The country wants change.Digby's post has something to do with Tim Russert, but I am only interested in this opening assertion, which is now the principle theme of Donk politics, oddly counterpointed by the contradictory notion that the country needs to "get back on track." I find it odd, because despite all the highfalutin', it appears to me that change is precisely what the country doesn't want.
-Digby
That is to say that there seems to me to be no evidence that the citizens of the United States of America--neither a majority nor a plurality nor even a substantial minority--desire any meaningful alteration in the way in which they live. They desire sameness without anxiety, and that is a different thing altogether. They desire comfort without precariousness. What they want is for someone else, politicians or business or "innovators" of some kind or other, to make the current arrangement of their lives "sustainable." They want someone to "fix" the mortgage crisis, but they will not tolerate the material reduction in standards of living that the necessary changes in the way we think of money and credit necessarily imply. They want to "do something" about climate change, which all but the most ignorant (or in-the-tank) acknowledge as an actuality, but they won't contemplate that the entire material basis of our society, from our remaining industry to the physical geography of our communities, undermines any possibility of becoming a less consumptive nation. They want to wean themselves from "dependence on foreign oil," but don't even consider that this ultimately requires the massive physical displacement of millions of people back to cenralized, pedestrian communities. They want a "safe food supply," and they are coming to understand the awfulness of transnational agribusiness, but they don't understand the malthusian dilemmas posed by returning to the lower-yield agriculture of the independent farm, nor yet the fact that such exotica as tomatoes in December would for most of us simply cease to exist. They want cheaper, easier access to healthcare, but they won't revise their attitudes about death, heroic care, and euthenasia.
Obviously that's only a partial list, but it highlights the fundamental emptiness of this oft-requested, never-commenced "change." The truth is that many of the very depredations that liberals like Digby so routinely lament are necessitated by the very nature of the lives that they live. (I hardly exclude myself from that category, by the way.) There is, however, something screamingly dishonest about calling for a change that manifests itself in the preservation of a way-of-life concurrent with the drawing of an opaqued scrim over the social and economic machinery that runs it.
83 comments:
To use your local team as metaphor, the fans want the faint (feint) hope a new manager for the Pirates brings even as the fans know the Bucs will finish 25 games under 500.
There's a lot of confused stuff in this litany, but I'll take issue with your agriculture claims:
a) The vast majority of agricultural product in this country goes to producing beef, chicken, etc. And since the US is currently overproducing by a wide margin, at the very least a substantial reduction in Green Revolution-style agriculture is possible without sacrificing much in the way of lifestyle. The dilemma posed here is not a malthusian one by any means, it's simply one of choice in how we want to eat - beef or organic vegetables? (b) Apparently you've never heard of greenhouses. Tomatoes in December are easy.
Also, what do death, heroic care and euthanasia have to do with better access to health care? Do you really think that the health care problems in this country is precipitated by old people refusing to die, and we can't make any improvements without killing the old shits off?
Most of these juxtapositions involve pretending the body politic is some sort of chimera, and we can safely claim what one mouth says as the intent of the other. That's fairly steaming - of course people who want to "do something" about climate change are open to contemplating the demands that places on our organization as a society - did you think you were the only one that thought of this? (I actually doubt you came up with this thought yourself, you undoubtedly synthesized this viewpoint by reading others' takes on the subject, as did I, as do most of us.)
And the major thrust of what you've written is just fucked up. Do you really think that people are largely content with their situation? Maybe it's comfortable in your armchair, but not everyone in America feels the same way.
Oh my! See you at the barricades, baby. I'll be the one dressed in Laz-Y-Boy.
saurabh: I'll give a personal example. My mother's second husband, R.I.P., was 84 years old, obese, diabetic, and feeling horrible. He developed untreatable cancer, as well as a litany of other problems. Yet, the American taxpayers and the health care system's growing and trheatening deficits spent well over $200,000 on heroic care for the last six months of his life. Care that did nothing for quality of life and could do nothing to extend said life.
You really think this is not a major problem? Especially given the huge growth in elderly population from the Baby Boom (many of whom are, shall we say, large and in charge due to a lifetime of the American diet and sedentary lifestyle).
I might also point out that artisan scale agriculture is generally more expensive (on the surface). You are right that we will not be starving. But we are certainly not going to be eating
$.99 hamburgers every day, either. And said hamburgers every day was a big part of the conception of the American dream. What-you want us to eat RICE like the brown people do? Hell No! I'm voting for McCain! :)
They'll just grow the hamburgers in greenhouses. Like, erm, tomatoes.
Vertical gardens, water desalination, and de-centralized solar electricity all sound good to me. They'll be fantastic, at least, for the survivors of the mass extinction.
Maybe we're on the right track, though, hiring the most ruthless motherfuckers we can find to lead US there over the backs of the people of the abyss.
Couldn't really ask for a more amusing rejoinder, eh IOZ?
Saurabh's first argument, as far as I can tell, is that since most of our agriculture goes to the meat trade, we (one of the largest meat producing countries in the world), could simply eat the corn and soybeans, leaving the meat trade to wallow, and this would involve no significant change in our way of life, manner of agriculture, price of food, and is relatively amenable to the tens of millions of Americans whose diet is largely meat.
I'm not even sure how to respond. "Dumb," perhaps.
brian - I agree that care of the elderly is a large part of the burden on health care in this country. Nor am I suggesting that we don't need to reform our ideas about when it's okay to die. But there are many other variables that are quite independent of that one that could be altered to produce dramatic reductions in health care costs without requiring us to change anything in our attitude on letting people die, some of which I think people would be happy to make.
Regarding the $.99 hamburger - the prevalence of vegetarianism has been rising steadily, and many people I know are semi-vegetarian (minimizing meat consumption), so it's certainly true that people's attitudes on this subject are changing. Which more or less directly contradicts IOZ's point.
Nice, as always. I think, however, the proposition can be summed up with a simple splice.
"The country wants change."
Is easily corrected-
"The country wants the appearance of change."
Just like we want the appearance of health, beauty, youth, wealth, etc, etc. As long as the neighbors believe in the new house, new boobs, new car, what does it matter that it leads down the road to various financial chapter filings. I can't think of anything that wouldn't better facilitate the appearance of change than a mulatto president of the off-party.
Of course, I could be wrong. Perhaps Digby speaks of country matters. That's the kind of change I can get behind, and on top of, under, (continue to add any or all prepositional clauses).
la rana - thanks for knocking down that strawman. You even spared me the work of setting it up in the first place!
My point was not that we should eat corns and soybean, but that a choice between small-scale agriculture and intensive agriculture does not necessarily involve a malthusian catastrophe. It could just as well involve electing to reduce our consumption of beef (and thereby reduce the amount of land devoted to producing feed corn). I thought this was relatively obvious, and I'm not sure why you didn't understand it. Maybe you're "dumb".
Ashley - how is a desire for, say, health care reform a desire for "the appearance of change"?
Ye gods! put the shovel down.
There are probably more fags than vegetarians and even if that isn't true, your argument still ignores the hundreds of millions of head of cattle, sheep, chickens, etc., the billions of dollars in infrastructure, debt financing, etc., the millions of people whose lives are completely dependent on agribusiness either as food or income, and the fact that the subsidy-sustained, GMO, corporate-produced, non-sweet corn that they feed the animals is barely suitable for human consumption, let alone "organic vegetables."
Your "point" isn't a point. It's a necessarily vague assertion that implodes under the sheer weight of its assumptions.
saurabh,
i'll leave aside the argument over the practicality of your advise. i know nothing about agribusiness (tho it seems to me that government subsidized industrial farms are far outpacing vegetarians in terms of growth).
what i will say, is you needn't respond to everyone, and you oughtn't use the word "strawman".
What the heck? (a) Organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of US agriculture. (b) As I said above, many people are converting to a lifestyle based on reducing meat consumption and eating organic and (in some cases) locally-grown foods. Obviously agribusiness will not disappear overnight, and probably won't disappear at all, but come on - change *is* happening in this area. And the amount of change is isometric with the number of people whinging about pure foods, meaning that my "point" successfully vitiates IOZ's original "point".
Well, as the subprime mortgage mess continues, I predict we'll have an increasing number of Ameicans out on the street asking for spare change. So there's that.
On second thought, I think your problem really is Malthusian. As in you don't understand mathematics. Organic farming could be the fastest growing segment in the whole fucking world and still be meaningless.
Vegetarianism is a statistically insignificant tranche of the population, and "fastest growing" is irrelevant given the small baseline. Your "many people" seems to mean "a lot the fellow doctoral candidates I hang out with." Better stick to the humanities, kiddo. Based on my observations, 75% of the men in America are fagz. Self-selection is not destiny, alas.
La_rana beats me to it. Jesus, I am slow on the uptake today.
Just to be clear here, it is possible to feed a billion people on predominantly local agriculture. That nation and its economy, pace Tom Friedman, looks a lot like India. Now you will pardon my skepticism that Americans are prepared to accept that outcome.
let me be one to say that i know a goodly number of the kinds of people that saurabh is talking about...
they live in cambridge ma, they're terrible drivers, they're outnumbered 10:1 by average americans and they smell funny.
looks a lot like India
ooh, i love curry!
IOZ, YOU brought up the organic-food-loving set to begin with. Now you're saying they're unimportant (2.8%, according to Wikipedia, by the way) - so why the fuck did you bring them up? To make a half-assed rhetorical pairing?
Also, my doctorate was not in the humanities.
Anyway, this is distracting us from the major issue, here, which is: this entire post is wrong. Just read further down the page for the evidence, where IOZ takes to task some young Obamite who believes that Obama will end the War. Incorrectly, yes, but *SHE WANTS THE WAR TO END*. The Democrats came to power in 2006 for similar reasons. Obama successfully markets the illusion of change, as do the Democrats more generally, but it's wrong to suggest that because people are bilked by them, their desires do not exist.
saurabh, i don't think that's a correct reading of the post. ioz is essentially arguing that there's quite a bit of cognitive dissonance on the part of democrats/liberals who say they want change.
The "organic food-loving set." Where was that? I'm one of 'em. I just don't think we get to that point without a big die-off, which I may or may not be rooting for.
2.8% of the population believes that the moon landing was filmed on a soundstage. You know whaddumsayin'?
Meanwhile, Democratic partisans of the sort we discuss here at Who Is IOZ are bilked because they want to be. People who pay attention and fail to draw the obvious conclusions are the worst sort of moron.
saurabh has GOT to be a parody. are you playing both sides IOZ? The confirmation of a non-humanities doctorate - admitted as some sort of rejoinder! - was just too much. I'm on to you buddy.
Especially since said Young Democrat would not really want "the War" (read the Imperial Project) to end, if she understood the true short term costs to herself from reducing the imperial project. Especially if said Young Democrat lives in a Western or Southern metropolitan area with a large military base or military-based electronics industry. For example, my town has 16,000 people working at the local base. Are there they all needed for "Defense"? Probably not, but they are definitely needed for the Imperial Project.
You wrote: "They want a "safe food supply," and they are coming to understand the awfulness of transnational agribusiness" - this, as you've said, represents a vanishingly small segment of the population (except without the "vanishing" part). Their desires do not represent a malthusian catastrophe, and IF their numbers were significant, I do not believe they would, either (your argument about India is specious - organic farming in America bears no resemblance to village farming in India, and we could go on at length about the small gap in relative productivity of organic vs. intensive agriculture). So, what was your point, again?
As to Democrats wanting to be bilked. Clearly - "I've figured it out. Why haven't they?" Maybe the problem is that you're so much smarter than everyone else?
Well I plead guilty to the smarter part. "There is not one problem that would not be solved if people would simply do as I advise." But "concern about food safety" isn't dedication to organics--it's panic over the latest beef recall or salmonella outbreak. I think you should take la_rana's advice.
Uh, so your point is now, "we can't prevent salmonella outbreaks without enduring a malthusian collapse"? And seriously, panics over beef recalls are more significant than interest in organic farming or vegetarianism?
I'm rather enjoying holding this shovel, so I think I'll hold on to it until this thread gets boring.
Just in case this hasn't occurred to everyone else, this is precisely what "change" looks like.
People can desire change all fucking day. The delusion is that our "democracy" allows change. It simply isn't set up that way.
(I have a doctorate in calling motherfuckers motherfuckers. Is that considered the humanities?)
And seriously, panics over beef recalls are more significant than interest in organic farming or vegetarianism?
Yes. Seriously bubballoo, "my friends" is not "the country."
IOZ's "point," as far as I can tell is that libs and pwogs say they want change but really don't not in any systematic way.
Now, Mr. Dr. Saurabh, do you disagree with that or not?
P.S. Greenhouse tomatoes: not easy. I can tell you more about tomato pinworm and pseudomonas wilt when we're done.
OK, I'm convinced. Most Americans want us to stay in Iraq, want the government to tap their phones without a warrant, want to keep about 50 million Americans uninsured, and want to keep handing out tax breaks to billionaires while vetoing supplemental health insurance for children.
In other words, McCain wins in a landslide.
When you say libs and pwogs don't want change in "any systematic way", what are the bounds of change, here? I'll certainly agree that liberals demand LESS change than I would, but it's obtuse to suggest that they're not interested in some measure of change. So, is what we're really saying here, "I don't consider what they mean by 'change' to actually represent meaningful change"? True in my book, but irrelevant. Examples of specific changes liberals are demanding - on climate change, on health care, on fucking mortgages?! - that require lifestyle changes out of the bounds of their tolerances have not been given.
IOZ - assertion is a poor form of argumentation. Personally I haven't been stampeded by hordes of panicking beef-eaters, so you'll please enlighten me as to under which rock the crisis you're talking about might be hiding. Numbers? Polls? Anything other than blowing hard?
it's obtuse to suggest that they're not interested in some measure of change
I agree, which is why I didn't "suggest that they're not interested in some measure of change." Putting words in your interlocutor's mouths is a poor form of argumentation, Doc.
Please don't call me Doc. And, since you take offense, would you at least deign to clarify what you did mean? You said they're not interested in change in "any systematic way" (or at least you attributed that to IOZ, I assume supportively). I say they ARE interested in change, and you agree. So where now?
Been awhile since Ioz had a dust-up of these proportions.
Anyway, Ioz's point as I understand and agree with is that people say they want change, but if you follow all the consequences then ... not so much. Revealed preferences or something.
In other words, yeah, we should stop invading Middle Eastern countries and propping up despots. But... that means we don't control the economic blood supply, and our other military outposts probably evaporate, and suddenly our standard of living are not being financed by Chinese creditors and so on.
I remember reading an article written by someone who was once intimately involved in the war on drugs. They eventually came to the conclusion that the amount of money the black trade pumps through the economy was nothing to sneeze at and, in fact, no one really wanted to stop the drug trade. Not the banks or cities or whoever else. Much more in depth and all that, anyway, the anecdote she told was of speaking to an audience of regular Americans. At the beginning she asked them who wanted the drug problem to be stopped. Almost all raised their hand. After she took them through a detailed explanation of how this would impact the economy, she asked the same question. Almost no one raised their hand.
That is how I understand IOZ's point.
Sarahbh, go back and look at your responses. Your replies are essentially that people declare they want change, which no one disagrees on. Yeah, that is what people say.
Look again though, do you really think people are ready to give up their publicly subsidized Mcburgers? And I mean people en masse - that is the important part, not just your friends.
To use a vulgar and micro analogy: Many obese people say they want change, meaning they want to lose weight, but they don't want to stop drinking big gulp sodas and scarfing down snickers bars.
steveb: Most Americans don't really care all that much or are too distrusting of the system to believe what they want matters.
Some current polls show McCain beating both Hillary and Obama. And, given the fudge factor in polls dealing with African-Americans or women (they don't like 'em but don't want to appear too bigoted) I'm guessing that the victory will be larger than currently shown.
Personally I haven't been stampeded by hordes of panicking beef-eaters
precisely. you haven't. people are blowing hard for change, but that's about it.
It seems that libs and progs want change within the parameters of electoral politics the same way libertarians want to put an end to an expansive and intrusive government.
You know, they claim to want it until they have to actually do something, like perform acts of civil disobedience that may result in someone else being inconvenienced.
Good times, IOZ.
Prof.
It seems that libs and progs want change within the parameters of electoral politics the same way libertarians want to put an end to an expansive and intrusive government.
You know, they claim to want it until they have to actually do something, like perform acts of civil disobedience that may result in someone else being inconvenienced.
Good times, IOZ.
Prof.
Justin,
I think your reading of what IOZ is saying is correct, but I think IOZ is way off base in suggesting that change of the kind demanded is impossible or requires ground-shaking alterations in lifestyle. Either that, or people simply aren't demanding those sort of changes en masse - e.g., the public at large is not demanding anything that requires them to give up their McBurgers.
But, taking up your female lecturer - she gave a lecture that convincingly proved ending the Drug War means economic collapse, after which people changed their minds. Personally, I find that extremely hard to swallow, and I'd bet that a compelling counterpoint could be made that the drug trade could be stopped with relatively modest effects. And I'm equally unconvinced on most of the other points IOZ makes. Climate change, for example, might require us to make drastic alterations in our lifestyle - or it could involve small changes in the engineering of cars and buildings. Previous American history suggests that drastic reductions in energy consumption with near-invisible lifestyle changes are possible, so why should it be unfeasible now?
If this is just reducing to a matter of pessimism, then I find it extremely uninteresting. Is IOZ's only point that "these fools don't realize that there's no way to win the game they want to play"? Why? Are the equations he poses really so deterministic? Or is he just suffering from lack of imagination?
so what you're saying specifically is that we need to enchant our cars with +5 to eco-friendliness and choose the 'go green' trait when we level up as a society
change, eh? oh jeez. (say it Fargo style)
I just saw my first crap taken on our block. I had just turned the bike onto our block's sidewalk, and I looked left and saw bare ass between bumpers.
she apologized.
I rode on without flinching, and LAUGHED and laughed, that I can't believe what I just saw Laugh.
you say you want change, eh? so did she. so did she.
`must have had to go pretty badly, it was flurrying.
Ok, stupid is fine, but you can't simply make shit up.
"Previous American history suggests that drastic reductions in energy consumption with near-invisible lifestyle changes are possible, so why should it be unfeasible now?"
I happen to know a bit about this. In any sense that is comparable or meaningful, this has happened precisely once (its possible I am wrong, but the following example is elucidative anyway). After the rolling blackouts in CA the state embarked on a massive campaign to get people to reduce their electricity consumption. Previous historical estimates suggested that this would be insufficient to account for the needed 10% that would take CA out of danger. Somewhat surprisingly, electric consumption was reduced by over 10% on the basis of public appeals alone. But here's the important point: there it stopped. Teh demand remained at 90% of the previous peak even with the subsequent addition of power saving measures that increased the relative cost of electricity. IN other words, people are willing to restrict their electrical power consumption 10%, but no more, and only because a blackout is the alternative (this also says nothing about oil, which is far more implicated in American society). The takeaway is that threatened with the inability to operate as they ordinarily would, American's were willing to moderate their consumption to the point at which their lives became as similar as possible to that which preceded the blackouts (assuming some electricity is preferred over none).
IOZ would readily concede that when the oil and food shortages come people will be willing to change.
seems ioz hates being seen as the curmudgeon he is. wallowing in his bitterness is too fine.
"so what you're saying specifically is that we need to enchant our cars with +5 to eco-friendliness and choose the 'go green' trait when we level up as a society"
ioz, i'm voting for incgnfcnt to win today.
Saurabh, I'm sorry... when you started waving your Doc around, it was hard for me not to laugh. Let's start again.
Help me understand your argument. You've been making a lot of sweeping claims ("the drug trade could be stopped with relatively modest effects," "drastic reductions in energy consumption with near-invisible lifestyle changes are possible," "Tomatoes in December are easy," etc.) but I'm not really getting what case it is that you are trying to make.
Are you saying that "change of the kind demanded is []possible or requires [no] ground-shaking alterations in lifestyle?" Is it that, or that "people [are] demanding those sort of changes en masse?"
paolaccio: I did not wave my doc around - IOZ brought it up to make fun of me, and I made a flippant reference to his "humanities" comment. That was all.
I'm saying IOZ makes two kinds of errors: one, he suggests that people are making some kinds of demands en masse that they are not, and two, that the changes he suggests are impossible (as we're currently reading his text), or fall outside the bounds of what the demanders would accept, do not necessarily, and that at the very least, proving that is exceedingly difficult. In other words, IOZ is just raining on the parade with no good reason.
la rana, you can always learn something new. In this case, I was referring to the contraction in US petroleum consumption between 1979 and 1983. The contraction was quite strong - from ~20 Mb/d to ~15 Mb/d. These changes were forced by the spike in oil prices, but they were real changes - after the oil price collapsed, consumption rebounded only modestly, and it wasn't until the 90s that it began to take off again (it was 2000 before it recovered to 1975 levels). In the meanwhile, fuel economy doubled during the years of contraction, and other new efficiency technologies were introduced. So, yes, it's true that we can reduce our energy consumption dramatically.
But perhaps you're right - it's ridiculous to imagine that people could consume as little as they did in 1990, as Kyoto demands. That's obviously never happened in human history, and libs and pwogs wouldn't put up with it.
he suggests that people are making some kinds of demands en masse that they are not
Could you show me where he "suggests" that? I find that quoting people directly is quite useful - saying "X suggests N" is almost invariably a sign that N is some premise that is fairly easy to demolish (the oft-abused "straw man").
that the changes he suggests are impossible (as we're currently reading his text), or fall outside the bounds of what the demanders would accept, do not necessarily, and that at the very least, proving that is exceedingly difficult.
I had to read that sentence quite a few times and I still can't parse it. Are you sure you don't have a humanities degree?
Rather than put words in your mouth, I'd like to ask you to restate that bit...
Regarding claims en masse, see the extensive discussion above about tainted beef & agriculture. A minor point; not important.
Apologies for my garbled prose. I meant: Libs want X. IOZ says X is unachievable without Y, and libs won't put up with Y. So, libs really don't want X. He gives a number of examples of X->Y, none of which are convincing.
I'm saying that in most cases, X is more easily achieved than we might think (and does not require Y), and that most liberal demands in fact do not require systemic changes.
Msr. is taking potshots at the machine, as futile and fun as that may be, and some of you come here to argue that with just the right equations, the right variables and multipliers, that ethanol subsidy will work out just fine for global warming. and soon we'll all be driving Prius'.
jeez.
I thought I was the Defeatist.
Aw, shit. I saw "53 comments" and I charged in here looking for something about apes, vast experience with astrophysicists, or maybe the reappearance of Berube. What the hell, man? I'm going back to bed.
Mr. Saurabh seems to be a bit of a techno-utopian. But the problem is: the oil is running out, the water is being drained dry, the seas are being stripped of fish, etc. etc. etc. Do you really think that there will be no drastic and painful changes in liefstyle because of some miracle techno-fixes? It seems to be a case of chasing after the receding tide. I'm skeptical.
Plus, Ioz is a lot funner read than a somber recital of all the people who are becoming vegetarian that you know.
What? No, I'm not saying that there's no environmental catastrophes impending. But most liberals aren't clamoring to defend the earth, end strip mining, save the corals from bleaching, eradicate malaria, etc. They barely want us to get out of Iraq. Which is what the whole fucking post was about: whether liberals have self-consistent desires.
Anyway, fuck you people! I never wanted to sound this somber: it's your blanket refusal to admit how right I am that forces me into this position.
Whenever you descend into your Sturm und Drang rants, IOZ, against the hoi poloi, your most endearing trait of inherent humanity is thrown away with the bath water of I'm-better-than-they, which of course you are not. You cannot reside and work in Pittsburgh and sustain your life-long quest to be a member of the "elite," defining that term as you may.
We are all want to assume we are outside of the circle of change. My neighbor will have to change. Her/his life will be different, but mine will continue as is.
On a personal note, as if you were interested, I am an old world traveller who finds himself by some cosmic mistake living in Wheeling, West Virginia...a worn-out guy living in a worn-out town and both of us have seen better days.
But if the end of all our journeying is to arrive at the place we started and recognize it for the first time, when will you?
If this were our first exchange I would assume you were kidding.
The subject of IOZ's post and this entire "discussion" has been voluntary, elective changes. And after 52 comments you offer your first real world example of . . . involuntary changes.
Are you insane? Taunting me? I didn't think it possible to be that easily confused.
Saurabh, are you going back to Greensburg and taking the coke?
la rana - can you PLEASE stop being so needlessly insulting? Your arguments are not so rock-solid that condescension is in order.
In any case, the changes may have been involuntary, but that's hardly germane. Changes were made in response to some external impetus, so change is possible. In this case, it's obvious that the will to put the enforcement mechanism (e.g. a carbon tax, cap & trade, higher CAFE standards, etc.) is very much real and alive amongst liberals, so it's NOT absurd to imagine that a similar force could come into play. Thus, it's easy to imagine a liberal agenda resulting in a reduction in consumption without significant damage to the good ole American way of life, exactly in contradiction to IOZ's claim.
Now, please go soak your head to reduce its size.
fuck you people! I never wanted to sound this somber: it's your blanket refusal to admit how right I am that forces me into this position.
Better.
After all of this nonsense your only point is that "change is possible"?! Since we rather clearly aren't trapped in amber, I'd have to agree, but I feel compelled to add that this has absolutely no bearing on the argument. Confusion, once again, reigns.
You seem to both understand the argument, and not understand that it must be refuted on its own terms. That change is possible and has occurred involuntarily says absolutely nothing about whether change is truly desired or will be effectuated.
If you'd like to steer clear of my condescension, I'd suggest you collect your thoughts and make a coherent point.
is she cute? and what kind of position are we talking about here?
hehe.
Turn and face the strain.
Any of you that still believe in change ever watch tv? Really?
I stumbled upon this site while doing a Google image search for the term "Rothko". Six weeks later and I haven't shaved or changed out of these sweatpants.
Thanks IOZ!
Somber is as somber does or something to the effect of shrimp in my box of chocolates...
Note to self: stop spiking coffee with silver polish.
Somber is
as somber does
or something
to the effect of
shrimp in my box of chocolates
Note: to self
stop spiking coffee with silver polish
"They want to wean themselves from "dependence on foreign oil," but don't even consider that this ultimately requires the massive physical displacement of millions of people back to cenralized, pedestrian communities."
http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0027.html
I for one do want those changes that IOZ lists. Alas, I am only one.
I want those things, so change MY life to make those things a reality for me.
But do I believe there are many hundreds of millions willing to change with me?
I'll believe it when I see it.
And I don't think any of the candidates, once elected, will impel others to make similar changes. It just ain't gonna happen without large scale calamity.
shatteredmonocle wins by the asskissing default rule. You all know what a fan I am of asses. And kissing them. I'm going to change the name of this site to Lawyers, Guns, and Adult Diapers.
Saurabh's got something of a point. We're not faced with a choice between Big Agro and independent farms with no tomatoes in December. It's not a choice between expensive inaccessible healthcare and universal healthcare combined with euthanizing the geezers. And becoming independent of foreign oil won't, for crying out loud, send us back to pedestrian communities.
But saurabh, it WILL require massive lifestyle and economic changes that the elites in this country just won't tolerate.
The non-elites might want it. A lot of people do want to change their lifetstyles, even if it means inconvenience, because life is just too damn painful right now. IOZ ignores those people because they're not easy targets for affected pseudo-sophisticated mockery and therefore don't count. But he's right that your average upper-class liberal probably isn't willing to pay the price for change any more than your average upper-class conservative.
A lot of people do want to change their lifetstyles, even if it means inconvenience, because life is just too damn painful right now. IOZ ignores those people because they're not easy targets for affected pseudo-sophisticated mockery and therefore don't count.
Hmmm... That's a bit offside, Anonymous, based on my reading of IOZ's post. Let's say you are spot on, and that many millions want to change their lifestyles because the unsustainability (is that a word?) of it all is hurting them now. (I would more or less agree with such an assessment.) Well, you're still left in the crosshairs of IOZ's analysis; even if they truly want change, what are they willing to do to get it? At this point, you have to look beyond mere consumer choices, and I think IOZ does that.
The problem isn't just "upper-class liberal" snobbery. There is an entrenched web of economic and political interests that is showing an increasing propensity toward oppression and violence as means of conserving the preferred order. Therefore, the sort of change we're talking about here will likely require more than just "inconvenience" for anyone without a certain level of wealth and influence.
When changing our shopping habits isn't enough to turn our society toward sustainability (or at least away from apocalypse), and our 'elected' leaders predictably show no will to buck the system that gives them their privileges, what will we, the unwashed masses, do? Will we march in the streets? Will we shut down the nation with a mass strike? Will we-- gasp!-- vote third party candidates into national offices? Will we be willing to face the violence that will likely be unleashed in the face of mass popular resistance (assuming we'd ever be willing to get off our fat asses to offer such resistance)?
Call me a cynic, but I think most of us will just keep grumbling while we munch on our 99-cent burgers, and we'll content ourselves with voting for shiny orators who promise "change" and deliver the same old neoliberal, imperialist bullshit.
Saurabh's got something of a point. We're not faced with a choice between Big Agro and independent farms with no tomatoes in December. It's not a choice between expensive inaccessible healthcare and universal healthcare combined with euthanizing the geezers. And becoming independent of foreign oil won't, for crying out loud, send us back to pedestrian communities.
I think that at least two of these are very incorrect statements, especially the independent of foreign oil one (upon which hinges everything else.)
We are debating health care because, to be blunt, very few people CAN afford on their own modern technological medicine, particularly as it is now established and heavily regulated by governments acting on behalf of the drug companies and the medical professionals' "guilds." There WILL BE some kind of rationing, be it via the current convoluted "market" in which some people are out of luck (hospitals can't continue to afford losing billions serving the uninsured poor) or via bureaucratic rules.
Agriculture-as many others have pointed out, this will require a sea change in American food culture. This is a good thing, and some people and even some regions are making these changes on an incremental basis. But-there are powereful forces fighting this the whole way (so I agree with you here).
Independent of "foreign oil" without major lifestyle changes? Come on...Don't be ridiculous. The only way the 2500 square feet Brady Bunch house on a cul de sac can work in many metropolitan areas with huge population growth pressures is if said "housing product" is 50 miles away from job centers. I live in Northern California. $10/gallon gasoline (with $5 or so dedicated to the impossible-by-the-laws-of-physics replace the oil myth) would destroy the suburban "dream" out here. We could be more efficient, certainly, but that would mean smaller cars, smaller
"Life is just too painful right now" sounds like a reason for a bender or drug addiction, not a rational explanation for likely political changes. Life has ALWAYS been "painful." That's why people invent religions!
I figured after IOZ writes one of his best posts ever we'd get one of the best comments sections ever.
Justin had a good point above about revealed preference. I mean, the oil companies didn't just get beamed down from the sky and brainwash our leaders into invading middle eastern countries. They produce a product that is indispensable to our economy and of which we apparently refuse to live without (or even consume less of it).
The only period where Americans used less oil was 1979-1985, a result of a) massive inflation followed by b) massive recession. So yes, change is possible, but usually people have to be pistol-whipped into it. By the rotting corpse of Malthus.
I think the essence of the argument is since the economy and the way it functions is made by us, change isn't possible unless we change ourselves, something that 250 million Americans will do over their dead bodies. Saurabh is advised to spend his/her considerable talents proselytizing to them about the virtues of hydroponics instead of preaching here to the perverted.
Likewise, many of us here certainly recognize that putting our faith in either of the two political parties to bring "change" is a colossal waste of time. The entire visible spectrum of Dem opinion is united about withdrawing from Iraq when the security situation improves. That is to say, never. McCain was at least bold enough, or maybe off his meds long enough, to admit the obvious.
We're certainly optimistic enough around here that change is possible. However, I personally don't take umbrage that my neighbor drives 50 miles each way to Portland to work. I do, however, look forward to picking up his house for a reasonable price at auction.
it seems to me that what you've got in this thread is a concrete example of the uselessness of academia. here, an intelligent, probably well-read person has spent his/her entire day trying to convince a pseudonymous blogger that yes, you can too grow tomatoes in the winter.
clearly, saurabh thinks arguing is a good way to get through to people (and thereby effect change?). spend a few years away from school, and you'll realize that arguing is only good for passing the time.
Anonymous 2:35:
But what a FINE timewaster an Ioz Magnum Opus and earnest commentariate is! Certainly better than the latest episode of American Idol!
and here you are arguing him about his arguing...
Dammit! I have an advanced degree in Computer Science, which means I've already forgotten more about greenhouse tomato production than you yabbos'll ever learn, and I'm telling you: I've had it up to here with the "tomatoes are easy" bit.
Tomatoes grown in the hot sun by brown people are easy, and cheap. Hothouse tomatoes are finicky, whiny little bastards who just want to go outside, and require a whole John-Travolta-in-The-Boy-in-the-Bubble infrastructure just to keep their little compromised immune systems from freaking the fuck out. If you don't mind having to apply for a credit check just to walk down the line at Souplantation, then shit yeah, let's grow organic tomatoes in greenhouses.
Put another way: if you think we'll be able to move fin de siècle Western consumerism green with just a wave of a techno-wand, then I have one word for you: dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. No unintended consequences there.
Sheesh.
mr. paolaccio should have the last word. Mainly because it is such a good one - as is his point.
I only want to add my servile praise of Msr.IOZ.
His last two posts have been spot on.
If nothing else, he is moving the dialog forward, and frustrating the Obamamaniacs who want to believe all the pretty words that are being showered on them like so much glitter and gold.
Carry on my good fellow.
"echoing Noam Chomsky, even small mitigations in the operation of vast power structures can translate into benefits – or alleviations of suffering – for substantial numbers of people. Again, this is an observable fact, not a value judgment. Whether these mitigations of injustice and suffering in certain instances outweigh the cost of participating in – and thereby to some extent legitimizing and perpetuating – a system that inevitably produces injustice and suffering on a massive scale is a question that each person must decide for themselves, in their own individual conscience. "
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1444&Itemid=135
Hello. A relative actually sent me a link to this post because there are some points in it that I have made myself.
I've been traveling for just over a year out of a backpack, and it's amazing to realize how much we can live without excess. I do not have any unnecessary belongings, or use much extra electricity or gas because I live outdoors often and do not own a car. Most of the things I own are recycled (I am kind of an environmental geek) or free/used/discarded. Having realized how little it actually takes to live, the rampant consumerism of the average American lifestyle stands in huge contrast - the belief that everyone needs 'essential' belongings such as cars, furniture, kitchenware, cleaning products, electronics, knick-knacks, packaged food products, large houses - you name it. The list goes on and on. As long as these things are considered essential (and many things that should be reusable are considered disposable) it will be difficult to make changes.
The traveling I have been doing has been helping my find my purpose in life and I believe it will be to teach people and companies how to live with less. I do believe that even small changes can make big differences - one popular company reducing its packaging just a little can save thousands of tons of material and energy, or people just realizing that they don't need some small thing, or that they can reuse something a little more, or use a little less of something, can make a tremendous impact worldwide.
I think the comments regarding vegetarianism are interesting. As a former vegetarian, I am aware of the argument that producing less meat will allow us to use our agricultural resources for more productive means. Once again, a small reduction could make a substantial difference. Also, many Americans are currently suffering health problems from poor diet - a few less hamburgers wouldn't hurt anyone.
Currently I think our biggest problem is the government. Even with every scientist in the world saying that climate change is going to happen, the Bush administration denied it until recently. Obviously this is a huge problem. Without leadership to guide the average person many feel indifferent and powerless to make a difference.
Of course, back to the main point of the article - people think it's quite trendy to have an OPINION about environmental issues, but few are willing to make an effort. I have been searching for like-minded people to work with to make the effort for REAL change. Bickering amongst ourselves will not improve anything. I am just a young traveler and I have often felt powerless to make a difference but if we work together then we can get things moving. I don't know how we're going to do it yet, but if you have some ideas and you would like to work with me then get in touch. I feel much more optimistic after finding this post. I am glad that at least you people care, and I apologize for my self-righteous little rant here. I realize that some of you disagree with my opinions and I would be more than happy to hear your ideas.
As a newcomer to this blog, once again I apologize if I sound pedantic. Thanks for reading.
Post a Comment