Wednesday, October 22, 2008
the big picture
I was thinking today that I haven't been contexualizing the study of political psychology enough. For instance, for the last 50 years, we have been a culture of consumption fueled by debt. We have let production move offshore so that we import an increasing amount of the stuff we consume from abroad. What we are left with is a service economy which is now becoming unraveled. Will we go back to our old bad ways? I don't know but maybe so. But here's the thing: what does political leadership look like in an era where we are going to be forced to make a transition in our use of energy, our financial and economic structures, our patterns of consumption and production? Can the terms, concepts, theories we use still hold as this macroenvironment changes? Don't know the answer but would be interested in your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dr. Bob,
Thinking in very general terms -- there are clearly going to be changes, but they will come about as much through influences from abroad as from the economic and social conditions here at home.
You mentioned one of the factors, the fact that we're on the wrong end of the peak oil curve. Since our economy is, for better or for worse, based almost entirely on oil, this will become a tangible problem very soon. Especially since much of our food, and the world's, is produced using oil-intensive methods. The second factor is the increase in the world population -- made possible, from what I can see, through Western agricultural methods fueled by that self-same oil that's about to run out.
If we manage to come up with a source of energy equivalent to oil -- or even if we (namely the politicians who shamelessly play this issue for political advantage, but I digress) see the light and use nuclear power as a stop-gap measure -- we might be able to keep the world a relatively stable place, at least for a few more decades. Meaning that we here in the States really wouldn't need to change our political and economic systems much.
Now, for the worst-case scenario -- if no viable source of alternative energy can be found, we'll still be faced with the prospect of feeding 9 or 10 billion people (the estimated population by the time oil shortages are predicted to become severe, in about 30 to 40 years) -- with no readily available means of doing so. Should that happen, I would expect some really nasty resource wars until the world population is reduced back to a sustainable level... Then, since national survival would trump all other considerations, we'll probably end up with the kind of government that will do what's necessary to ensure it -- in all probability, some flavor of "authoritarian".
I don't know nearly enough about alternative fuels, so I don't think I've the authority to make predictions one way or the other on the way the oil crisis and the search for alternative energy is going to go... What does seem certain, however, is that we will need to control world population. Which, much as it pains my conservative heart to say it, is liable to require some pretty intense government intervention in folks' private lives -- something on the order of China's "one child" policy. So in that respect, at least, I think government will expand, if only out of sheer necessity (I don't place much faith in most of the world's population suddenly coming to the conclusion that having too many kids is a really, really bad idea).
To sum it up, I suppose the real issue we'll be dealing with, both socially and economically, is figuring out a way to maintain a reasonable standard of living and stability in a relatively static society. Capitalism favors expansion -- it is no accident it emerged in an era of unprecedented plenty, resource-wise -- so figuring out a way to make it work in a situation where the consumer base is not expanding and resources are actually getting scarce is liable to prove a very challenging task. (Perhaps space colonization, leading to another era of enormous capitalist expansion, is a possibility... Most likely not, but the science fiction geek within *does* wonder)
Interestingly, there is an historical model of a society that managed to stay relatively "static" for nearly two centuries -- Japan, during the Tokugawa period. The shogunate managed to maintain a stable state of affairs by imposing strict limits on population growth and consumption, and through wise management of what little resources the nation possessed. The economic system seems to've been feudalism with elements of capitalism mixed in -- a curious amalgamation, but one that seems to have worked quite well. (reference: Jared Diamond's "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed")
So it can be done. Modern technology certainly would make it reasonably easy to do, and still maintain a pretty good standard of living (see "vertical farming" for an example that really inspires me, for one. Interestingly, a similar thing is currently happening in Cuba, minus the skyscrapers -- from what I hear, they're simply doing sustainable gardening right in their cities on a massive scale. I applaud). The question is whether or not we have the political will to do it, while it is still possible to do so relatively painlessly...
Which brings me to my final point. Another change that I'd like to see happen in our political system is to get the best and the brightest into politics -- incidentally, sort of like they do in Japan. I just have a really hard time imagining the current crop of DC politicians, power-hungry popularity junkies all, taking the necessary, but highly unpopular, measures outlined earlier.
A hopeless flight of fancy, I know, but a man can dream...
Regards,
--Eugene
Post a Comment