Ezra Klein: The NBC Special Mini-Series Emergency

« "Fundamentally Anti-Democratic" | Main | The Means-Based President »

April 14, 2005

The NBC Special Mini-Series Emergency

Kevin Drum dismisses Kunstler's book The Long Emergency on the grounds that he tries to explain most everything through entropy. Well sure, the blatant misappropriation of physics concepts is one reason to dismiss the guy's post-apocalyptic predictions, but why stop at just one? How about the fact that Kunstler really isn't an oil expert? He was a staff writer for The Rolling Stone, published a string of (self-described) bad novels, and then wrote a few books on the crushing soullessness of suburban architecture. Hearing him confidently predict the end of civilization definitely has a crazy-guy-on-Venice feel to it.

But no, you say, Rolling Stone published excerpts from the book, and if RS thinks they have merit, they probably do. Or at least they would, if Kunstler hadn't worked for RS, thus pulling that appearance into question. But maybe pseudo-physics and lack of credentials aren't enough for you. Maybe you still need one last piece of evidence that it's not quite time to head for the hills. Well, here's how Kunstler ended his piece in Rolling Stone:

These are daunting and even dreadful prospects. The Long Emergency is going to be a tremendous trauma for the human race. We will not believe that this is happening to us, that 200 years of modernity can be brought to its knees by a world-wide power shortage. The survivors will have to cultivate a religion of hope -- that is, a deep and comprehensive belief that humanity is worth carrying on. If there is any positive side to stark changes coming our way, it may be in the benefits of close communal relations, of having to really work intimately (and physically) with our neighbors, to be part of an enterprise that really matters and to be fully engaged in meaningful social enactments instead of being merely entertained to avoid boredom. Years from now, when we hear singing at all, we will hear ourselves, and we will sing with our whole hearts.

It's like a Hallmark card to a luddite. There's plenty to worry about with oil, from economic turmoil to war over resources. But anyone confidently predicting the dispersion of the human species into a set of agrarian communities that survive only through hope and the uplifting power of song, well -- you can probably find yourself some better sources...

April 14, 2005 in Books, Energy | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d8345798ab69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The NBC Special Mini-Series Emergency:

» The Long Emergency from Political Animal
THE LONG EMERGENCY....Over at TNR today, Christopher Hayes reviews James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. Unfortunately, here's the nut graph of the review:Midway through the book ... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 12:46:37 AM

» James Howard Kunstler :: from The Haze Filter
I have added a link over there on the right to his web site. The site is wonderfully named for this day and age and you must view it for yourselves, but he has another site here. I recommend both,... [Read More]

Tracked on Apr 15, 2005 1:15:41 AM

Comments

That prediction sounds familiar- did he also write the screenplays for Waterworld and The Postman?

Posted by: SP | Apr 14, 2005 5:21:16 PM

I have a lot of sources, and had never read the Kuntsler piece til you linked it here. Though I doubt Kevin would like the umm, holistic thinking of the BOPNews crowd much better.

I also think not at all about the world 200 years away. I will leave that to cranks and SF writers.

However, considering the current economic and political realities, I do worry a lot about the near-term. 9/11 may not have changed everything, but it certainly made Bush and the Right agenda formidable.

And an oil-shock/recession would not be a opportunity for the Democrats unless they are prepared (I believe) with a radical agenda and the organization to sell it. It would be more like 79/80, the country would turn rightward, and it would not take much more movement to the right before it became nearly impossible to reverse.

I think we are on the verge of a deliberately created economic catastrophe(tax cuts/deficits/monetary policy) with the purpose of a fascistic revolution. Republicans designed this shit-storm, and the only way to stop them is to go public and call them on it.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 14, 2005 5:54:25 PM

Hey, what is the deal with the BOPNews crowd? Either they're all obscure geniuses who are seeing patterns in the U.S. economy that no one else seems to be seeing, or... they're crazy.

Posted by: Brad Plumer | Apr 14, 2005 8:25:00 PM

Ya know, could be both, Brad. :)

Hey I am a fan. There are several different writers so I can't completely generalize. Stirling Newberry can be hard to understand. But I think they attempting to analyze at a depth and with an interdisciplinary toolset that few other bloggers are.

They are not Marxist, or socialist, or perhaps even liberal. I suspect Newberry might say that our current social programs are unsustainable under forthcoming economic realities. But they analyze like Marxists, in that the economic, the political, the cultural are all interconnected; and that there is a certain kind of economic determinism at work in the world.

But I am not qualified to speak for them. They have been entertaining, and of some service. Their archives are worth exploring.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 14, 2005 9:18:43 PM

What's the problem ? Not everyone in the world has a neatly pigeonholed agenda. There are lots of people out there with ideas that they want to bounce off others to see what sort of reaction they get. As if this crowd (especially Ezra) wouldn't recognize the tactic. Are you sincere .....?

Posted by: opit | Apr 14, 2005 9:48:09 PM

I disagree that the nation would turn rightward after an oil shock; the nation turned on Carter in 79/80, but frankly, who could blame them? Reagan won because he won the GOP primary, and because he was running against Carter.

Another oil shock would be problematic, to be sure, and would probably spell trouble for an incumbent of either party.

But we overstate the case a bit here. Even if all the oil in the world were gone, civilization would not necessarily fall. After all, there's always nuclear power out there. Yes, it has its drawbacks, but it beats the heck out of a new dark ages. And when fossil fuels start to get prohibitively expensive, sustainable power sources will move in (after all, the only problem with solar and wind right now is that it costs more than oil and coal. If coal costs triple, all of a sudden solar will look much better.)

Color me a starry-eyed idealist, but I think humans will find a way to perservere. We're pretty bright, even if we tend to think a bit too short-term. Confronted with a crisis, I have no reason to think my daughter or granddaughter or great-grandson would fold under pressure, or withdraw into an anarcho-syndicalist communes.

Posted by: Jeff Fecke | Apr 14, 2005 10:53:10 PM

"The militarization of American society could become total, as the government’s chief mission becomes control of oil across the globe."

From Ezra's first link in "Peak Oil" below.

There are several possible responses to the upcoming transition. One of course is to attempt to create good policies to mitigate the economic consequences and attain energy independence.

But another might be for a particular segment of the polity to attempt to use "Peak Oil" as an opportunity to solidify economic, political, and social control. And then pull back to within American borders with a low-growth low-social mobility religious-sanctioned hereditary aristocracy.

Because the alternative is massive gov't funded research and development of alternative energy sources. Which would require tax increases on the wealthy, a meritocracy based on scientific ability, a decentralization of political and economic power, and the social liberalism that technophiles thrive in.

Which of these futures do you think Bush finds attractive?

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Apr 14, 2005 11:04:04 PM

bob mcmanus, you've been reading my mind.

Posted by: Melanie | Apr 15, 2005 6:02:11 AM

ezra, in the future, please don't mention the word "credentials," especially about academic affairs.

i've seen this society become more dependent on a degree and what it says than on that piece of paper than reality behind it.

sheepskins are for sheep.

Posted by: harry near indy | Apr 15, 2005 6:46:49 AM

"crazy-guy-on-Venice"

please clue me in on this. some new drug?

Posted by: Lancaster | Apr 15, 2005 9:30:10 AM

>Either they're all obscure geniuses who are seeing patterns in the U.S. economy that no one else seems to be seeing, or... they're crazy.

Well, after like 4 years of the business press heading virturally every major news story with "economists were surprised by..." (they only missed the last employment numbers by what, 100%?) then for sure whatever patterns the mainstream practictioners think they are seeing simply aren't there at all.

So you expect bright people to recognize this, and go off looking for new patterns. Just because you may* think they are indisputably wrong in some cases doesn't mean that they're crazy. How many shots did Edison take at the light bulb?

*that "may" is usually taken as a perjorative, it's not in this case, it's encompassing both the fact that I don't want to put words in your mouth and the whole thing is above my head at the moment. I know I have no confidence in the mainstream anymore, I just don't know what's visionary and what's fantasy at this point. I hope it shakes out damn quick.

Posted by: doesn't matter | Apr 15, 2005 9:42:11 AM

The problem is that humanity has sustained its massive population growth of the past several decades through the support and delivery systems of the cheap oil-based economy. If that support and delivery structure were suddenly no longer functional, I don't see how we could sustain population at current levels.

In other words, lots of people would die, through war, famine, disease, or something we don't even expect. We in the rich industrialized world would probabaly hold out longer, but it wouldn't be a pretty picture. I think we have ample reason to worry, even if Kunstler's book is a bit over the top.

Posted by: wvmcl | Apr 15, 2005 10:27:39 AM

"But anyone confidently predicting the dispersion of the human species into a set of agrarian communities that survive only through hope and the uplifting power of song"
===
I dunno...it could work if they were farming dope. I look forward to the Kumbaya 2048 Remix. But if it IS like Waterworld, count me out, I'm not drinking pee...

The Kunstler article seems like a guy who didn't know much about his subject when he started this project. When you don't know much about something, the simple and dramatic answers are very alluring (OMFG THE FACTORIES WILL C0LL4PZ0R!!1!1!). Except that they're almost never right, because just about everything in life is more complicated than it first seems. But I think Kunstler liked those dramatic answers - and why not, they got him published in Rolling Stone. But really...fr'instance, would expensive oil really mean that nobody would travel by airplane again? Of course not. Air travel would just be really expensive, like it was in the Dark Ages of, uh, the 1950s. And yet somehow we muddled through.

One nice thing I could say about the article is that it will raise awareness of the coming End of Oil. But if someone wanted to actually learn something, I would point them towards the book "The End of Oil," which is informative without being shrill.
===
"crazy-guy-on-Venice"
===
He means Venice Beach, CA, known for its rollerblading hardbodies and wandering lunatics.

Posted by: hubcap | Apr 15, 2005 12:29:17 PM

Sounds like another twist on Daniel Quinn's theories.

Posted by: fiat lux | Apr 15, 2005 1:10:38 PM

My position on Kunstler is that he correctly identifies the current trendlines of what happens when cheap oil goes away, but IMO he projects them a little too sharply, and a little too far.

In other words, I personally think it's a no-brainer to say that a Post-Oil era is in our future... but Kunstler's prediction of this occurring by 2010, 2015 is nearly a half-century too soon.

I'm also surprised at the hosility towards his other main thesis: De-centralization (which he dramatically spins as "the inevitable death of the exurbs"). When you look at every other cultural trend, from news to music distribution to technology development, de-centralization is the norm, not the exception. To say that industries such as retail, food production etc will de-centralize with the end of cheap oil isn't particularly radical, since the economies of scale that pressured those industries into their current shape will disappear once the price of oil goes past a certain point. Of course they'll decentralize. We just don't know how or when.

In other words, I don't agree with K. that our children are going to be living in scattered, battered neo-agrarian societies. But I DO agree with him when he says that our current way of life, based as it is on cheap oil (thank you President Eisenhower), will evolve towards something else.

We went from wood to coal, which radically changed economies in the 19th century. Then we went from coal to oil, which changed not only industry but the state of geopolitics (a common theme over on BOPnews).

What is so special about our contemporary situation, that one would assume that when the energy base moves from oil to something else, there wouldn't be any other associated political and social changes?

Posted by: mj leblanc | Apr 15, 2005 3:23:29 PM

Ahh- thanks, hubcap. Our equivalent here would be "Water street".

Crazy-guy-on-Water. Yup, people from my town would get it...

Posted by: Lancaster | Apr 15, 2005 4:03:42 PM

I'm not familiar with the author, though I did read his piece. I AM familiar with peak oil theory, alternative energy, and global climate changes, all of which, in my opinion are tied to one another. I've never been a 'sky-is-falling' person, but I'm also very prudent. I count my lucky stars each and every day that I decided not to have children as I don't believe they have a very bright future ahead of them. That said, I've come to terms with the idea that all people will deal with what will come to pass in terms of the end of our 'fossil-fuel period' in different ways. I personally don't believe it will be pretty, but I don't know either. What I've learned this year is that I no longer need to talk about my concerns to anyone else. Most people consider me a total fool and the rest simply don't care, even those who have children. It's no longer worth my energy. I'm not the only one whose come to this decision and I think we'll all of us be better off keeping our mouths shut.

Posted by: FarmMama | Apr 15, 2005 9:46:08 PM

Darling of the left?

Kunstler does say that we couldn't know about WMD before we invaded Iraq. Definitely not the leftist party line.

Posted by: amanda615 | May 3, 2005 11:25:42 PM

"Kunstler does say that we couldn't know about WMD before we invaded Iraq. Definitely not the leftist party line."

He also attacks those in the antiwar movement who drive SUVs, which to the reader can come off as morally equating driving SUVs with going to war. Even though I don't drive an SUV, I am offended by Kunstler's morally equating antiwar SUV drivers with warmongers. That's an attempt to put collective guilt on people outside of the context of their individual actions.

And Kunstler doesn't come off as antiwar -- in fact, he almost seems to justify the war in Iraq. At one point in the book he angrily screams "Of course it was the oil!!!". I can almost fill in the blanks: "Of course it's the oil, damnit!!! We needed to conquer Iraq for our economic survival. Even with Iraq, we may not surive as a country because of our dependence on oil."

For an interesting debate on Peak Oil, see antiwar.com's Sam Koritz

Even if Kunstler's book has no merit in predicting the future, it reads as a good horror novel. It's probably better than any recent book in being able to scare people. Maybe it will scare some people towards conserving things, which right now would be good since we're overspent as a country.

"The End of Surburbia" is the motion picture analogue to this book.

Posted by: leek | May 5, 2005 5:45:53 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘