When I first was introduced to the Crash Course, I couldn't help but have the feeling that just around the corner in a few months, the economic end would be here and I could be roaming the streets looking for food. Several years have passed and not much has changed that affects me on a daily basis.I spent some time reading and studying John Michael Greer's book, "Long Descent" - In my opinion, his approach needs to be used as a tempering mechanism to take along with the Crash Course. The course by itself rings bells in my mind of immediacy and appocalypse now conditions. I don't think Chris intended foster hysterical views of our future, however many of us have done so - to some extent myself.
A typical day at the office or in the shopping mall doesn't seem to have changed much from years gone by. The stock market is up, gold is down, fracking has solved our energy problems, so why should bolt the door and run for cover? Sure the underlying factors associated with the Crash Course are still there, but they don't seem to be having much effect on day-to-day life - a little here and a little there, but not much overall.
My point is not that the Crash Course is wrong, just that the timeframes associated with all that is wrong are not predictable. I think we need to use and present the Crash Course principles as good background information to assist in our actions for the future, but be careful not to cry wolf too often. For instance, the crash of Greece and other European countries has been hyped to the extreme, and while devastating for those directly involved, has had little effect on the world in general. Many of those skeptical about the Crash Course lesson have become dulled to the sound of alarm bells that (so far) have not foretold immediate disaster.
The message in all of this is that "our" message needs to be tempered if we expect to be heard by the majority. Constantly harping on gold going to $10,000 and the Dow dropping to 2000 will (has to some extent) sideline this site and its message to the fringe, when all along the real message is for us lead a rational and conservative lifestyle - no debt, income based on sustainable work, good water supply and at least partial food self sufficiency and local community.
My couple of cents worth
Jim
I appreciate the comments by thc0655 and Les above about the limited tolerance most of us humans have for devastatingly bad news. We humans need to have a hopeful, positive outlook and to feel a sense of well-being in our hearts. It is my experience that a message that is purely frightening, without offering a way through, is likely to be shut out by most people.
This is one of the great beauties of the PeakProsperity way of framing the 3 E's:
We have a predicament and this is how we will respond--changes that will enrich our lives regardless of what the future brings.The message is positive, accessible, full of hopefulness that something good is developing and that we can participate in that goodness.
My wife also can only tolerate hearing a small amount about disruption of the food distribution supply and the risk of starvation. But she is comfortable tending the gorgeous plants flourishing in our garden, to compost, to help me build a deer fence and delights in the prospects of fresh blueberries next spring. Supporting our local CSA sounds "delicious" and "healthy."
She doesn't like to hear that our domestic water supply is dependent on an intact electrical grid for pumping and therefore vulnerable to disruption. But she is happy to collect the rainwater that falls in great abundance from the sky onto our roof top. She experience this as "receiving the abundance of God" and "living in harmony with nature," both of which she feels good aligning herself with.
It seems that the way that the message is framed is one of the factor influencing accessibility. And this is where Peak Prosperity has excelled. The 3 E's are delivered with high EQ. Big hat tip to the maturity of the PP team (including Becca!).
I value this site's independence. As a result, there are opinions and facts I have been able to hear that have influenced my thinking.
Just be careful who you align yourself with and do not compromise your independence. Choose partners with integrity who will expand your reach AND strengthen your message.
You have a strong foundation to build on so I’d say trust your judgment and go for it.
I believe the article I have shared more often than any other from Peak Prosperity is the article Chris wrote years ago on the "Six Stages of Awareness." I simply don't tell people about Peak Prosperity without telling them about the Six Stages.
It was necessary for me to keep the Six Stages in mind to move forward. I read Limits to Growth over a decade before taking the Crash Course. The difference is that Limits to Growth gives you a sense of something happening safely in the future. The Crash Course gives you the sense that it is talking about something that is alread in progress. The Crash Course, for me, produced a much more immediate and powerful emotional response.
One suggestion I would make is that the "Six Stages" article be linked very prominently to the Crash Course and the further reading section. Forgive me if it already is linked. I haven't noticed it, but I don't profess to know every link on the Peak Prosperity website.
Additionally, more content like the Six Stages would be welcome.
Les
[quote=jpitre]I spent some time reading and studying John Michael Greer's book, "Long Descent" - In my opinion, his approach needs to be used as a tempering mechanism to take along with the Crash Course. The course by itself rings bells in my mind of immediacy and appocalypse now conditions. I don't think Chris intended foster hysterical views of our future, however many of us have done so - to some extent myself.
[/quote]
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
-Albert Bartlett ("The most IMPORTANT video you'll ever see") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
Defining an exponential depletion of resources as being merely a linear perdicament (as in "Long Descent") is a recipe for disaster, IMHO.
I have always considered Chris and Adam evangelists for the 3E’s. Their methods are very similar to Biblical evangelists. Keys to spreading your message are to clearly and consistently share your beliefs, build bridges and not roadblocks by backing your words from guiding principles and stay clear of controversial topics. Infiltrate into their world – don’t isolate. Be tolerant. Walk the talk.
In the early 1990’s when a Southern California evangelist decided to spread the world through a larger venue, he was widely criticized. The reasons for not going forward were numerous. But he started small and carefully grew his efforts. His consistent efforts continued to grow and he now preaches in baseball stadiums to standing room only audiences.
Expanding your audience means you are sincere about your message and you care about people. Not reaching out would indicate you don’t care about the future of people. That’s not Chris and Adam.
Thank you for the warning, whatever form it takes. The One thing I value here is the honesty of the Opinions presented, even if sometimes they do not relate directly to me, or even when they go against what I believe is happening or will be happening in the short run.
The One Thing that will sour me is if we go forward and a mistake is made, AND there is no TOP VIEW declaration that things have gotten out of control or have gone the wrong way. It is necessary for me that the honesty that everyone here has given is not compromised.
jpitre, I understand your point of view and I tend to agree. Although Bartlett's calculus is correct within its closed system of mathematics, it is only a true prediction in the real world if the world adheres to the mathematical model. Calculus is a way of interpreting the world, it doesn't necessarily mean the world will adhere to it. If all things remain constant (unlikely), well, then maybe things will unfold as expected. But, If we, for instance, unexpectedly have a killer virus that takes hold of the world tomorrow, wiping out half the population, then the reality changes, and the world no longer adheres to the model. The truth is none of us knows what will happen tomorrow. The world is anything but predictable. CM has said many times… "If you had told me five years ago that X (fill in the blank) would be X now…" I don't use this example to undermine the message of the 3 Es, because it doesn't at all. We use the limited knowledge that we have of the past to make sense of the present, contextualizing everything, so that we can act in relation to a completely unknowable future. The world is inherently unpredictable (thank goodness), which will continue to throw wrenches into our cognitive models. To me, the 3Es has evolved into an issue regarding quality of life.
For instance, Chris has said we know the price of everything and the value of nothing. To me, this statement goes far beyond our economic markets and the models we use to interpret them. This goes to the heart of society. Becoming more resilient is about moving away from the quantity and into the quality. This to me is the way the CC/3Es message could be effectively disseminated in a positive way. To me it is the most powerful message it brings.
I know that many of us here are doing what we can to prepare for an uncertain future, transforming ourselves and our personal lives to the extent possible. There are a lot of motivations for doing so, not the least of which is that the current political, social and economic systems are so degraded that even if this mess could go on for ever, who would want it to.
I do also hear that most people feel extremely isolated in their efforts. Many of us have told and heard here the "everybody I talk to about this thinks I'm crazy story". One of the great motivations for posting hear is to step back into a community that is once again grounded in some sort of rational sense of reality. That comes with the inherent frustration of posting on a website with international reach and interest is that very little of this wonderful dialog translates into I'll be over Saturday to help pick strawberries and make jamb, Sunday we'll head to your house to help dig potatoes and weatherstrip some windows. Some here are lucky enough to have that kind of community.
So many people are dropping out of the system that have no place to fall to. Just heard a story tonight about Fresno homeless villages that are being demolished. Many are the working poor who don't have a lot of options. Meanwhile millionaire senators are thinking that we need to cut the food stamp program because Americans' just aren't motivated enough to find work, what they need is a little hunger to get them going. Can you say social unrest!
I know that the mission of PP is primarily educational, but how do we take our collective lifestyle efforts and coalesce them into something substantive that can start to grow virally. How do we create something that begins to create a critical mass that becomes self sustaining? The next steps are out there somewhere, I feel it around the corner. How do we collectively live this thing?
Yes. That appealed to me also. Refreshing is a great word for it. There is clarity in the message and the mind if the message isn't tainted with over the top emotion. That is one reason I don't watch TV news shows, although another is that I haven't had a TV for a few years.
[quote=gillbilly]But, If we, for instance, unexpectedly have a killer virus that takes hold of the world tomorrow, wiping out half the population, then the reality changes, and the world no longer adheres to the model.
[/quote]
Gillbilly, your post reminded me of this excerpt from the 1972 publication of The Limits to Growth:
"A society choosing stability as a goal certainly must approach that goal gradually. It is important to realize, however, that the longer exponential growth is allowed to continue, the fewer possibilities remain for the final stable state…
Many people will think that the changes we have introduced into the model to avoid the growth-and-collapse behavior mode are not only impossible, but unpleasant, dangerous, even disastrous in themselves. Such policies as reducing the birth rate and diverting capital from production of material goods, by whatever means they might be implemented, seem unnatural and unimaginable, because they have not, in most people’s experience, been tried, or even seriously suggested. Indeed there would be little point even in discussing such fundamental changes in the functioning of modern society if we felt that the present pattern of unrestricted growth were sustainable into the future. All the evidence available to us, however, suggests that of the three alternatives—unrestricted growth, a self-imposed limitation to growth, or a nature-imposed limitation to growth—only the last two are actually possible.
Accepting the nature-imposed limits to growth requires no more effort than letting things take their course and waiting to see what will happen. The most probable result of that decision, as we have tried to show here, will be an uncontrollable decrease in population and capital."
Here their projected model has been updated with newer data:
The resource curve doesn't seem like it's been really updated.
Chris' slide below, from the Crash Course, seems to indicate that exponential resource curves are indeed "turning the corner." Has anyone put together any further graphs concerning depletion curves? I'd love to see them if you have, thanks!
The very fact that so many INTJ's are part of the site shows that there is great room for growth. We are a very small % of the population. You have hit a niche for which I'm grateful. You have presented your message in a rational way that we could get ahold of and adjust our lifestyles accordingly.
But reaching more people is absolutely necessary. The presentation will have to change to appeal to larger groups. And we INTJs may feel less comfortable, gripe about mission drift and dream of the good old days when the site fit us better. But we also know this must reach more people. And we know we must set aside our niche, our preferences, for a greater audience.
Will this next move do this? With integrity? Then go for it. We're resilient.
For instance, Mike at Natural News is a source of introduction for many sites and yet he is often extremely fear-mongering in style and is willing to twist fact substantially in order to get people's attention. Unfortunately, I find myself somewhat suspect of anyone who appears in his articles/rants. If he's got a guest writer and he doesn't do a a fear-increasing intro it can be okay and he does have a huge readership so that information gets spread widely. However when he does the writing, watch out! There are a number of similar people whose style makes a lot of folks cringe and while expansion of readership is good I hope you'll think through whom you tie in with so as to maintain your reputation as a solid, stable organization with fact-backed information.
If you are enjoying enough success to attract offers, you might be on the cusp of becoming more well known and finding new readers all on your own. Your moral compass got you this far. To use some of your own terms, diluting your message probably is not a"solution", but may have an "outcome" where you end up spending a lot of time explaining what you "really" mean to your supposed "bigger"audience. In any event, I am glad I found you and I always look forward to reading your weekly emails.
You understand the issues. Don't compromise your principles, but stay flexible on tactics. Most importantly, don't let others "position" CC and PP.com as being on the fringe. Demand that the argument is serious and rational. It's about data, not opinion. That's important. Then good luck to all of us.
You will be known by the company you keep! I greatly enjoy Peak Prosperity, the message and the platform for dialog it provides. That said, grow carefully because I think you will only have one opportunity so you want to get it right!
I have such respect for you all that run this website that I think you'll make the right decision anyway, so why should I say anything! Without the details it's hard for my imagination to conjure up pros and cons, but I'm assuming that whatever happens the core of what is here will not change. Maybe the larger exposure you're considering will turn out to be a lot more people that think we're nuts, but I'm pretty sure not everyone that hears this info will think that way, and those are the ones we need to reach, even at the risk of solidifying others in their devotion to the status quo (maybe a concern when you "don't have complete control of the overall experience in which our material appears"). As far as brand-building goes, I know your intentions are good so I'm still a loyal supporter even if this doesn't work out as good as hoped.
The things I appreciate about Peak Prosperity are sound facts, integrity, inclusiveness, and loads of practical information on what I can do right now. The last thing (practical info I can use today) makes this a very positive, upbeat place for me, despite the first thing (sound facts) being some of the most sobering I've ever heard.
So I'd say go for it if you think so. I hope it won't change the above-mentioned things.
I forgot to mention the tone you use when you present the information was very important for how I reacted the first time I heard it. No dramatic music, emotional appeals or scare tactics to distract. If you were Jessie Ventura or Alex Jones presenting it, it may not have resonated as well (It could very well be I would've come around after awhile). Of course, that's just me and everyone's different. For me personally that sort of brand wouldn't suit me as well, but I'll still be around if you team up with that type. 
I don't think your positive, pro-active focus will change.
Hi Chris, Hi Adam
If your guts weren't worried you wouldn't be asking us these questions. That does not for a moment mean you shouldn't be taking action, but perhaps you should be taking precautions. This forum is unique. I too have have lurked around here for awhile, not saying much, but spending many hours a week. I talk a lot about this website out in the world. I refer to Chris as one of my gurus (sorry Adam, you are too, but it gets too complicated, and we all know folks can't handle a lot of complexity.) This site allows people of vastly different world views to have reasonably civil conversations about all these very complex topics. If it this wasn't here, I would have to go to a lot of websites and stomach a lot of crap to get this information, and even so it would be listening to people chatting within their respective agreement groups. One thing that contributes to our diversity is that there are 3 E's here not one. Any large influx of voices here that would alter the delicate balance of this space would be a tragic loss, and no doubt I would wander off, saving $30 dollars a month that probably is a lot more of a commitment for me than it is for a lot of other folks here.
That said, spreading the message is critically important. I was struck by the suggestion that somehow it might be possible to protect this forum, while still reaching out. I don't know from brands, I am a policy nerd, not a business person. Giving another website to a larger audience makes sense to me, maybe an entirely separate Crash Course website. Crash Course is a catchy simple name that could speak to people that really want to know more, but are not focused so deeply as most of the folks here.
In the end it is up to you, you own this brand and I respect that, but I hope you are able to offer more options, that could incorporate a broader pool of needs, rather than losing the precious resources you currently offer.