Practical resilience: Europe is at risk of War - what should we do?

hexayurt's picture

Europe's New War

Europe is at war. It’s not obvious until you know some history, but Europe is at war. There are three critical pieces of information you need to master to understand this fully, and what it implies.

The first is that Spain and Greece very nearly had totally different political systems in the 20th century. Spain very nearly went Anarchist (not violent-chaotic, but without central control from government) but during the Spanish Civil War they were forced into Fascism. Greece very nearly went hard-line Communist after WW2 but was went down an entirely different path after the armed struggle.

Right now, both countries are clearly pre-revolutionary. Greece has school children passing out in class from hunger due to “austerity measures” and may be in the process of ditching the Euro so they can inflate the Drachma to devalue their currency and remove the weight of their debts - and sod whoever they owe the money to. Spain is at 50% youth unemployment and nearly 25% total unemployment, with 20% being the tradition unemployment figure associated with civil unrest.

Both of these societies fought wars for an alternative to capitalism, lost those wars to capitalism, and are now being shafted by capitalism. It’s time we seriously thought about what this might mean for the European Union, and our personal lives.

Distinguishing War and Revolution

The Libertarians have a very good analysis of war. They think of the fundamental human right as the right to “self-ownership” - that your body (and mind) are yours and entirely yours and nobody should be able to force you to do what you do not choose to do. As with many simple principles, this is subject to the Calculus of Competing Virtues. “Your freedom to swing your arm ends at the start of my nose” as the famous saying goes. A very great deal of effort is spent trying to square Libertarian self-ownership with, for example, planetary ecological limits - it’s not clear that a system which assumes the fundamental political truth is about human freedom is capable of navigating the extremely severe limits to action which appear to be necessary to protect the planet, for instance.

But back to the analysis. Libertarians model most political problems in terms of property rights, in terms of theft. Theft of property is theft of the Past, of the work you did to create or acquire something. Murder is theft of the Future, of all the future potentialities of the being killed. Imprisonment etc. are theft of the present, denying people freedom to do what they will with their property, their body and mind. This model is appealingly uni-polar, a single principle from which all (political) truth can be generated, and I don’t buy it, but it’s as useful as a flashlight in the dark when we want to ask what War fundamentally is, and Revolution to boot.

"War is the continuation of Politik by other means" - Carl von Clausewitz

In this analysis, War is when one State attempts to steal or destroy the property of another State.

Revolution is when the People of one State attempt to reassign property within that State.

Right now, Europe appears to be in a position where some countries are approaching Revolution. However, I think this is an inadequate political analysis - in fact, the truth comes much closer to war.

The problem is that the Euro does not belong to the Greeks or the Spanish - or even the Germans. Euros, individual units of currency may belong to them, but The Euro does not. The Euro is property of an entirely nebulous entity of uncertain political definition. The problem we have is that they are sloshing around the continent like water in a bath-tub, and the usual fiscal measures taken by governments to keep the water in their own national bucket are not working. Money lent to the Greeks accumulated interest, long bets did not pay off, and pretty soon they owe more than they have to nations they have no control of. Because the Euro is the Euro, they can’t use inflation to escape this trap which is the classic strategy, and we have an accidental economic war, in which Greek property is being reassigned to the Germans and many others by implosion, in an environment where EU membership requires them to keep their assets available for on the market at firesale prices. The good ship Europe sailed well in times of growth, but was never designed for Recession - any more than the Titanic was designed to stop Icebergs with its hull.

In a Revolution, the action is within nations. The property rights being reassigned are within a pre-existing national political unit. Although the revolutionary factions in Greece and Spain may see their struggles as purely national, the Euro is a shared asset of many governments, and everything which affects its destiny bridges borders. There is no way to confine the situation inside of national boundaries, any more than pollution in a river can be confined upstream.

We are all in this together, regardless of whether or not there are boots on the ground, and the unique confluence of nation-state interests bound together as the Euro is a unique political asset. There is no more National boundary on Revolution, it’s all War now.

Now let us consider our options here.

Trapped in the Boundries between Nations

We can’t easily vote out way out of this trouble. Elections are every few years, and no parties exist which have an appropriately fast-moving and accurate political and economic analysis to understand how to get us out of this mess. The pan-European truth is very simple: if we are going to be liable for each-other’s welfare and debts, if we are to have a pan-European Democratic Socialist Social Contract in a manner recognizable from Finland to Spain as the same deal, we’re going to need political parties in each nation which work on dismantling national boundaries to create a European superstate. Right now our political parties in Europe because they are elected nationally and make law nationally have only very indirect policies on international matters, even though the simple truth is that vast amounts of real economic power now reside at the European scale.

What it means is that nations are being plunged into poverty and causing chaos for their neighbours in the midst of a political process (continental unification) which may or may not succeed, and for which there is very little coherent political theory or political practice. Everybody sorta-knows it is happening but the sides are poorly defined, and there’s little international cooperation to push the course of events one way or the other. Even the greens are balkanized and national.

So, then, to resilience. It’s going to hit us hard, this process, and there will be troops on the ground in at least two countries within two years (90%) probable. Local revolutionary efforts to reallocate property to allow people to survive the crisis will be treated much more like political secessionist movements, because the basic European legislative fabric tears so badly when (for example) a nation sets up border controls or changes import/export policies. Changing the rules radically in a single nation (Revolution) takes on an international dimension (War) when everything is bound together by such tight international treaties.

The money in your pocket and the passport in your bag allow you to travel all over the continent, and that’s why what’s happening in the South of Europe is closer to War than Revolution, when it becomes fully activated.

So let’s talk about what this means for us.

Modern War in Europe

Modern war in Europe is not going to be shelling of cities and airstrikes. Enough was learned in Kosovo to avoid that at all costs. However, if (for example) Basque separatists decide to protect that most functional and productive portion of Spain by detaching it and applying for UN and EU protection, it’s not hard to imagine a border conflict as Spanish interests attempt to keep it in Spain. That kind of stuff could easily turn into proper, “hard” war up-to-and-including surface to air missiles and so on. Tough guys in hill country and make a stand against modern armies.

But it’s the cities that really fascinate me. The cities are the new horizon in conflict. It’s the water and sanitation and food supply and natural gas lines and electricity cables which make up the new landscape of war, particularly in a European theater where nobody wants to kill anybody, where there’s no fundamental ideological and nationalistic blood lust, but a sad, sorry cluster**** of competing interests which have made a worse mess than anybody ever imagined. It’s urban warfare in Europe that everybody fears, the Kosovo scenario playing out in the South.

So finally, having framed the threat, let’s talk about resilience in this model.

I’m a hard resilience guy. I’m not al that interested in social resilience, in people being nicer to each other in times of crisis, in what prevents people being so vulnerable to stress. I’m a hard resilience guy, I think in terms of food and water and power and communications. I think about life and death. I foresaw conflicts of this kind many years ago, really started the work around 2002 or 2003 after the Euro was created because I did not think the world financial system could be stable with two reserve currencies - in the bimetallic period, the destructive oscillations between gold and silver wiped out stable international trade over and over again.

If you are in Spain or Greece, either in the big cities or near the borders, and particularly at ports, there is a substantial risk of fighting and a near-certainty of supply chain and grid issues within two years. Obviously this could all hit much, much sooner than that, but the other shoe is not far from dropping, and two years is a good horizon to think about. Sooner than 2015. That’s pretty damn soon. It’s not enough time to finish a college degree or publish a novel, really. Faster than that come battle, in many scenarios. We can never know for sure, but it’s hard to miss the signs now.

Think of it as a tear in the fabric of society, the fabric of the grid. People arguing over property rights draw guns, or threaten to do so, and more people arrive to keep the peace. But now everybody is freaking out, and so capital and trade flee the area. If fighting starts, the flight of capital and trade accelerates - shops close, people no longer deliver to the area, business grinds to a halt - and there may be destruction of physical assets too, like water pipes and power cables and bridges. These are not likely to be wars of annihilation against populations, nobody hates each-other that much in Europe any more, but wars about the structure of local laws and about who gets to sign agreements. Administrative wars, if you will. And Chaos radiates out from the tear in the Civility of Administrators. War is the continuation of Bureaucracy by other means.

So one more time, back to resilience. Pipes and Wires and Radio Waves, Trucks and Boats and Planes. That’s everything, more or less, that brings services to your doorstep. All those systems are owned, and many of them by international or foreign owners. All of them are governed, many by international or foreign treaties and standards bodies. The internet is IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) incarnate, for example. As the bureaucratic systems tear and lose interoperating civility (a key concept) the total economic and life-support throughput of the system crashes. People get suddenly poorer - you need an artificial hip and you’re not going to get one. The young do well, the old are only as well taken care of as their family ties require, and people who can get by when things are good (the diabetic, the schizophrenic, the alcoholic) go to the wall. Many die from lack of care and comfort, usually far more than from fighting, given that Europeans do not currently hate each-other.

Resilience in short

Resilience has four phases: Detect trouble, Avoid trouble, Mitigate trouble and Recover from trouble. I’m writing now about Detecting the upcoming trouble, seeing the signs early enough to (for example) consider leaving likely conflict areas. This is harsh, harsh advice and I’m not simply suggesting picking up and fleeing, but if you’re in a vulnerable group, and you have an EU passport, perhaps now is the time to consider moving north to the extremely well-organized and disciplined countries where Winter can kill you and so people work together and plan to survive it every year, keeping them in good mindsets for handling other kinds of trouble. Minnesota Nice as they say in the US, has nothing on Finnish nice.

So now let’s talk about Mitigate. Go buy some food. Note how long it lasts and how much it costs. Now imagine it costs five times as much, the trucks come once every three weeks, and everything is sold out in days. Now imagine that lasts for years. Ok? So go and buy a lot of food, say two person-years worth. In America that costs about $1500 if you buy in bulk at Sam’s Club and keep some capacity (energy! wood burning stove) to cook from basic supplies like beans and rice and lentils and cooking oil and flour and even wheat (grain mill.) Why? Because if you had these things, and you lived in a fairly safe area, the worst of even extremely large social upheavals (fall of the USSR, American Civil War and even WW2) basically passed you by. It’s the fragility of the supply chain and the grid that draws people into becoming actors in history - you can’t afford to eat, you don’t have a good store of food, you wind up in the black market. Risks go through the roof. Worst still, you enlist in an army to feed your family.

No, I am not kidding. This is the Hard Resilience landscape, and these doors are opening up on all sides. Those people in the streets rioting, the protesting classes, are fighting not for internal political change within their own countries, but (whether they know it or not) for a re-arrangement of the political balance of an entire continent. Conditions are bad enough that the protests could be 10 times the size they are now very quickly, and then escalate to simply becoming the administrative controllers of entire cities. And the new technological base (the internet, 3G masts operated by local groups and so on) can open up the space for these kinds of friendly (or otherwise) insurrections in ways nobody can imagine. Where’s the food, where are the medicines, how do we keep things going.

Endgame

In May of 2012, the Greeks are starving in their homes, as we discuss whether to lend them more money, kick them out of the Euro, or buy the country out from under them. They’re already facing this, and if the price of getting out of that hole is seizing the foreign-owned assets of their own soil, somebody will eventually do it, and then being the question of sanctions and embargos and, well, both Spain and Italy are radically unstable right now, as is the UK but for very different reasons, and slowly we begin to see that this is not somebody else’s business, but eventually, in all probability, ours.

It will be many years before we get to Recover.

Resilience is just about staying alive when the structures you rely on go away. It’s started in the poorer countries in Europe and we are (rightly) panicked. But to understand this in is global context, think of what’s happening in Africa right now - unsafe coal mines, aids epidemic, high food prices, crop failures, starvation, wars of genocidal hatred and the rest blight an otherwise perfectly nice continent.

Any of us can fall as low as the lowest level we allow to exist in the world. Time for change.

You can watch a 20 minute primer on State Failure and Resilience here

You can download a large, useful archive of Resilience resources here

Here is Dealing in Security, a mapping tool to help understand the pipe/wire/truck systems that support us (PDF, small)

Comments

Morgane Bravo

IN EUROPE, THE CHANGE HAS ALREADY BEGUN ... !

So that Europe, as a global player, is not far from Europeans...

http://edgeryders.wikispiral.org/practical-resilience/mission_case/%C2%AB-so-europe-global-player-not-far-europeans-%C2%BB-europe-change-has-al

"WE MUST BE THE CHANGE WE WANT TO SEE IN THE WORLD" GANDHI

 

 

Morgane Bravo

Martin Schulz : "En Europe, le changement a déjà commencé !"

#EP #PE

Voilà,
Martin #Schulz (Allemagne, S&D) est président du Parlement européen :
Son rôle de président, les grands dossiers dont il a la charge, la question du poids de l'institution démocratique européenne face au Conseil de l'Union européenne ou encore les élections européennes à venir, en 2014...
"En Europe, le changement a déjà commencé !"
Vidéo...
 
A Suivre...!
Foivos Irakleidis

Of course Europe is in the risk of WAR...But...

In my opinion the whole global capitalistic empire is in the risk of war...The question is: Do We really want this war? I don't know if war (every kind of it) is the ideal solution but I think the humanity cannot go on like this...Something has to change.

Morgane Bravo

So that Europe, as a global player, is not far from Europeans...

Europe's New War??? So that Europe, as a global player, is not far from Europeans...

*DEVISE :IN VARIETATE CONCORDIA"(LATIN: UNIE DANS LA DIVERSITÉ).*

UNIE DANS LA DIVERSITÉ: L'UNION EUROPÉENNE (UE) SE COMPOSE DE 27 PAYS EUROPÉENS QUI PARTAGENT LES MÊMES VALEURS DÉMOCRATIQUES ET SE SONT ENGAGÉS À TRAVAILLER ENSEMBLE POUR LA PAIX ET LA PROSPÉRITÉ...!

POUR QUE L'EUROPE, EN TANT QU’ACTEUR MONDIAL, NE SOIT PAS LOINTAINE DES EUROPÉENS... :

 «  NOUS DEVONS ÊTRE LE CHANGEMENT QUE NOUS VOULONS VOIR DANS LE MONDE » GANDHI

Morgane BRAVO http://unioneuropeenne.blogspot.fr

thejaymo

a new kind of ‘war’ ?

really great article vinay,

you make some excellent points about it not being about shelling & air strikes but a new type of ‘war’. entire regions of people simply claiming independence/autonomy from within their current national boundaries is an expected and logical one. at the same time however, these regions would still be tied to/within the ‘super state’ of the eurozone - as all critical supporting infrastructure, power grids, water, transport (to some degree) that has been built since the the formation of a united europe would still continue to exist in some form or another.

edwin too makes some really good points below about ‘war’ as a descriptive term and the nature of revolutions in world history.

-0-

holding our futurist hat in one hand, and our armchair historian hat in the other. i wanted for a brief moment to explore what type of war are we looking at?

in the short term, if the banking crisis goes nuclear what are we looking at? maximum withdrawal/transfer limits imposed on banking transactions? armed state actors at national borders preventing the movement of physical capital out of the country? gold, diamonds, art etc. But when things get this bad, are we also talking manufacturing equipment - if it’s big enough to fit on/in the back of a lorry, someone is going to try to move it somewhere else - lathes, industrial sewing machines, cloth cutting machines etc - these are ‘war’ conditions.

the ‘cold war’ was also a ‘war’, although not one the world had ever seen before.

in relation to your post, i’m thinking about the eastern block - these countries were at ‘war’ with the west for years. no bloodshed, no air strikes, no shelling. they were regions within the russian superstate administered ultimately by bureaucrats back in moscow. after hearing the stories about this period whilst travelling, and from older friends/friends parents; it seems some towns and cities at the time weren't much different then from how things are beginning to look in greece.

from under the brim of my futurist hat, the superstate administrators to come look like eu-wide technocrats representing the industries that have called in their debts. within many global business the euro region is seen as one place already, they operate across national boundaries - i see no reason why they would respect them if things went south.

the eastern block is important due to another single important word

‘police’

i cannot believe that the ‘find on page’ function of my browser only finds two instances of the word in this entire thread.

perhaps it’s just my political point of view / my own experiences talking but i am quite happy to make the statement that the police are the the most important and dangerous army in the arena you mention above. post 9/11 the anti-terrorism strategies have had ‘militarisation’ written all over them - and this seriously needs to be factored in.

it was the police states of the eastern block that kept its population in order during the cold war and they will be dispatched to do the same here too. already the escalation of force and techniques across europe show signs of what's to come. dan hancox's piece "Kettling 2.0: The Olympic State of Exception and TSG Action Figures" is a fantastic exploration of what kind of road we might be heading down in the UK post olympics.

the reason i think we must make a distinction between the ‘policestate’ military war and what we think of as traditional war with 'armies' in terms of the above is as follows:

the armed forces from the point of view of a state (and superstate) are a programmable asset. they are feet on the ground with strong backs and two hands to do the things they are told to do with them. usually we think of them as carrying guns - but during states of exception and emergency who is on the ground doing things? - the army.

when rural parts of the uk flooded and whole towns need sandbanging, who gets mobilised to deliver and build them? - the army.
during the fuel strike of 2001, who were driving the tankers and delivering petrol to key service areas? - the army.
when the firefighters go on strike who puts out the fires? - the army.

in the kind of situation you describe, soldiers will be put to use guarding things and ensuring infrastructure keeps moving when the planes, trains and automobiles stop arriving for lack of profit or return.

i believe its the decade old militarized police forces of europe who will be on the borders stopping the capital from flowing, stopping the protests, and attempting to stop the formation of breakaway regions.

indeed, the british troops sent to america pre revolution were sent there so as police to prevent break away states - and not as an army.

i’m not sure how many edgeryders have seen this video: but its a video and related article of police literally “walling up immigrants” inside a squatted building in a northern Greek city - posted to twitter by @teacherdude with the comment “The police are out of control here in Greece”  - everyone please DO watch it.

is this not the beginnings of a new kind of ‘war’ ?

Alberto

How to prepare?

Jay, assuming you are right (I am not really qualified to make that call), what would you suggest to prepare for the event?

Alberto

How to prepare?

Jay, assuming you are right (I am not really qualified to make that call), what would you suggest to prepare for the event?

SimoneMuffolini

Gira il mondo, gira la terra, tutti giu per terra documento?

 

 

 

Ma il cambiamento più grande che dobbiamo fare è dal consumo alla produzione di cibo, anche se su piccola scala, nei nostri orti. Se anche solo il 10% di noi lo facesse, ce ne sarebbe a sufficienza per tutti. Da qui deriva la futilità dei rivoluzionari che non hanno un orto, che dipendono dal sistema stesso che attaccano e che producono parole e pallottole e non cibo e protezione.

Talvolta sembr...a che sulla terra tutti noi siamo irretiti, coscientemente o incoscientemente, in una cospirazione che ci mantiene impotenti. E tuttavia, tutte le cose di cui le persone hanno bisogno sono pur sempre prodotte da altre persone: solo insieme possiamo sopravvivere. Noi stessi possiamo porre rimedio alla fame, all’ingiustizia e a tutta la stupidità del mondo. Possiamo farlo comprendendo il modo in cui funzionano i sistemi naturali, attraverso l’attenzione alla forestazione e alla coltivazione in generale e attraverso la contemplazione e la cura della terra.

Le persone che forzano la natura, in realtà, forzano se stesse.
Quando coltiviamo esclusivamente frumento, diventiamo pasta.
Se cerchiamo solo quattrini, diventiamo denaro; se restiamo ancorati agli sport di squadra dell’adolescenza, diventiamo palloni gonfiati.
Attenzione ai monoculturalisti nella religione, nella salute, nell’agricoltura o nell’industria. La noia li conduce alla pazzia: possono dare inizio a una guerra o impadronirsi del potere proprio perché sono persone incapaci o inermi".

Bill Mollison
 
E possibile che si tratti di comunità evolute, parliamo di valori, L' acqua e la terra libera ...

SimoneMuffolini

TOOLosophy

Absolutely Nothing!

I've followed the discussion thread so far and it is splendid. Well grounded opinions, daring affirmations, interesting debates. There are several pointes that I also wanted to add to it. First of all, after reading through Vinay's post and through the comments I have this slight feeling of Euro-centrism concentrated in here

There are so many potentially dangerous/destructive things going on in the world right now.  I will outline just a few examples. China has announced a double-digit increase in military spending in March while India recently became the world's number one arms importer. This triggered reactions in neighboring Pakistan, test-launching their new missiles. North Korea is going ‘bunkers’ after its failed rocket launch. Let’s not mention the growing tension around Iran and the continuing bloodbath in Syria. This all go on top of unending tension, violence, insecurity and underdevelopment in Africa (the current hot-spots being Nigeria, Sudan and South Sudan, Kenya and the Mombasa region, Mali and the Tuaregs among many others)

If Europeans are so concerned about irregular migration, and the growing inflow of asylum seekers, security at the EU borders, multiculturalism and culture and identity issues, I think they should also be concerned about Detecting, Avoiding, Mitigating and helping others Recover from violent conflict.

I think war is a deplorable thing. It doesn’t matter where, when or by whom it is waged, any form of violence should be condemned and stopped. Therefore, I think that the (potential) war in Europe is important and should be dealt with preemptively, by building the necessary capacities and infrastructures for prevention, early-warning mechanisms, ‘hard’ resilience tactics, and peacebuilding strategies. BUT the war in Europe should not be treated or perceived as being more important than the current crises going on in the world, be it Africa, Asia or the Americas.

I also thought that if we really want to look for resilience models, we might as just take Iraqis, Pakistanis or citizens of Afghanistan as examples, the very people that the Europeans (Westerners) are waging wars against.

I don't think that the M.A.D. doctrine is dead. I believe Europeans will do everything in their power to avoid a war within their borders as a defense mechanism againt the other world powers. I just wish that every conscious man, every politician, every military commander has read Kropotkin's Mutual Aid [full book in pdf format] to undestand that cooperation is a stronger and more desirable factor of evolution than competition.

Every conflict is born equal, should be treated with equal respect to the matter and with equal dedication to the cause of making and maintaining peace and triggering socio-economic development.

Now, resilience is a great thing and we need more of it in the world. I hope I understood it correctly and I would like to connect it with a very similar (new wave) concept called I4P [Infrastructures for Peace]. There is an international core group of researchers, activists and experts working on developing the concept and giving it shape and structure. Here’s a 2-pager concept note on the I4P. And here you can find the laterst issue of the Peace Praxis newsletter sent out by the PATRIR (Romanian Institute for Peace), where I volunteer at, with a special focus on I4P with key info and publications attached.

Hope you guys enjoy it. If this is of interest to you, I could also prepare a 10-15 minute presentation on the Infrastructures for Peace, say during the breakout session on Resilience or during the unconference. Keep in touch and looking forward to interesting discussions at the conference.

edwin

WAR (what is it good for?)

 

i haven't been able to take part as much as i'd have liked to over the past few weeks (i have to pay the bills too!) but i've been keeping up. there've been a couple of discussions i thought were particularly interesting, and this is one of them.

i don't think 'war' is a good descriptive term here. it might possibly be a good analogy, i don't know, but i don't think it describes what europe is at risk of. i have such massive respect for several of the people who've argued otherwise, so i'm willing to give it a chance ("give war a chance!"), but here's my thought:

europe stands a pretty decent chance of undergoing a revolution. it is incorrect to say that the action in a revolution occurs within a nation - this has never been the case, and all well-known historical revolutions saw significant pan-national action. it's not just that the bolsheviks were formed and came to power from exile: the russian civil war basically wouldn't have happened were it not for (outside) western powers. che guevara was an argentinian, who didn't originally plan to hold his revolution in cuba. the american revolution was a battle against, and between, the old imperial powers, who were based on foreign shores.

significant revolutions have also always had the explicit aim of 'exporting' change across continents. this has been only partly ideological - it also makes strategic sense. a soviet state surrounded by other soviet states faces less threat than one surrounded by hostile regimes. this has been true of every 'revolutionary' trend, from europe's 1848 uprisings to pan-arabism; from bolivar, to a post-colonial free africa, to the arab spring.

my intention isn't to write a piece of historical opinion. it matters because of why revolutions have always spread, or sought to spread themselves. i believe in resilience (the 'hard' kind, when we're talking about 'hard' issues), and also the (related) principle of subsidiarity. it's worth remembering that this doesn't mean everything happening at the lowest level: it means everything happening at the lowest level at which action is effective. so whilst individuals will ultimately be required to act regardless of who makes the decisions (individuals, local council, nation state, europe), an 'individuated plan to fight climate change' is a waste of time, in the same way that a 'pan-european strategy to cook my lunch' is a waste of time.

europe is a large enough structure to deal with many of the large threats we face, and we should take full advantage of this. resource shortage and depletion is a challenge where a structure that large is in a really great position to be of use. even on climate change, europe can make an impact that its' member states simply cannot. on smaller, traditionally 'state-level' issues such as social security, europe wouldn't need to act were it not for things like the european single market and shared currency, which push these challenges up to the european level.

a practical example: what's happening in greece right now isn't the fault of greeks, and the greek government was only one party in its creation - it was a pan-european problem. greeks did not simply 'borrow too much money' - the whole of europe took part in either borrowing too much, or lending too much to others. and lending wasn't a philanthropic act - every single lender did so because they thought they'd get a really great return.

northern europeans had insisted on an initial exchange rate that priced themselves over-competitively, on the introduction of the euro. they then lent heavily to southern europeans, who used a lot of that money to buy goods and services from the north, propping up northern wages and profits. so when it all falls apart, a lot of greeks owe a lot of germans a lot of money. but an argument could easily be made that german banks were really just lending money to germans, and simply doing so via greeks - with the greeks left holding the can when it all fell apart.

the reality is probably that greeks and germans (and every other european nation) were borrowing too much (or lending too much) - and laying responsibility with individuals or groups is pointless, because no group was powerful enough to have single-handedly changed the situation. the solution would have been collective action - and it still is. i really disagree with the methods being advocated by western european banks, but there is no solution to this that isn't collective. revolutions don't have to involve bloodshed, famine or whatever, and i'm not calling for revolutionary leaders, flags and long marches, but we must solve this together, and it will involve substantial political upheaval. since our current model is broken, this could be a good thing.

the choices are these: either planned upheaval, that we've all signed up to, or individuals (and individual states) will take their own actions, and we'll end up with a situation that no-one would have chosen, even they. this goes well beyond greece's current crisis - it's true of every pan-european problem, from social security to finance to energy security.

Alberto

Great comment!

TOOLosophy and Edwin, these are excellent contributions, thank you both. I am awarding each of you +100 reputation for careful, insightful comments.

edwin

sweet!

thanks a lot, alberto - i'll spend mine wisely

Alberto

Can you sell this to the grownups?

Thanks everyone, I am really enjoying the depth of the debate.

So here's a side note: given the intellectual firepower that the resilience scene can deploy, how come it is so marginal? How come Vinay, Paul and wildfarmer are not junior ministers for resilience in the governments of their respective countries? And more importantly: how can a better pitch be made for this issue to attract more attention and investments? 

The question is immediately operational. less than a month from now many of us will be in Strasbourg, in conversation with civil servants, elected politicians and policy advisors. Do you think you could use the chance to improve your case and move a step towards center stage? For what it's worth, I am willing to help: I am in the Resilience session team anyway! 

LucasG

i support that question

I'll love to know what "civil servants, elected politicians and policy advisors" (in Strasbourg and elsewhere) have to say about resilience.

My guess is no-one wants to talk openly about dangers unless they are pretty formalised - and that's not the kind of danger we're talking about here, is it? Yes, you can speak out about putting out fires, which is a subject there are protocols and legislation for. But 21c war? Not in the manual!

Sure there's private talk about some things, in some silos, but even there I suspect communication tends to be hard. Nothing personal, or it's always personal, but in any case - hard. (Unless in some spheres where people are brutally frank. We can imagine. I don't know.)

You see, if you take out all emotions, it's like - say - a health problem. There's this and that theoretical risk, this is what we know and don't know about your particular circumstance, these are the options available, and this is what I (your healthcare advisor) would suggest for you personally, right now. Right?

Wrong. Emotions are there.

A friend of mine was my friend before becoming a politician. After he went in, two months passed and I stopped understanding what he said. From what I half-understood, he had to cover his back, speak vaguely, and never speak his own true mind in full, specially in important matters. I found that troubling.

The game is wrong. If the ring through which the ball has to enter is up there, only tall players can play. In politics, those without the right skills are out of the game fast. And if they have hidden skills they must be kept hidden much of the time.

We need to play outside that playground.

Or, at the very least, we need to play _from outside_ that playground. Engage them from outside, creating new rules of the game, and hence new games.

How to do that I have no idea - ah, wait, yes, open source politics? The people at http://www.appropedia.org once suggested environmental policies should be wikified. We could do that for Europe - a huge hack in which all law becomes wikified, referenced, crosslinked, compared, commented on. Maybe that's a next-step for Pirates and Non-pirates who are into open-gov, and for citizens who take the internet for granted.

Then, voters would have a reference for "what can be done". An honest, clear reference. Like you would get from a good healthcare advisor.

I'd go even further. Forget voters. Think about doers of all kinds. People who build and use, sell and buy. If there's a catalog of "ways out", real options, that will help.

There's this notion of "differential empowerment". We, as citizens, want to empower those insiders who are willing, eager even, to do what we think needs doing. So let's keep doing that, and do it in a larger scale.

And yes, keep asking. But without hope that they will be able to tell the whole story, because most likely they can't.

Now, there's also the receiving end. Are citizens ready to listen to their friendly healthcare advisor? Some are. In times of trouble, my guess-hope is more ears will open. But there's also more noise, so I don't know what will happen.

LucasG

The case for resilience

With the above said, there's clearly a case for resilience.

Call it what you wish: economic volatility, climate change, energy supply, all of them at once. Are these things starting to get into everyday conversations? I'd say yes.

So maybe now things will be pretty different.

Someone has to start.

Yes, let's ask the people at or around the CoE.

Let's ask everyone we can, locally.

The question is simple, and I think should be framed openly x 2 ("speaking out" and "without a yes/no answer").

"There's a chance that the population in this territory may have to go through this and that and who knows what. How do you plan to help us now, and later? How can we help you help us?"

Keep asking.

hexayurt

The crisis is man-made

Another hard angle on this, Alberto - it's not why are we bad at selling resilience to government, it's "why is government so blind that it caused this crisis and refuses to take the consequences of the mess it has made seriously."

These debts, they're huge, vast debts, but they were all built up as instruments of private profit - and goverment financial regulators created the system they were created in, and when it started to explode, bought up the debts and made them into public debt, into money owed by ordinary tax payers.

If they could have conceived of the problem, they would never have created it.

Resilience is hard to sell because goverment is short sighted. But fortunately we don't have to sell it to government, at least not to national government - local government and private citizens are actually the backbone of all meaningful resilience efforts because resilience is almost explicitly something that kicks in when the efforts of Nation State governments don't work. We're here to catch the problems that national goverments either failed to catch or simply outright created.

As for selling it, the military and the big disaster agencies inside of government are pretty sold on resilience already. The problem is moving outside of the specialized arena of disaster relief professionals and into the wider situation. These two pieces in New Scientist magazine examine what's happening in Greece from a humanitarian, epidemeological perspective, and the word is not good. They're talking about Malaria coming back, and about a lot of older people dying of preventable diseases and suicides.

http://pastebin.com/MVUmhgxJ

To fix that problem is going to take a whole-of-society re-engagement with actually taking care of each-other, our families, our neighbours, ourselves. But getting there means admitting how badly the State as screwed up in its duty of care by adhering to a neoliberal ideology which everybody knew was going to screw the poor, crash, burn and explode in the long run. They just didn't know how short the long run would be.

So we have to be very careful in that in selling resilience as a concept to national government, we can't let it turn into YOU FOOLS LOOK WHAT YOU HAVE CREATED and yet, in our own minds, we have to know the truth: we need resilience because they crashed the ship into the rocks.

I think that pushing the notion of protecting national life expectancy as a goal of government - protecting people from dying early because of stress, suicide and poor medical care - is a pretty good idea.

We could make it a prominent national indicator, like GDP used to be. What do you think?

Alberto

Hmm.. no :-)

Vinay: "the customer is short-sighted" is exactly the same thing as "the vendor has a weak pitch" with a different allocation of the blame. Still, no deal.

That the government is responsible for some mess has never stopped successive governments for claiming they would go in and fix them. Discontinuities are not disallowed (in fact you might argue they are designed for) and could even earn political kudos. Of course, this works better with younger leaders, not as well with very senior people deeply embedded in the previous rule, but there you have it.

But the main point is another one: it's not government that's not buying, it's people. Your debate is intellectually sophisticated and has probably reached a critical mass of enough debaters to sustain itself, but it is still confined to a tiny minority with very little social acceptability. You have content, you have deep thinking, I think it should make more of a social impact than it's doing.

hexayurt

The horribly deeper background of the Resilience Story

Resilience doesn't sell, either inside or outside of government, for the same reason that we have police offices enforce the wearing of seatbelts and crash helmets: people are programmed to ignore small-but-serious risks, it's in our DNA. Until we actually see something happen, we pretend everything is fine, regardless of what our rational minds say. The State compensates for this "risk-blindness" by using its superior data, statistical analysis and legal force to push us into lower-risk behaviors in many areas of our lives including personal safety, drug policy and pensions. 

We can't just wave a wand and overcome our to risk: intellectual understanding of risk = no emotional response = no engagement = nothing gets done, regardless of how real the rational risk estimate is. It's only after we see somebody get saved by a crash helmet that we'll start taking precautions, but until then, for most risks, "hey buddy, everything is fine, want a loan?" is the basic tone of our discourse. 
 
We're still piling on the risk even now, rather than simplifying and untangling the financial system. Until it happens to us, or somebody we know, a market crash or a sovereign default are theoretical possibilities, things which might one day go wrong, but right now are Somebody Else's Problem, left to the State to worry about, avoiding the public panic associated with "ok, now we get it. Run."
 
What we have not seen personally, we do not count.
 
So let me get back to the "Sales Problem" for resilience. We've got four factors in the way:
 
* government is stupid and short sighted on many core risk management issues: asteroid strikes, climate change, financial markets
* when people do wake up to these kinds of risks, the response is usually panic: bank runs, shotgun purchases, fear response
* if people actually understood the risks we're running, they'd force a massive political change on society: this has been true since nuclear weapons policy framed Mutually Assured Destruction and built the huge stockpiles
* in short, it's blindness to the real risk landscape is what allows our modern society to function
 
All those poor villagers with 20% infant mortality rates and 20% HIV infection rates aren't just "at risk" they're living in our idea of a worst case scenario or something close to it and we're in real trouble psychologically because we know - we *know* - that when we actually run the numbers, a substantial part of our wealth comes from the things that cause their problems. Colonialism in its brutal older forms shaped the basic structure of many developing world societies, and those forms are maintained by modern, more subtle colonialism through institutions like the World Bank and the basic framework of capitalist financial arrangements which are, after all, directly derived from the colonial bureaucracy of the British East-India Company and other resource extraction corporations from the 16th and 17th centuries. That's where we got limited liability corporations and the basic framework of modern market capitalism.
 
Now this is not a doctrine of no hope, indeed far from it, but I want to take this apart more carefully.
 
* 16th/17th centuries we invent and deploy rapacious international corporations to make Europe rich.
* the poor have more and more military and market power
* the corporations are having problems feeding on cooperative African dictatorships and are turning on Europeans
* suddenly there's a resilience gap, a financial crisis, a political issue
 
And there *is* a material base problem here: the Greeks really can't afford to have all those Mercedes and four bedroom houses. That stuff is expensive and, bluntly, "growth is the new inflation" - growth has been the magic pixie dust which was going to eat debts, no matter how large, given time. Growth, where it really exists, is indeed magic, but in most of these places growth did not exist, what existed was capital sloshing around in the global bathtub, or a temporary improvement based on new technology which was soon adopted by competing countries and it's all back to square one.
 
The crux of our blindness is that the same forces which blinded us to poverty in Africa blinded us to the risks of poverty in Europe.
 
Let me say that again.
 
The crux of our blindness is that the same forces which blinded us to poverty in Africa blinded us to the risks of poverty in Europe.
 
To close the resilience gap - to actually see the risk and do something about it - means looking squarely at what separates us, with our expectation of plenty and our armies which ensure that plenty remains, and "them" - all the poor people in the world who live at the bottom of the collapse curve, with their traditional social resilience and protection mechanisms shattered by colonialism and market capitalism and slavery and so on, and nothing left in the barrel. The shock of Greeks becoming poor when once it was Africans is, indeed, a sign of change, but its also a sign of how comfortable we've all become with poverty in Africa, and the idea that it could never happen to us, that we are somehow magically protected from these outcomes.
 
I discovered the field called Resilience existed when I started mapping risks to refugee populations. I started at the bottom and asked "why are these people dying when I'm safe?" and the answer was infrastructure, and beyond that, resilience. Without the focus on poverty first, any notion of deep resilience does not work because we can't actually allow ourselves to see the real risk.
 
"Collapse means living in the same conditions as the people who grow your coffee"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkQCy-UrLYw (a 10m talk I did a couple of years about poverty)
 
There is no guarantee that the Greeks are going to stay richer than the Tunisians. Eleven million Greeks average $25000 a year and 81 years of life expectancy. Ten million Tunisians, just across the water, average $10,000 a year and 74 year life expectancy. It's a big drop, but what fundamentally makes these places so different?
 
And the step I'm not willing to take is to tell the Comforting Lie that gets people to do the right thing. We could sell resilience completely divorced from all notion of the real risks at the root of our society, that it rests on massive injustice in resource extraction enforced with military power, but what we're left with that point is "Reactionary Resilience" - keeping the status quo in which we win at gunpoint - instead of what we all really want, which is "Transformational Resilience" in which our ability to cope with change actually enables change in the real, deep, structural levels of society.
 
Because this mess is not going away without change on the scale of the Industrial Revolution. Even the fiscal conservatives like the Germans are completely dependent on the international order created and maintained by the Americans for their wealth. If Germans did not trade at unfair advantage with poorer countries due to the international trade system, their standard of living would probably be cut in half.
 
So here's what I'm saying: real resilience requires a real understanding of the real risks, and the real risks are completely unacceptable in public discourse. I'm going to be out in the cold a while longer yet, perhaps 10 years, before people can really hear the real message at the heart of my work.
 
The Comforting Lie is that it can stay this way, with us in our positions of unconscious power and privilege while the world starves and burns, and much of the Resilience Industry simply ensures that people will keep these current positions.
 
The kind of resilience that I envisage is the kind which gets real about the unsustainability of our lifestyles, both financial/trade and social justice, environmental and technological - and prepares us to watch this global order end and survive the process.
 
There is no guarantee that any given government will survive that process, or indeed that the Nation State is going to be the primary political unit of organization by the time all is said and done. We're watching cracks in the foundation of the concept of The State open up in the EU as transnational/continental integration issues break regional/national governments. America is flying apart on 200 years of buried baggage as the original cultural groups who came to America fail to resolve their cultural differences, Obama or not.
 
And a more resilient State is not necessarily the answer I had in mind. We need certain aspects of the State to function at unimaginable levels of efficiency if we're all going to survive the upheavals likely to be unleashed by large scale national bankruptcy as it arrives in places like America and possibly China. But that doesn't mean that a more resilient State is the answer: a government that survives when its people do not is not the answer.
 
This is the crux of the resilience problem in Greece: can the Government prepare the people to survive the Government's own demise through bankruptcy? That's really what we're discussing, and right now, I think the answer is no. The State cannot face its own death, so it cannot prepare people to survive that risk.
 
If you can figure out how to sell the State the concept of preparing for its own death, Alberto, you're a better salesman than me :-)
 
Of course, we have some evidence of that already, so I'm explaining where I'm stuck in the clearest possible terms, and looking for your help on this one. How do we do this? Do I just have this ass backwards and upside down? Can you imagine reframing the useful bits of this message in a form that Government can really use and understand? I've been trying: no luck so far.
 
Open collaboration and all that: does anybody else have the magic keys here?
 
PS: as I once said, "I do not fear the State, I fear the State will collapse before we have a meaningful alternative." and that's the truth.
inflector

There are two courses for

There are two courses for mitigating the effects of our current circumstance: pushing out the collapse, or speeding up the meaningful replacement strategies.

It is clear that a top-down structure which does not comprehend the full scope of the problem will not change and cannot be changed in time to avert the coming collapse, or even to delay it.

So the course of wisdom is to speed up the formation of meaningful alternatives.

The only way to get these alternatives to scale in time is to make sure they are ones that can be built and operated without requiring any approval or top-down planning. Thus hexayurts and other "we can do it ourselvs" alternatives.

It is time to take it to the next level. To build complete plan sets for local resilience that incorporate basic systems that do not rely on any government or institutional infrastructure like say Euro currency.

What is in the kit that a town in Greece (or Tunisia or Zambia) needs to let them be part of the global society while building a resilient and independent lifestyle that does not depend on enslaving some other people? This is a more complex problem, but one we must solve.

What are the hexayurt equivalents for the village? Steven Putter's Imagine Zambia Water's Edge initiative is one such attempt at building a village-level hexayurt in viral form. There are others.

Collapse of global empire does not need to be net bad for humanity, but it will be if we don't have contingency plans at the ready real soon now.

LucasG

MACC

This may sound or be a bit out of context, but let me put it forward as an extreme reference of sorts:

http://vinay.howtolivewiki.com/blog/other/how-to-reboot-civilization-1816 (by Vinay)

"Municipal Administration of Cities in Crisis
MACC is a project I’m trying to get off the ground. The basic notion is that in any substantial crisis, municipal authorities will bear the brunt of the load. In a local (“point”) crisis, national agencies can come to the assistance of the troubled region. In a “systemic” crisis, national agencies may hit a few trouble spots, but will be generally ineffective. However, the mayor and the fire department and the chief of police are going to be right there, on site, weathering the storm or failing to do so.

Therefore any planning for really severe scenarios needs to focus on the individual at home, and the mayor’s office / local council. There’s no central government support, they’re spread too thin. And, generally speaking, there’s only a limited amount of utility in planning for specific scenarios – too much could happen. The trick is not planning for disasters, it’s planning to keep people fed and watered and on their medicines afterwards. The real dieoff is usually not the event, it’s the aftermath."

I even started a (so far empty) wikipage over at appropedia: http://www.appropedia.org/MACC

---

Now, with that said, why do I bring it here? Because I think there will be a "substantial crisis", a "really severe scenario" in Europe soon-ish? I don't know. I stopped predicting very early in the game. I prefer to build double-use tools. Something that will make sense now, in good situations, and in bad situations.

Part of the reason for doing it that way is because selling very bad situations has proved really difficult - the "high-impact unknown-probability event" that's perceived as a "so-low-as-to-be-neglegible-probability why-even-care-about-impact event".

But another part is because of timing. We build the tools in times of "peace" and use them in times of "war". So, if they are not useable in times of piece, they get all rusty. They need to be double-use!

---

So, double-use MACC? Sure. It's useful now. It could be a wiki-centered repository of useful tips and tools. Useful for any given percentage of municipalities (for the people living in those municipalities) during the present economic crisis, and more so if things get widely worse.

---

What would it look like? Not sure, and we need everyone's input here. I tend to frame it in terms of Why, What, How, What-if (as I was taught by a friend). So, here I go:

1) Why? MACC is needed now in Greece, parts of Spain (there's a province where a number of kids get their only meal at school, and Summer is here), and surely in many other places in the world. It could be needed in any kind of "war" or "revolution".

2) What? I think we need both the engineering and the governance.

Regarding engineering, a polished subset of appropedia would give us the printable PDFs for stoves and water filters and toilets and transport and communication. Some of that is in lowtechmagazine.com and notechmagazine.com and in several other places. The guys at opensourceecology.org and wikispeed.com and solarfire.org are all doing their part - and I agree we might need hexayurt.com and star-tides.net and other things ... distilled for two (at most three) degrees of complexity. OSE is too big and too slow for certain scenarios, and there may be blood if and when they start to take other player's piece of pie.

Regarding governance, Municipalities have their area of influence. I don't know if there would have to be any fixes here. Surely we could learn how things look like, and how they would need to be improved to make space for doing whatever's best in a range of circumstances. I'm pretty sure there needs to be room for non-governing entities (a citizen, a group, or whatever) to start things up with a minimum of bureaucracy. We need to look into how to "differentially empower the incumbents". Being able to get things done probably requires a range of strategies, depending on how willing and able everyone else is.

3) How? A wikipage-centered approach looks good to me, so it probably wouldn't work <grin>. It appears to be deeply intertwined with the "governance" side of things.

4) What-if? This would include the possibility that the toolset is not fully developed when the real mess starts. So we'd need some kind of contingency plans to spread it far and fast. Because we know crisis fuel preparedness best when it's too late, so we need to prepare for that. (For a flu pandemic, it was suggested there was need to research the best treatment, but it couldn't be done before it started, so a research protocol would be put in place before the pandemic, and enacted at the onset of the pandemic. Get ready for not being ready, sort of.)

All of this needs muscle and time. I don't know if we have that.

wildfarmer

Have you heard of OSE?

So it seems like you are talking about very similar strategy to that of Open Source Ecology (OSE). They aim to build an open source global village construction kit and distribute plans on net. Its pretty popular in resilience circles and I'm assuming you are familar with it.

I think that systematic approach to resilience, coupled with open source means of collaboration is a compelling way to accelerate things, I'm less than certain about the ability to complete such an overarching goal.  One big problem I've thought about is that we really do not know what level of village tech to aim for, that depends on the idustrial resource availability, and will very depending on locality and pace of the collapse.  IMO OSE is shooting for a higher level of technology than we will likely be able to support given how volatile this next phase of industrial descent looks to be.  The base of the an autonomous village infrastructure will always be the underlying energy infrastructure as it determines how much complexity you can service, as complexity is bascially a rough proxy on entropy. So that said we need to  know what the energy source availability will look like and then adapt infrastructure accordingly. Right now the projects long term viability hinges on solar steam and biomass steam powered energy systems.  This will certainly work from a strict technical aspect, but will be very unlikely to provide the energy surplus to fuel the total infrastructure proposed.

All of that is not to say the project will not do a lot of good even if full goal is not reached, but there seems to be a need for a lower tech parallel development project with perhaps better odds of sucess. Maybe a build out of the hexayurt and super simple complementing infrastructure could be such a project??

neodynos

Ah yes OSE

Thanks for providing the pointer to OSE :) Would've done just that otherwise, being a big fan of their work. As I understand it, the best benefit of their project might be the DIY civilization movement that they kickstarted with their bold ideas. Marcin is a visionary thinker, and visions need that ingredient of being ahead of their time (a bit) to inspire people for practical action. I doubt they would've got the TED publicity etc. if they had framed it as a more modest approach ...

That said, I agree that there will be much benefit from their work even if the result is not the ultimate success of DIY civilization that they work for. It's an experiment after all, and experiments are for learning, by both success and failure.

The GVCS-50 is their construction kit for DIY civilization ... and personally, I work on a system that collects and orchestrates all the free and open products you would build with that kit to create a small civilization. It's likewise an experiment, likewise a bit utopian, and likewise meant to be useful even if not ultimately successful. To my knowledge, it is the first collection of all the open source, open design and sharing economy projects that are going on these days and would be useful for autarkic, DIY civilization. And I'm still astonished what is going on these days, as I found a project for nearly everything from open source drug discovery (malaria drugs etc.) to open data collections for all varieties of food plants ... . Here's a list of some of these projects, from another discussion here on Edgeryders.

It's all like ... well, think about Linux and Wikipedia. Back then, it was utopian madness to start writing a kernel in your free time, and madness to try competing with Britannica. In my view, we're at the brink of another such shift to the free and open, this time encompassing all the physical tech.

Last note, as the discussion was also about OSE's energy concept: OSE is collaborating with SolarFire, a small project started in India that builds impressive open design solar concentrators. (They have a donation campaign right now to fund the full documenting of their smaller concentrator ... maybe somebody wants to chip in.)

LucasG

Toolbox and our thinking

You're reading today's newspaper. In a tablet. While the train takes you to your usual destination.

Something happens, the train stops, and you have to decide what to do.

You need to reassess the situation, how much weight you're carrying, what your strength is, wether the walking is going to be uphill or downhill, and a number of other things.

In OODA terms, you need to reorient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop

Orientation is a combined look at priorities and tools, as in "yes, I can walk, but where to?" and "ok, I can phone, but saying what and to whom?".

I'm extremely biased, and others probably have something that's as good as that or better, but I tend to favour SCIM, at least for the hard disruption situations: pandemics, economic crashes and others. http://imaginethecanaries.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-i-love-scim-and-what-...

Not sure what would work if the problem is, like now, a problem with money allocation. See, people still need food and shelter and meds - but we look to existing systems of provision: money, grid, etc.

Do we put money in people's hands (alt currencies, of which the Drachma might well be a tough experiment), do we make it easy to live on less money, or both, or other ways?

edwin

this is being discussed elsewhere too

i was discussing the exact-same dynamic elsewhere (relating to cultural, rather than material production), and we discussed the same OSE project (which crosses both, being fundamentally about intellectual property and its role in material production). noemi posted a link to an article which i found really fascinating, though i didn't agree with all of it. what i found most interesting was the idea about the move from economies of scale to economies of scope - ideas which draw power from their immediate widespread replicability, like a village in a box (or, as has been mentioned elsewhere, a state in a box)...

Alberto

Black Swan, Gray Swan

I see, you are using a Black Swan-type argument: societal resilience against collapse does not sell because collapse is a very bad event associated with a vanishingly small probability. Human psychology tends to underestimate the expected value of the damage done by this kind of event, as Nassim Taleb eloquently explained to us in his book

I am not qualified to judge whether all-round collapse (global infrastructures from oil pipelines to interbank trading to the Internet go down, war becomes endemic, highly populated areas become incapacitated to provide the minimum caloric load, whatever) is a Black Swan, but partial collapse certainly is not. An Argentinian scenario, I would say, is a high probability event for Greece (high here means "computable by human psychology". 10% is high). Energy crisis is a high probability event too.

So, of course no: magic keys are currently out of stock, leave your number, we'll get back to you as soon as possible. But if it were me, I would try unmooring the high probability components of your collapse scenario from the rest, and trying to sell those. After all, the UK Government's idea of a Big Society with communities providing public services to themselves (with some help from the state) does increase resilience a bit, as it decentralizes capacity of provision of those services. 

You rightly worry that by doing this the fundamental wrongs will not be tryly challenged. You may be right: but issues tend to be interconnected, and in today's society systems that used to be disconnected or loosely coupled are becoming tightly coupled instead (think weather and traffic). So, once society at large starts chewing at one corner of the problem, it is likely to discover the rest of it. In other words, you would have an approach to resilience that does not need cultural change to work, but produces the cultural change it needs as it goes. 

LucasG

Gives me some personal hope

I've been writing a piece of work that I can't yet make public, but hopefully will be out soon.

My first draft included some pages about probabilities. How this particular challenge could be looked at in terms of:

- historical probability (events per century was the unit),

- present knowledge of mechanisms (a big piece of rock is falling towards me; forget about probabilities, because I trust my knowledge of how gravity works),

- and cost (three types of cost: RoboCop approach is unsustainable, unique risk is unbelievable, so stock up on ideas and easy training for the few).

In the second draft, I nixed much of all that, and ended up talking of a wide scope tool that could be used for many emergencies, and left it to the reader to imagine how many, and how likely.

So, "all hazards" resilience is a somewhat easier sell.

And now you suggest it might help produce deeper changes too? Hmm. I sure do hope so, and will have to a) think about it and b) continue to watch what people actually do and say.

Actually, "people" is meaningless. We're all different, and some of us are already changing. My feeling is this conversation would have been difficult - impossible? - a few years ago. If you add the context (CoE), yes: impossible, I'd say. Or at least unimaginable (by me at least)!

Now, none of this addresses deeper changes. But, as Vinay well knows, London used to burn to the ground every now and then, and things changed ... and I don't know what that means in our context: http://imaginethecanaries.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/starting-to-almost-get... (I clearly don't know).

wildfarmer

State may not be the organization up for that task....

I agree with the goals you lay out for the state, but do you really think that the state still has the powers it once had to actually put its foot down and do much outside of favors for industry?  I think the very favoring of neoliberalism by the states shows that they were losing power and the rules were being written by those who stood to benefit.  

Nimbler and more organizationally evolved corporations IMO seem to have the real power.  There is also a deep element of finance favoritism involved in keeping these organizations on top.  Its a big problem now because most necessary resources for our survival are in one way shape or form controlled by these entities.  I think the battle ahead of us is to create new forms of corporations that provide more equal acessibility, flater distributions, and are socially and ecologically integrated. Unfortunately I really don' know where we start on that goal...

 

LucasG

Indicators

We are all born and we all die http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/  but not equally.

For what it's worth, epidemiologists in Spain are moving in the direction of measuring the impact of the economic crisis, and talking about healthcare system sustainability (whatever that may mean). http://www.reunionanualsee.org/presentacion.php -> http://www.reunionanualsee.org/programa.php (PDF, Spanish). I can look for similar interests in other countries, or google "epidemiology (in your language) crisis [name of country]".

These people talk about "years of potential life lost". Is that it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Years_of_potential_life_lost (try sorting countries with the "two triangles" icons at the top of each column of the table) Or is measuring deaths that way *too little, too late*? There must be better indicators, and I'll go ask my peers.

Then there's quality of life: "years without needing psychiatric therapy", etc. Harder to measure, but also very important.

In any case, after measurements are done, pushing for explicit adoption is another matter. Where CoE might possibly have a role, methinks. And where govts are slow - so start sooner rather than later, and see that big boat slowly moving.

Mitsu Hadeishi

The Euro is the accidental reimposition of the gold standard

There's an almost blindingly simple reason why the Greek tragedy is unfolding, which is just that it was folly to create a system where individual national deficits were funded by a currency not also controlled by the nation in question. As Joe Weisenthal points out, Japan has a debt to GDP ratio far exceeding Greece's, yet they can borrow at extremely low rates, and he makes a compelling argument that Japan will NEVER default because they borrow in their own sovereign currency:

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-is-never-going-to-default-2012-5

According to a new school of economic thought called Modern Monetary Theory, the whole idea that deficits are "debt" is totally misleading and wrong. In fact, the money supply SHOULD grow, naturally, and that deficits are just the accounting record of surpluses injected into the private economy:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/05/j-d-alt-playing-monopolis-monopol...

In other words, austerity is not only wrong, it is completely and utterly idiotic. The problem isn't just the lack of political union within the EU, the problem is a lack of understanding of the nature of money versus the nature of goods and services.

The Euro as currently designed, with a ECB obsessed with preventing inflation, is essentially a reimposition of a failed idea: the gold standard. The brittleness of the European Union is due to an architectural failure and a lack of economic insight. Money is an asbtraction. What's real are real goods and services. Europe and the world need to learn this lesson, and quickly.

hexayurt

Yes, but...

I agree about there being huge issues with nations borrowing in currencies that they don't control - I lived in Iceland for a couple of years, and when their currency dropped sharply, people who had borrowed in Euros (there were a lot of them!) got absolutely hammered. It was very clearly a control issue.

But, and this is a big but, nobody controlled the gold standard - it couldn't be manipulated for political advantage, there was provably no political intent in issuing the stuff, it was by all accounts a fair and objective store of value, with volatility because of discoveries and engineering issues, not political manipulation.

So here we are with, agreed, pressures on the Euro similar to those produced by the Gold Standard, but now with the additional dimension of large, wealthy currencies running the banks which affect the destiny of small, poor ones.

Surely this additional political complexity dominates what the Greeks should do in the face of these conditions?

Arthur Doohan

Yes, but...a comment

The dominant creditor nation 'controls' the 'standard'...eg the US in the case of the Gold Standard, Germany in the case of the Euro....and it is always manipulated for 'political advantage', it having been introduced for the purpose of achieving economic and thereby political domination of the subordinates...

The Euro should not have evolved into a 'standard' had the rules been followed...but they were ignored by everyone (rule-breakers, makers and enforcers alike....) 

Now, Greece (and others) are on a 'rack' being tortured by the effort to adhere to a false standard.

The Greeks should just say...."this is how much we can pay after we have provided for ourselves, modestly. Take it or come and get the balance (If you dare...)" i.e. they should default...someone will soon, it might as well be them.....

The latest Eclectica Fund report from Hugh Hendry is well worth reading re 'standards' and a global overview of the imbalances currently strangling the global economy....

Mitsu Hadeishi

The fundamental problem here

The fundamental problem here is that, for all the problems with modern industrialized society, really the crisis in Europe now appears to be due primarily to fundamental lack of understanding of modern economics. Consider this:

http://hir.harvard.edu/debt-deficits-and-modern-monetary-theory

Put simply, when should governments begin to run budget surpluses?

 

Particular budget outcomes should never be a policy target. What the government should be targeting is real goals, by which I mean a sustainable growth rate buoyed by full employment.

Why do we want governments? We want them because they can do things that improve our welfare that we can’t do individually. In that context, it becomes clear that public policy should be devoted wholly to making sure that there are enough jobs, that poverty is eliminated, that the public health and public education systems are first class, that people who are less well off are able to become better off, etc.

From a macroeconomic point of view, the spending and tax decisions of government should be such that total spending in the economy is sufficient to produce the level of real output at which firms will employ the available labor force. This is the goal, and the particular budget outcomes must serve this goal.

None of this is to say that budget deficits don’t matter at all. The fundamental point that the original developers of MMT would make—myself or Randall Wray or Warren Mosler— is that the risk of budget deficits is not insolvency but inflation. In saying that, however, we would also stress that inflation is the risk of any kind of overspending, whether investment, consumption, export, or government spending. Any component of aggregate demand could push the economy to that point where we get inflation. Excessive government spending is not always to blame.

In sum, we’re quite categorical that we believe that budget deficits can be excessive and can be deficient as well. Deficits can be too large, just as they can be too small, and the aim of government is to make sure that they’re just right to employ all available productive capacity.

We've been caught in between two false economic theories. It seems obvious to me that MMT is far closer to a description of the actual economic situation, but we're laboring between Keynesian and neoliberal/neoclassical economics (the former being less wrong than the latter, but both are wrong). Budget deficits are not "bad" as conservatives believe, and deficits aren't debt. The entire crisis in Europe is based on a lack of understanding of one thing: money is an abstraction, it doesn't have to be kept "in balance" --- what needs to happen is government policy should be designed to focus on the real economy: productive full employment.

Paul Kingsnorth

Two things I question here

Interesting stuff. But two questions/comments arise for me:

1. I humbly submit that one of the fundamentals at issue here is size. The EU is simply too big to be able to dispense either economic stability or much-needed political responsiveness at anything like local, or even national, level. The EU is a utopian project based on yesterday's values: growth, big is beautiful, economic liberalisation and political centralisation. These are the dogmas of the late 20th century, the dogmas that got us here and we as Europeans are going to have to abandon them if we want to get out. Here is a little piece on Leopold Kohr  which expands on this a bit:

http://www.paulkingsnorth.net/journalism/this-collapse-is-a-crisis-of-bi...

2.  Related, slightly, I take issue with this observation:

' ...if you’re in a vulnerable group, and you have an EU passport, perhaps now is the time to consider moving north to the extremely well-organized and disciplined countries where Winter can kill you and so people work together and plan to survive it every year ...'

So people should be leaving their own countries, their families, their homeland, all of their cultural links, the place they were born in and grew up in and the culture they are part of, and they should be moving to countries with which they have no connection, whose language they probably do not speak and in which, in times of crisis, people may not welcome immigrants – because, as we all know, it's foreigners that get blamed at times of crisis, in this period in history as in any other.

I submit that this is not good advice; I also suggest that it does not take enough account of the subtleties and intricacies of human belonging. It may make sense on a spreadsheet, but in reality one of the best ways to weather a crisis is surely to be part of the community that will look after you, not to be a stranger in a foreign city where people will be suspicious of you. There is a really good article on just this subject in the second Dark Mountain book, which takes apart the myth of survivalism and suggests that rooting yourself in a community is probably your best bet. 

http://dark-mountain.net/stories/books/book-2/

This is not to say that there is not a good case for getting out of cities: there probably is. But fleeing entire countries is probably another matter.

 

Arthur Doohan

"Big-ness"

I very much agree that 'scale' is an underexamined and core failure point in our whole paradigmatic mess.

It has long been a mantra of mine that 'the bigger the organisation the bigger the sin...'

Centralisation of power and of networks, temporarily aided by nascent information technologies has allowed the nation state and the corporation to assume inhumane size and to thereby do inhumane things.

Looking forward to discussing this further with you.....

hexayurt

Community is not the answer.

There is a lot of nonsense talked about community.

Transition Towns has, for years, demonized the go-it-alone attitude of "preppers" and "survivalists" who expect to look to their own resources before those of their neighbours in a time of crisis, and it's precisely and exactly wrong. A group of people who can all more-or-less stand on their own feet are stronger together than alone, but a group in which the average is less-than-survival together will simply tend to drag each-other down. There are simply no "economies of scale" in survival groups.

This is not to say that, for example, tribes are not incredibly resilient. But, like modern Mormons, there are intense social pressures on people to carry their weight - to be prepared, to be resilient, to be skilled, to add something of value to the tribal collective in exchange for their membership of it, to be an asset to your neighbours, not a burden.

When drowning the weak children became unacceptable to us, we made a State. I'm (of course) bending the causality here, but I'm also making a point - tribal societies often practiced euthenasia for the old, we are told - Eskimos who'd go off on a final hunting trip which consisted of sitting on an ice flow and drifting out to open sea, or deformed children left out in the snow. This stuff is no joke, and while I'm not an expert in the history (I'm aware these reports may have been biased by Colonial historians) we have to beware our own idealization of a prior state. We remember the benefits, but do not remember the costs.

In this context, the most vulernable need a State to protect them. A community cannot carry somebody who needs, say, kindey dialasis. A State can carry people with those kinds of medical costs, and so can the Market given a healthy health insurance system, but a community does not have the resources to amortize the costs of the weak.

There is a *very* real case to be made for the most vulnerable people in Greece to head for countries with a strong Welfare State and good free public health case. The safety net is necessary, and it's still there in some places. Why not use one's freedom as a European to take advantage of it?

On the second point, on scale... I think I've answered that to a degree, too. We need scale to amortize risks. Whether Europe is simply Too Big is a much, much harder question, but small unit societies cannot and do not carry their weakest members - they (often) drop them. If we're to provide a really strong safety net, it may require quite a large political bloc to provide it, and I think that's doubly true when we start talking about environmental protection. Large political blocs can make substantial dents in the global environmental situation by regulation. Smaller blocs know their actions don't have much effect, so there's a strong tendency to say "well, we're only 1.3m people, what can we do?" and keep on burning the coal regardless.

I do believe we need massive local political control, but we also need to delegate upwards what we can't do ourselves, and the burdens a small community cannot be expected to carry.

The Big State has Big Arms. The village does not.

Paul Kingsnorth

Ahem

'When drowning the weak children became unacceptable to us, we made a State.'

Ah, yes? Mr Hobbes and Mr Monbiot would both be proud of you I'm sure. 

Actually, 'we' did not make a state. States evolved as societies became more centralised and complex, and the elites needed protection from the people whose land they had stolen. The social contract is null and void. Contracts need to be signed by both sides to be legally binding.

But let's leave that to one side.

I agree that 'a lot of nonsense is talked about community', but none of it is being talked by me, at least not here. You, on the other hand, have diverged into a random attack on 'tribal societies', which has no bearing on the point I was making. Who said anything about eskimos? Not me! Although I would say that a man from your background ought to know that many traditional socities were very good at carrying the weakest among them: considerably better than modern states, in fact. You'd be a damn site better off being mentally ill in village India than on a British sink estate in the care of the state psychiatric system. 

My point was that deracinated individuals always fare badly when things go pear-shaped, and they fare worse if they are foreign. It's a historical constant. Let's try and imagine what would happen if several million Greeks, Spaniards and Italians followed your advice and left their families, homes and connections behind to move to Sweden, Norway and Scotland. One of the things that would happen would be that those working welfare systems would cease to work due to the extra strain being put on them by sudden mass immigration (which has happened in parts of the UK.) Another thing would be that resentment would build towards the influx of outsiders, especially if they had come simply to take economic advantage of a system built by others. Nations and ethnic groups still exist, despite the EU's attempts to abolish them. After that, we'd have new Anders Breiviks, Pim Fortuyns and Marine Le Pens poping up all over northern Europe. I think we could do without this. 

'Community', at root, is simply a word used to describe the process of being rooted. You need to be somewhere for a while, bed in, contribute, become accepted. Then people start looking after you, and looking out for you. That, it seems to me, would be a lot more useful in a collapse than anything the welfare state could offer.

neodynos

Some minor point

"States evolved as societies became more centralised and complex, and the elites needed protection from the people whose land they had stolen."

Nice view on the origins of state :) Would like to learn about history from that perspective ... anybody knows of a book or article discussing that in depth?

A minor point:

Both "community" and "being rooted" is quite abstract. What it's implemented in is relationships, friendships. It's true that these develop when living in and contributing to a local neighborhood, but not only there. In this age of online and moving around, there are several people who instead build their own globally distributed network of friendships, and likewise have somebody to ask for help in tough times. That seems esp. true for younger people, whose peers often happen to be distributed all around the world after the phase of formal education is over.

wildfarmer

Rise and Decline of the State

Its a meaty historical read, but Rise and Decline of the State by Martin Van Creveld http://ebooks.cambridge.org/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9780511497599  is a great book that addresses the evolutionary origins of the state and the current corparate and global forces that are undercutting it.  

Actually truth be told I picked it up on a splurge a week ago and can't really say I've any qualifications to rate it, other than to say its a damn fascinating piece of work, and really makes me ponder organizational theory in general.....

Alberto

Well, actually

Hello Paul, thanks for your insights. I want to contribute a point of view from a country, Italy, which has been both on the sending and (more recently) on the receiving end of a lot of immigration. It is far from certain that immigration breaks welfare; in fact, in my country, immigrants are net contributors to the welfare state (they pay in more in taxes than they take out in benefits), and in particular they contribute a lot to business creation. The most common first name among entrepreneurs registered at the Chamber of Commerce in Milano, as of March 2012, is Mohamed.

Other parts of your analysis hold, though. We have a lot of racial hate in Italy. But at least part of it seems to be due to an inferiority complex: the Moroccans, Egyptians and Romanians that flock to the country to start small businesses work hard, know their respective trades and are in their way to do well. People who feel they are being left behind find nothing better than to shout "foreigners!"; they have voting power, but it is far from clear who's the élite and who's the underdogs here. 

Paul Kingsnorth

Good points

Thanks Alberto. This is interesting. I agree with at least some of it.

I don't know about the figures you mention and how they play out in my country, but I do know that at local level, big influxes of immigrants have put strains on schools and hospitals. The rate of change has been rapid over the last fifteen years. The unprecedented immigration rates in the UK represent two things to me: one, big business running the show (it's all about the cheap labour); and two, a state trying to shore against the decline represented by an ageing population. 

Part of the resentment against this comes from a sense that some immigrant communities have not integrated, and some of the rest comes from a sense of imposition. But that sense of being left behind is palpable in some places. We are lucky in Britain that we have no serious far right grouping. I think we do pretty well at mixing and matching here, which is something to be proud of, but there are always limits. 

Again though, I think community is the key here. I don't think most people have any problem with immigrants, because immigrants are just people. On an individual level, meeting people from other countries is interesting and welcome to most. Immigrants who move to a new place and bed themselves in are mostly made welcome, and very often breathe new life into places. The problems come again when the number and rate of change is too ... big. Again, it's about scale, and about belonging. 

wildfarmer

States seem too stretched to provide more welfare....

Vinay,

I agree that a community is no safeguard without strong resilient indiviudals at the base, in fact given group think tendencies towards the lowest bar to meet many could be worse off when it comes survival.  Though for now such groups are probably healthy and productive social exchanges.

Looking forward I'm less optimistic than you though about big states having the surplus to carry the weight for those who can't .  My current assumption is that the abundant surplus we expect from big states is only the product of highly succesful industrialism, barring new energy sources of similar net yields we will be witnessing for the first time in the history of the decline of the industrial system which underpins that surplus.  If thats more less true I find it very hard to expect the state to be able to provide the deepening need for safety nets and welfare. Its resources and processing capabilities more less seem completely tapped out, and I'm not hopeful that political measures will change this, if for no other reason than the democratic process is not efficient enough at identify and treating the problem.

Now I should make it clear I'm for neither anarchy nor a more efficient facist state (which we are arguably flirting with to try and regain order) I appreciate the state is at is I just don't think its a capable enough organization form to do much more than it is doing now.  As it stands I think corporations would be more capable and adaptable at providing the safety net and resilience functions we are going to need. Yes they are certainly a big part of the problem behind a corrupted state, but perhaps we could invent new fitter corporate forms that better leverage the network, openly colloborate and have redifined goals and visions.  I think in many ways these idealistic corporations could outcompete the big hierchal dinosaurs through radically reduced fixed overhead, and the ability to outmaneuver and adapt and more importantly the ability to actually have people rally behind their cause.  I know such organizations would probably not provide welfare directly, but through increased job creation, flater distribution of profits, and a reskilling of the population with production and presumably resilient related skills, they would indirectly provide more people with the means to provide welfare.  

Paul Kingsnorth

Yes indeed

This is a really good point. The Euro welfare states are in decline. We can't afford them anymore. My welfare state is less generous than the one my parents' enjoyed, and if my kids see one at all it will be skeletal. That's contraction for you. 

The other point is the corporations and the finance houses, which are the real actors here. The hollowed-out state exists to serve their needs. Hence the religious mantra of 'growth', uber alles, intoned from Berlin to Bratislava. 

wildfarmer

Growth is in our societies DNA....

Paul,

The issue of societies built upon the assumption of growth is no small problem indeed.  The calculus of our whole social arrangements radically change when this is no longer possible.  Assumed surpluses vanish and whole goals and sectors of society no longer make sense.  I don't think we have much of a cultural memory in the west for surving periods of State wide decline either, we have little blips like depressions and war, but as a whole the march of progress or growth as been an unchecked faith article of our society.

Still I don't know of any ideas that could realistically be implemented in western culture to get rid of the notions of growth, its deeply embedded into the source code of western societies.  I think  we are stuck with it until natural limitations make it unsuccesful and the opportunity clears up for a new civilization script to develop boot up. I also think that from that perspective that much of the corporate hollowing. of the state has been allowed at some level because it is recognized as one of the most succesful ways to serve our bottom line of growth at all costs.  

If there is a silver lining I see it is that higher energy and resource costs coupled with the tools of the information age may drive the monopolostic corporations in the history books, as mass centralized manufacturing is replaced by a more competive and localized form of organization.  I'm not certain though of that, but it seems as good of place as any to hang ones hope....

Paul Kingsnorth

Agreed!

Hi Nick,

I agree entirely; you put it very well. Don't know if you've come across the Dark Mountain Project, but we've been trying to fight our way through this thicket for a while! Rebooting is the only likely endpoint, I'd guess. 

Alberto

One direct hit, one not convinced

Hey Paul, welcome to Edgeryders! :-)

I don't understand the size argument as a sweeping one. Some things scale well without losing coherence, others break down. It is certainly true that some social phenomena ("the market" or "globalwarming") are emergent from a myriad individual interaction, and we can no more control them than a  unch of neurons can control the brain they are a part of. So our control, and maybe even our understanding of social phenomena do break down as they grow in size, but this does not mean they themselves break down. So, for the moment, I am unconvinced by Mr. Kohr's position (I know this is not exactly world shattering news).

Your point on immigration is well taken. I do feel the need to enmesh myself in a community, and so I am just now doing this.

Paul Kingsnorth

Thanks

Thanks for the comment Alberto. I agree that some things scale up - but the key for me is that government doesn't. Even government at national level is inefficient and unresponsive. Here in the UK we have a very top-heavy state and it shows. I think there is a lot of evidence that could be cited which points to this. Certainly if the EU responds to the current crisis by centralising even further I think it will create bigger problems than it solves. 

Alberto

Yes. But...

Paul, I am personally involved in a radical decentralization exercise to rethink government as a sort of hybrid form, part Weberian bureucracy and part emergent social dynamics arising from citizen interaction, Wikipedia-style. Edgeryders is itself a tiny part of a huge governance ecosystem, and I would argue it would scale reasonably well.

Are you coming to Strasbourg? I'd be up for discussing this in more detail. Vinay can make the introductions. :-)

hexayurt

Kingsnorth in *Strasbourg*???

I would pay good money to see Paul in Strasbourg. We may have to hide the EU for the day, though...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Real-England-Battle-Against-Bland/dp/1846270413

is Real England, Paul's book about the loss of English culture to Market and State, and actually discussing the freedom of regions etc. with somebody with that kind of an insight into the particular is quite an experience...

Are ye for it, Paul? Can we get you to Strasbourg?

wildfarmer

Your thinking though very

Your thinking though very interesting and compelling is far out of my league to competently comment or challenge.  I'm firmly with you though on the need for hard resilience, because it is a hedge that costs little and has the potential to save much.  

I do have a hard to verify meta view that in my mind creates a nice outline for the situation going on in industrial worlds.  It's simplistic and common, but in my mind relevant.  Essentially western industrial societies have reached a stagnation point where they can not grow at the rate demanded by our financial insitutions. At the core this failure is caused by a combination of energy and resource extraction costs and rate limitations. Since we in the west shudder to think about reinventing our lifestyles in the context of reducing our resource consumption our future seems to rest on an absolutely wild hail mary pass for cheap abundant to be determined energy source or alternatively duking it out with the rest of the world in no holds bar vulture capitalism to guarantee the resources we need.  Obviously we have not yet succeeeded  on the energy hail mary pass, and so perhaps we are in the process of necessarily "culling the herd"of industrial countries so to speak with the weakest financial countries like Spain and Greece first to go.  If there is any sense whatsoever to that view then it would seem our only real deep option is to reinvent our lifestyles and unplug from the industrial machine.  

My speculations aside, it sounds like you've made a compelling case that Europe is at war when you accept the definition war is when one state attempts to steal the property of another.  I follow the folks at automatic earth and they argue the credit bubble is about to pop and that one of the big consequences is that multiple entities will have claim to a single asset or bit of wealth. Seems like that is essentially what you are describing.  The only real counter that I can see to your argument that europe is at war is if one believes that the financial rules and lending practices that led to the mess were fair.  In that case nobody is stealing anything and you are simply seeing the rules of the capitalist system that the governments agreed to being played out harshly, but fairly.  I certainly don't buy that view, but there might be some.....

In any case being a relative youngster I'm personally going way long and deep on resilient skills and learning to think in a post industrial mindset.  Probably a few years ahead of my time so hopefully by the time I actually need them I'll be ready and able....

 

 

 

 

 

Alberto

Right...

Nick, this seems reasonable - as far as you can be reasonable discussing stuff that is so dire. Can I ask you what you are doing, in practice, to acquire resilient skills? I would like to do some of that too, but it is really hard to know where to start. And it is hard to know what sort of infrastructure to assume: hunters-gatherers? Agriculture? Feudalism? Hi-tech feudalism? Whether you are more resilient if  you know how to hunt rabbits or if you know how to repair bicycles depends on the tech/legal infrastructure your society is resting on! Man, this stuff is hard.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.