economic disaster was valid. Mr. Ruppert's claim that a world-wide economic disaster due to a global economy based solely on the dependence of one vital product (like oil) is feasible. I agree with Bradley that a global economic collapse due to the limitations of a much needed resource probably won't be as drastic and sudden as Mr. Ruppert said it would.
On the subject of alternative energy:
I was really surprised of how dismissive Mr. Ruppert was about some alternate forms of energy like nuclear energy. Even alternative forms of energy (okay excluding ethanol) shouldn't be looked be dismissed. True, "there is no point to extract energy when the energy of extraction is more than the energy you get," I would still argue that the technology needed to extract these alternate forms of energy will become more efficient and not just with nuclear energy, but other alternative forms as well.
I also wanted to address LilMoody95's point about there never being a large-scale world-wide economic disaster based on an interdependent world economy. If we look back to the 20th century isn't it possible to argue that the Great Depression was an example of when an interlinked global economy collapsed, bringing economic disaster to most industrialized regions in the world?
Finally, as most of what I would disagree with Mr. Ruppert's case can be found in the 5 pages worth of comments by Bradley and Chris, I thought it would be interesting to examine the perspective of director Chris Smith. This is an excerpt from an interview withe the director which can be found online on Indiewire.com ( link: http://www.indiewire.com/article/collapse_director_chris_smith) Here's what he wished the audience to take away from the film "Collapse":
"We wanted the film to stand on it's own as an intriguing look at an individual. Michael truly lives outside the mainstream. He's been criticized and ostracized for most of his life for trying to get across his message. The film is much more a character study of Michael than it is a full examination of the issues he presents. It's about the theory he's developed over thirty years, how he ended up here and the effects it's had on his life."
I can see why this film is much more of a character study; I thought it was as interesting to discuss his argument, as it was to count the number of times he lit a cigarette when being interviewed.
In the documentary “collapse” Rupert argues that the global economy is on the verge of ruin, due to a lack of energy resources (oil), and that this economic collapse will cause a dramatic change to our way of life. I agree with his basic argument that there is a finite amount of oil, and with our current consumer rates, this finite amount of oil will run out. However, like Chris and Bradley were stating, humans are an adaptive species and we will begin to use or find a new energy source, whether it is Nuclear energy or creating new technology which will allow for the use of a different material for energy. Contrary to this though, is that the extreme magnitude for our current need/dependency on oil is so great, that we might not have enough time to find the natural energy successor of oil. For instance, Byzantines dependencies on grain or Britain’s need for coal in the Industrial Revolution is nowhere near the extreme quantity of oil needed for our world to run smoothly.
Now while Rupert’s thesis is sound, his over extreme prediction has many faults.
(On a small side note I think it is important to take into consideration a speaker’s credibility when debating their argument. This documentary does an excellent job at showing us a put together Rupert who uses great rhetoric and tone to elicit a reaction in the audience. What it doesn’t do is tell the audience about Rupert’s 9/11 conspiracies, for the obvious reason that we would loose credibility (Collapse Review from the WSJ). )
First, off like Chris was stating Rupert lacks evidence, lacking meaning almost none. Also when asked about the opposing side of the argument, he responds that he doesn’t care what the other side has to say, he knows what he believes. Now that is great for him, but it dramatically weakens his case and makes me believe he can’t argue his case, because he has no case. Overall, his claim that all of civilization will fall and billions of people will die in the fore coming future is outright absurd and intangible.
I guess since Ian wanted me to provide feedback on his comment, I'll do it for everybody's sake.
I mean, Ruppert is very focused on the short-term solutions to alternative energy. I'm no expert, but I know that not all long-term solutions will work. However, Ruppert is wrong in dismissing solutions /because/ they are long term, and I think that's what Ian, you were getting at. I mean, the only way to really know is to further educate yourself in the subject, but I'd be a little wary of just throwing money at alternative energy technologies blindly and expecting the technology to simply "get better." But that's more of a sciencey argument than a world history one.
And yes, your analogy with the Depression is exactly what I mean, except the world now is even more connected than it was in 1929, so the magnitude of a crisis sparked by the energy crisis has the potential (no pun intended) to even surpass the disaster caused by the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Regarding the film itself, I'm not sure. Yeah, Ruppert's an interesting character, but if I were in a position of power in a top executive office making decisions about energy, I wouldn't want to sit down and talk to this guy. He's rather abrasive and uncompromising, which made him seem like even more of a crazy conspiracy theorist, on top of his logical inconsistencies. I think to prove his point, he talks in a very apocalyptic way, but he doesn't provide any constructive suggestions for the future. He just rants about what we shouldn't be doing.
So I don't know. It was definitely interesting because it was controversial.
Well, let me start off by saying thank you to all of you who wrote freaking novels and setting the bar at an unattainable level for me. Really. Thanks. So, basically, don’t judge me. Anyway, to answer the questions Mr. Nicholson posed on the blog site. Ruppert’s argument is fairly easy to grasp: it’s not possible to continue consuming and growing as a planet with finite resources (especially oil). His argument rests on the fact that we have passed the peak of oil reserves in the world and that this will lead to a domino-like chain of events eventually bringing modern society to “collapse.”
As for the critiquing portion, I agree with the fact that he believes we have passed out peak oil production. Reserves of fossil fuels are finite to begin with, and more and more people are buying cars. The human population is also increasing (slowly, but surely) due to medical advances and we will simply not have enough oil to make all the products (such as rubber, tires, plastic) for all of the people. That being said, I don’t think population growth alone is enough to trigger a collapse. The logistic curve (or S curve) occurs in a finite population, which we clearly are, and shows the effect of a limiting factor (such as the black death in the 1300s). The population’s theory of demographic transition goes through stages: preindustrial, transitional, industrial, post-industrial. When a country reaches stage four of the theory, its residents have achieved a relatively high level of affluence, and the country has experienced a tremendous deal of economic development, both of which lead to low birth and death rates and, not surprisingly, a possible decline in population. The case could be made that developed nations that are part of the large consumer society (such as the US) are a part of the stage, and that an eminent collapse isn’t due anytime soon (just some extra info since we did this in AP Enviro last year). I agree that Ruppert’s argument against alternative fuel sources such as “clean coal” and ethanol have a strong basis in fact; the fact that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the amount of energy it gives goes against efficiency principles. However, I do believe that Ruppert glossed over other potential energy sources such as natural gases. The infrastructure of the world would have to be modified, and it would be costly, but it’s not impossible. Another thing I noticed was his tendency to simply be an alarmist. While I agree with certain points he makes, he likens this collapse to an apocalypse. It’s just annoying, to be frank. When people make these bold yellow journalist style statements they lose credibility due to the fact that they sound so outlandish. The last thing that irked me was the fact that he didn’t bother to give alternative solutions to any of the problems. He just sat and wallowed in his argument, which further exacerbated his “conspiracy theorist” image. Those are just my two cents, but I honestly didn’t have much to add since everyone before me said what I had to say in a much more articulate fashion.
First, let me begin by saying that the analysis so far has been strong. I appreciate that thoughtfulness of your replies. My intention with the project is to generate a coherent picture of the problem so that we know what an answer would look like should we find one. So far, the question posed is “what does a ‘collapse’ look like? Ruppert presents a clear, somewhat uncontroversial thesis, one which I have no problem looking at, which is that overtime primary energy resources diminish and alternative energy needs to be found. In addition, though he is less salient in his exposition, I find that the problem of diminishing energy resources is a uniquely modern problem, with no real parallels in world history. Perhaps some of you will disagree with that.
The most interesting observation to make regarding energy dependence and diminishing resources is that previous eras didn’t have to maintain a rate of exponential growth to fill their energy needs, but it does appear that today we do. If that is true then our dilemma is unique. Consider the outcome in both circumstances:
1) In a previous era, the diminishing of resources meant a simple arithmetic reduction of output. If x is the output and y is necessary for achieving that output, then a reduction in y will simply mean a comparative reduction in x to a simply quantitative degree.
2) In our era, however, where energy use produces exponential growth, a reduction in y is not equivalent to the same arithmetic reduction in x. A reduction in y in our era means a change not just in the output, but a change in the exponential rate of production. The effect of that change could be socially transforming.
Therefor, Ruppert’s concern seems legitimate. Ruppert is clearly hysterical, despite the calm he presents in the film, and he is loose with his logic, and here are many problems with his argument. That said, his thesis and its implications still warrant investigation.
To respond to Mr. Nicholson's comment, I disagree with the fact that the phenomenon is uniquely modern. There have been plenty of historical examples where a reduction of resources did not mean a simple arithmetic reduction of output, and also examples of new technology producing exponential growth.
One example would be the potato famine in Ireland. Potatoes are not native to Ireland; they are American crops. When potatoes were introduced to Ireland, it caused exponential population growth in a short time span. However, it also created a dependence on the potato; Irish farmers did not diversify their crops. Subsequently, when almost all the potatoes in Ireland were diseased, Ireland suffered a massive population decline.
I see the modern oil as analogous to the potato. The difference is a difference in scope rather than type. Our society is currently dependent upon oil for exponential growth, that is a fact. If our oil goes away, it would have a massive impact on our output, no question. This would have several short term impacts. But I seriously doubt that it would be socially transformative over a long period of time, like 100 years plus. Ireland's population eventually recovered. Additionally, technology in our world moves at a much faster pace than it did in the 19th century. So I don't think we face a unique problem, necessarily. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think that the oil crisis will be "as significant as the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs," even if we assume that we won't find an alternative source of energy.
Post a Comment