There are two seemingly unrelated ‘isms’ that, in my mind at least, have a lot in common: Survivalism and Environmentalism.

Although they are focused on very different things, these two movements share many similarities. They both demand significant lifestyle changes, they both posit a moral failure on the part of humanity leading to disaster, and they both start with a solution before moving on to the problem.

The environmentalist line has been the same throughout my life: reduce, reuse, and recycle. While that may make a lot of sense from an efficiency standpoint, it’s hard not to notice that the problem it is a solution for keeps changing. We used to talk about waste management, water pollution, acid rain, and the ozone layer. Now the conversation has moved on to global warming, but strangely enough, the solutions on offer haven’t changed.

Why do so many environmentalists sneer at carbon trading, carbon sequestering, and offsetting? Why are they so strongly opposed to nuclear power? Although these solutions offer real capacity to make a dent in global greenhouse gas emissions, they don’t require repentance. No change in lifestyle is demanded. It’s not enough to address the problem, since the problem isn’t what interests them, they are focused on their solution.

So we continue to hear about conservation and recycling, although those are almost useless in addressing carbon emissions. Why is the conversation focuses on the rate of emission generation when it is the total that matters? If you halve the rate at which water is flowing into a plugged sink, does that stop it from overflowing? The only solutions that really make sense in terms of the problem are (1) removing carbon from the atmosphere, and (2) replacing fossil based power with emission free power such as solar, hydro, wind, tidal, nuclear, and geothermal. However, instead of focusing on these two society-wide problems, the typical environmentalist is really more concerned with point the finger with regards to who drives how far in which SUV.

It seems to me that a large number of people have come to the debate with no real interest in practical solutions, but because it fit their pre-formed agenda… an agenda that is less about designing an infrastructure for future prosperity, and more about a puritanical attack on anyone whose consumption they disapprove of (often in complete denial of their own).

The same kind of thinking can easily be seen in the survivalist movement. True to its name, it has managed to survive several cataclysmic disasters; namely the repeated death of its raison d’etre. Over the years the solution has jumped from problem to problem as the world evolved. When the threat of imminent nuclear annihilation seemed to decline, the survivalists picked up on the Y2K bug and kept going. After Y2K proved to be a non-event, the movement didn’t die, the faithful just migrated to the peak-oil forums and kept planning for disaster.

The survivalist meme starts with a solution that appeals to people disenchanted with the modern world: a cabin deep in the hills, or a self-sufficient homestead far from the beaten path. It blames modern industrial society for the Doom ™ lurking just over the horizon, and justifies the escapist fantasy of moving to a simpler-life in the country.

Of course, in order for that solution to be meaningful, one needs a problem. Today, that problem is peak-oil. Once the marauding zombie-hordes fail to materialize (yet again), and the Mad-Max scenarios of oil-addicted biker gangs ruling the post-apocalyptic wasteland drown in a steady supply of energy from alternative sources, it will move on to something else.

Survivalism is hindering the peak-oil debate in the same way Environmentalism is hindering the discussion over global warming. Both groups are more interested in their agenda than the problem. Any alternative solutions that wouldn’t demand radical changes in people’s lifestyles, and allow business-as-usual, are rejected out of hand.

Instead of looking for solutions to a problem, they are co-opting a problem in order to advocate their solutions.

image by gruntzooki

The internet has radically changed the way people perceive ‘normal’. Not so much what is normal in others, although there is definitely a bit of that going around, but in terms of their own behavior. For the first time in human history, no matter how bizarre, offbeat, or deranged your interests may be, you can go on-line and within minutes, find people just as nuts as you.

There is a forum for every interest; no matter what you are into, someone else is out there discussing the same things. It’s easy to get drawn into these on-line ‘communities’, and start interacting with the people on them as though they lived just down the street. It’s easy to forget that there are 6 billion people on the planet, and that the few hundred members of the forum don’t represent a fair cross section of the population. It’s easy to use a forum as a reference group.

That’s when things get interesting.

Once the newbie starts to accept the other members of their new community as peers, they inevitably begin to compare themselves to the others. They begin to compete with the other members, they participate in group think. They do all the things that humans normally do as part of the socialization process, but they do it within a reference group that is already highly biased for outliers.

The result is:

• 28 year-olds who think having $100k in the bank means they are falling behind
• garage based server-farms searching for extraterrestrial life
• a 22 year old starving himself to keep from aging
• runners who blithely refer to marathons as ‘training runs’
• hundreds of hours spent modding a $50 PC cases
• lives being reorganized to conform to bizarre sleep schedules
• rugged individualists heading into the hills to await the end of the world
• voluntary facial disfigurements

…all of which is well and good as far as I’m concerned. Unfortunately, the result is also:

• Cults indoctrinating people half the world away
• Paranoiacs feeding each others’ fantasies
• Anorexic girls cheering each other on
• Star Trek fan fiction (’nuff said)

In the past, when people with strange hobbies or strange beliefs found themselves being distanced from those around them, it formed social pressure to move back towards the norm so they could reintegrate with their communities. Now, when people find themselves being distanced, they retreat to the comfort of the internet, where they can find on-line virtual communities that reinforce the behavior/belief that was ostracizing in the first place. Social exclusion has become a form of reinforcement.

A man who suddenly discovers his passion for armadillo breeding, may be discouraged or mocked by his friends. However, the moment he goes on line, he will discover a history of the armadillo sub culture, the biography of an armadillo keeper, and a forum for armadillo lovers. He may begin to think his hobby isn’t that unusual after all. He may post questions on the forum, and start chatting with other armadillo breeders. To his surprise, he may find that someone in the next state keeps a hundred armadillos in their garage. Maybe one or two in the basement isn’t so weird after all…

…but it is. It’s just plain weird.

by jswieringa

The man in the ragged, dirty clothes slumps against a storefront, in a posture of abject misery. As I walk by I hear him mutter something with the word “change” in it, and gesture toward his hat. A few coins lie scattered inside. A pittance. Less than a pittance.

I smile at him.

“No Thanks” I say cheerfully, and keep walking.

Behind me I hear the rattle of coins. Glancing over my shoulder I see a woman who has paused to drop a little money into the hat. She catches my look and favours me with a frown. I make sure to frown back.

She thinks this is a moral issue.

I think it’s a business transaction.

She thinks I lack compassion for the poor.

I think she’s paying that man to sit on the street and be a nuisance.

Let’s face it– panhandlers weren’t turning a profit, they wouldn’t be out there panhandling. Tossing a panhandler some change isn’t a great humanist undertaking. Not only are you funding a public nuisance, but you’re likely enabling a drug or alcohol habit at the same time.

Why not hold onto your change and use it to leave a nice tip for the next sleep-deprived server at a restaurant you visit, struggling valiantly to make a go of it on minimum wage. Or make a contribution to a charity that deals with the root causes of homelessness and poverty.

Don’t you think it’s socially irresponsible to pay people to stay on the street, and avoid seeking help? Isn’t that just enabling the problem?

Shouldn’t we all just say “No thanks”, smile, and keep on walking?

image by Terwilliger911

The ban on trade in endangered species may be one of the most ill-conceived ideas of all time.

The idea is a noble one: protect threatened wildlife by removing the incentive to hunt it. After all, nobody wants to see the African elephant or white rhinoceros go the way of the dodo. The problem is that it ignores basic economics.

Prohibition doesn’t work

A blanket ban does nothing to diminish demand, it only tightens up on the supply. As a result, prices go up, until the incentive is such that a black market emerges to fill the demand. The only way to counter this without lifting the ban is to increase the disincentives: harsher punishments, more rigorous enforcement.

It’s a losing game; just have a look at prohibition or the war on drugs. Despite the ban (or perhaps because of) ivory poaching continues to this day.

However, that’s not the worst part of the ban. It actually has the effect of incentivizing a reduction in population. Fewer animals to kill means less poaching, so the cost of policing is less. Likewise, there is no incentive to increase the size of the herds, since it is illegal to profit from the animals raised. So, by investing in measures that increase the size of the population, you are at best spending your money with no hope of a return, and at worst enabling illegal poaching.

Instead, I suggest that we examine two of the most successful measures ever conceived for increasing the size of a species’ population, habitat, and range:

Hamburgers, and chicken wings

The world cattle population is in the hundreds of millions, with nearly a hundred million in the US alone. They can be found on every continent but Antarctica, and in the vast majority of the world’s countries. Every year, we spend billions of dollars are spent to keep them happy, healthy, and well fed. We build them new pastures, and sheltered enclosures. We ensure they have adequate food and warmth in climates that would otherwise be hostile.

We do all these things not because we love the cows, but because hamburgers and milkshakes are tasty.

Even more successful is the chicken, an awkward and nearly defenseless bird native to south east Asia, which can now be found nearly anywhere in the world. There are nearly four chickens on this planet for every human. We build barns to keep them warm and sheltered, we grow grain to feed them, and we protect them from their many predators.

The success of the chicken isn’t due to well funded game reserves, but to Buffalo wings and three-egg omelets.

Farming works where preservation doesn’t

The lesson is simple: if you want to increase the size of a population, encourage its commercial use.

I’ve seen llamas wandering the welsh countryside, and ostriches strolling the fields of Vancouver Island. There are farms for iguanas, for Japanese koi, for kangaroos, and even tarantulas.

If we were to encourage licensed trade in endangered animals, there would be farms for them as well.

So… white tiger jerky anyone?

The Anti-Personnel Mine

image by kyle simourd

Made large sections of some countries impassable. Left thousands of children dead or amputated– often victims of wars that ended before they were born. Landmines: the war is over, the killing isn’t.

Organized Religion

image by narek781

Has provided a justification for wars, injustices, and obscenities for thousands of years. Where would the crusades, the inquisition, and modern terrorism have been without it? Religion: the last safe haven for hatred, bigotry, and discrimination.

Air Travel

image by ReneS

Provides the simultaneous benefit of injecting vast quantities of greenhouse gases into the upper atmosphere where they can do most damage, and creating the potential for viral out-breaks to spread with unprecedented speed. On the other hand, it also lets politicians and films stars zip around the world for photo ops with the poor and oppressed, whom they can then briefly pretend to care about. Flying: who cares, as long as it’s fast and cheap?

Nuclear Fission

image by redjar

Gave mad-men controlling the armies of self-important rogue states the ability to completely annihilate all life in entire countries. Fortunately cooler heads prevailed before McArthur could nuke Korea. Nukes: it’s only ok when we have the bomb.

Closed Circuit Television Surveillance

image by Rightindex

In London you’re caught on camera 300 times a day. It hasn’t brought the crime rate down, but it sure helps them enforce those ASBOs CCTV: this isn’t a police state (yet), but we like to be prepared.

Gunpowder

image by JinglyJon

The greatest revolutionary advance in the science of killing people since the longbow. This invention paved the way for centuries of European imperialism, and enabled such social projects as the slave trade, and the genocide of native Americans. Firearms: they’re just for hunting, right?

Television

image by habitatgirl

Has shrunk attention spans, expanded waistlines, and reduced political debate to an endless succession of 10 second sound bites. T.V.: …look, can this wait until the commercials?

Refined Sugar

image by Uwe Hermann

Weight gain, diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay. All for pennies a pound. Sugar has probably killed more people than any other food– except perhaps high-fructose corn syrup. Sugar: because a size 60 waist is normal.

Plastic

by How can I recycle this

A toxic plague? A revolution in material technology? An evil menace invading our oceans? Or perhaps a way to fight global warming? You be the judge. Plastic: love it or hate it, you can never be rid of it.

Online Multiplayer Gaming

image by fernashes

An explosive mixture of escapism, obsessive behavior, and competitiveness, that has created a new generation of overweight, under-employed, badly-groomed urban recluses. Gaming: the world can’t hurt you if you never leave the house.

Three cheers for human ingenuity!

image by frakorea

In these days of rising crime, geopolitical instability, and the ever present threat of terrorist attack, many Americans are searching for the peace of mind that comes from knowing one’s family and loved ons are safe.

Here at the NPA, we understand that need for security. The security of knowing that if worst comes to worst, you can take action to protect your home and your family. You can’t feel helpless and secure at the same time.

At the NPA, we believe that exercising your 2nd amendment rights can help to provide that security.

Many people have an irrational fear of bringing weapons into the home, but with proper security precautions there is no cause for concern. After all, fission bombs don’t kill people, people kill people.

The effectiveness of the fission bomb as a crime deterrent can’t be overstated. A burglar will think twice about breaking into your home if he risks returning to find a small mushroom cloud hanging over the lot where his house used to be.

You may find the prospect of widespread nuclear arms ownership frightening, but consider the alternatives; if nuclear weapons were outlawed, only outlaws would have nuclear weapons.

Just look at the countries that have the most nuclear weapons per capita: the United States, Britain, France, China, and Russia. These are some of the most powerful, wealthy, and vigorous countries in the world. Despite their high rates off arms ownership, not one of these countries has ever had one of their citizens accidentally atomized by a nuclear arm. In fact, it is Japan– a country opposed to nuclear weapons and their “proliferation”–that has the highest domestic casualty rate from nuclear arms abuse.

Clearly it is not the number of nuclear weapons in a country that determines the death toll, but the culture that surrounds them.

In addition to security, you can enjoy all the many sporting activities that have made nuclear arms popular over the years, such as irradiating small islands, and intimidating your neighbors.

Remember: a nuclear society is a polite society.

(this message brought to you by the National Plutonium-arms Association)

image by KiaPix

What is the point in having an army if you don’t use it?

Billions of dollars of tax payers’ money is spent each year on military hardware that is rapidly going obsolete. Doesn’t the government of the day have a moral obligation to see that the electorate gets a good return on that investment?

Since toppling Iraq, all of those military assets have been sitting idle, gathering dust. It’s time we stopped wasting soldiers lives playing cop in fragmented regimes that want nothing more than to see us leave, and go back to what we’re good at– fragmenting other regimes.

Iran is the perfect choice. They aren’t well liked, so we won’t have much explaining to do. Our boys are already in the neighborhood, so it’s an easy target at the moment. They are on the verge of developing nukes (really! we mean it this time), so there isn’t a moment to spare. Plus they’ve got oil– always a bonus.

We could go in, bomb the infrastructure back to the stone age, tear down the government, realize there were no WMDs after all (oops, didn’t see that one coming), and be back in time for Christmas.

…and in the New Year, CANADA. I hear there is lots of oil up there, and they already have functioning nuke plants. Those half-french, seal-killing nutjobs could be just months from getting the bomb!

Erabulus, the great cynic, was both sagacious, and wise. From time to time a phrase would fall casually from his lips, that was so profound, his disciples recorded it for all posterity.

These, are the sayings of Erabulus:

On Women:

A horse is reasonable,
And a landslide is reasonable,
But never argue with a woman.

On Diversity:

One fish is Red.
One fish is Blue.
Both are tasty fried in butter.

On Freedom:

A recipe for freedom:
Learn to say ‘To hell with the consequences!’
A recipe for misery:
See above.

On Luck:

If you win more than you lose,
You must not know how to keep score.

On Maturity:

You can’t always run from your problems,
But it is often therapeutic to try.

On Conformity:

No matter how far you’ve gone down the wrong road,
The next town will probably still have a Starbucks.

…and when the people had fallen silent, the master spoke:

An atheist went to the mall one December. The holidays were fast approaching, and he wanted to buy some purely secular decorations for his home.

In the center court, he came across a fanciful “Santa’s Workshop” scene that had been set up for the amusement of the children. The jolly old elf himself was seated on an elaborate throne beneath a Christmas tree, surrounded by presents. A long line of children were lined up in front of him, waiting for their turn to have a photo taken.

As the atheist was passing close to the line, a group of rowdy teenagers approached from the opposite direction.

“Santa isn’t real!” one of the teens yelled suddenly. “That’s just a fat man in a suit, and it’s your parents who leave you the presents!”

On hearing this, several children began to cry. The teenagers laughed uproariously, and ignored the furious glares cast in their direction by the parents of the distraught kids.

“What is the matter with you?” the atheist demanded angrily, stepping in front of the teens.

“Hey man, I’m just telling it like it is!” laughed the young man who had yelled unapologetically.

“Well done. You’ve made a bunch of kids cry.” the atheist retorted icily. “They would have figured it out for themselves eventually. Next time why don’t you just mind your own business?”

Then, turning his back to the teenagers, he did his shopping and went home.

Some days later, the atheist and his wife had a few friends over to their home for dinner. After the meal, as they sat in the living room sipping eggnog and chatting happily, there came the sounds of carolers singing “Silent Night”.

He opened the door, and everyone crowded around to listen. When they had finished singing, the carolers wished him a merry Christmas.

His friends applauded. His wife offered them some cookies.

The atheist however, contented himself to smile and say:

“God doesn’t exist.” there was an uncomfortable silence, and he carried on. “Jesus wasn’t born in a manger, he didn’t die for your sins, and I dare any of you girls to try that ‘immaculate conception’ line on your mom if you ever get knocked up. Jesus is just a myth invented by early Christian writers decades after his supposed birth and death.”

Then, ignoring the shocked stares that confronted him, he calmly closed the door on the carolers.

When the master had finished speaking, there was silence. At last a man raised his hand.

Master, I do not understand. Why would an atheist care if Jesus was a real historical figure or a myth? What does that have to do with atheism?

The master scratched his head.

Nothing at all… I don’t get it either.

I just finished watching this lecture given by Thomas Barnett during the TEDs.

In it, Mr. Barnett presents an impressive vision to fix all the flaws he sees in the American military of today. The lumbering Goliath that is the military, the many-billion dollar hammer that can smash any regime on the planet into shattered, ruin of a humanitarian disaster overnight, is cleanly bifurcated into a hammer and a broom.

One bit for cracking touch nuts, one bit for sweeping up afterwards.

It’s a short lecture, but entertaining and to the point. I enjoyed it, and more surprisingly, I found myself agreeing with him. After all, something does need to be done.

The focus of military spending, training, and strategic planning always seems to be to “go in and get the job done”. That’s a fine strategy, and it worked well in Iraq right up until the end of hostilities, way back in 2003.

The problem, as everyone now knows, is that there wasn’t the capability needed to step into the power vacuum and rebuild the country. Why we expected the same force that is trained and equipped to blow things up at great distances to also be effective nation-builders is beyond me, but for some reason we did.

We expected the 19-year old kids trained to dig fox holes and shoot assault rifles to be effective at street-level conflict resolution and diplomacy.

We expected the officers trained to manage an invasion force to be effective at policing and infrastructure building.

We expected the generals trained to identify and neutralize threats with overwhelming force to be effective at incrementally rebuilding a damaged economy and civic society.

We demanded the impossible, and so it didn’t happen. Instead the situation on the ground deteriorated until it reached the level of what the people we had in place were capable of managing– armed conflict.

There is an old saying: when all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Perhaps some new tools are in order.