Apparently, the last trees on Easter Island weren't felled by humans, but by rats, who reproduce faster than the native palm trees on Easter Island and use the palms as a food source. Reference the Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert. The myth of Easter Island is handy for propagating the idea that "modern" humans are smarter, better, etc than earlier iterations. (Also, we assume a lot about peoples who lived prior to written history. Because there is no written history, anything can be made up about them to further the narrative of current superiority. Humans managed to survive for 500,000 years without the benefits of our technology??!! How stupid could they have been? Really.) Who is going to look like idiots for using the last of the liquid fossil fuels to make plastic s**t and import it from China? And that really is what's happening. The rats in our story stomp about on two legs.
Your comment that some days you would rather be selling pet rocks made me smile… I suspect you would find depth to the pet rock market that few could imagine or that within 17 minutes you would be pounding your pet rocks against your forehead from boredom.
Great interview, hope you can get her back to discuss consequences.
I have to ask why is it that we here at PP can get it while others cannot? What is it that differentiates us from them?
Jan, I agree that denial is a big part of it and I like the way you link that to the instant gratification mentality. Another factor is busyness, most peoples lives are full of activity and few are inclined to think deeply on any issue. Many issues are seen as too intangible to worry about - immediate practical concerns take precedence. And don't forget people are brainwashed by the mainstream media and lulled by the collective assumption that technology will save us. The prevailing mindset is not called the consensus trance for nothing.
So why do we at PP get it while others cannot? Folks, I'm afraid it's time to face the ugly truth - we're just a bunch of freaks!
I am with John G in that it is wonderful to have this community to voice and share our concerns. These interactions help keep the sanity in this interested observer while she watches the world going down the tubes. Jan, I couldn't agree more
I want to thank all contributors to this thread. Engaging friends in these subjects can be frustrating, but as was mentioned here, there is an unending stream of wisdom that flows from this site that keeps things in perspective for me.
As to Ken's call to action, I would say that in order to "break them" we need to convince more of our fellow citizens that we have a problem and how it affects them, I don't think we are there yet.
Lots of interesting thoughts all around and I am really getting a lot out of those who are chiming in 
Ken, some interesting points in your post. I am curious though as to why you think "people power" is naive. I know this is a bit off topic of the original podcast, but I think the concept of people power vs. the evil bankers is a concept worth exploring, from the standpoint of asking "can any one person influence the course of society?" and therefore, can we "break them"?
You mention a few societal changes that, if I interpret what you are saying correctly, as ultimately being failures. For example you use the example of Nelson Mandela, and how in spite of his accomplishments South Africa has reverted to blacks controlling blacks, as opposed to what it was in the Apartheid era. So, a question for you - overall, in the grand scheme of things, did Nelson Mandela make a difference? Or was it a wasted effort?
This differentiation is important. It ties in with what we are doing, right here, right now: trying to make a difference and improve the world. Did Martin Luther King make a difference? How about Rosa Parks? Did Lech Walesa make a difference? How about Mother Theresa? How about William Wallace, for the history buffs? For my Canadian counterparts, how about Terry Fox, one of my personal heroes? My thinking is that each of these individuals, and the many others un-mentioned who also deserve accolades, moved the human race forward a few more steps through their sheer passion and determination to right wrongs that had been foisted on the masses, most of whom did not have the strength or fortitude to stand up and be counted. And yet, each of these people, Nelson Mandela included, were every day ordinary people who decided that they cared enough about some particular principle to stick their necks out, quite often at their own expense.
I hear you Ken, and understand what you are saying. But tell me: would you spend 27 years in prison for something that you believed in?
Do I believe in People Power to affect positive change? Abso-f***ing-lutely, as the saying goes. There are some of us who are going to stick our necks out, and some who won't (not "can't"… "won't"). I do believe that when there is a 1% vs. a 99%, in spite of the initial odds, eventually, the people will prevail.
In some ways I feel that this thread kind of mirrors the PP membership, in that the thinking of those with monetary wealth and means to find alternatives is clearly separate from the members who do not have those means. It is neither right or wrong, good or bad, it just is.
To paraphrase your question in your last sentence Ken, will PP step up to the plate and stand with the "People Power" crowd to "break them before they break us"?
Jan
John, I think most of us have experienced the same frustration as you with getting others to come over to the dark side. You are definitely not alone. Loved ones are the most frustrating, because perhaps somehow deep down we feel almost offended that their love for us doesn’t translate into blind trust that we have solid reasoning & evidence behind us. For now you may just have to accept that you’re 'that eccentric friend' with a bit of the crazies about you.
Good responses from Jan and Davidallan to your question about how to get the message across. My own ‘conversion success rate’ when speaking to others is low. Nobody likes bad news, and for some their best view of life is enjoyed amid the subterranean sand. Most are reasonably receptive to having the conversation in the first place, but leading them to water is as far as I usually get, pretty much. Then for them it’s back to the latest news about the Kardashians, what features the next iPhone will have, etc. With some I know that I can articulate the basics about things like cause-and-effect of debt explosion, the nature of exponential growth and its practical applications in the real world. If I’m lucky I might hold their interest while I have a go at explaining the linkages between the 4 E’s. If I progress onto drawing air charts with imaginary curves I always check their eyes…. if I see that the wheel is still turning but the hamster's dead then I know it’s time to stop. However, my one – and probably only true – ‘conversion’ was a friend who’d experienced bankruptcy & a very acrimonious divorce as a result of living beyond his means. I didn’t have to speak long before he got it (although his maths and economics degrees helped, I’m sure). In fact he got it so fast that our global predicament freaked him out, but it also occurred to me that even amongst the intellectually capable, selling the message is still such a hard task because of willful avoidance of the truth, or perhaps misplaced trust that “someone will sort it all out – they always do”.
Maybe that’s what we need to do i.e. draw parallels to individual lives & real experiences in order to personalise the message. Maybe that’s the only thing which will hit our audiences hard enough between the eyes to trigger meaningful action, or at least serious consideration of the world’s predicament. My own eureka moment came when I stumbled across a GoldMoney address given by Chris in Madrid in 2011. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WBiTnBwSWc
If I’m about to pontificate about PP.com & it themes to others I first direct them to that video – its first 35 mins are the best investment of my time that I’ve made in a long, long while, and I couldn’t articulate the PP message any more succinctly.
There's an episode of The Extraenvironmentalist Podcast that I keep saved and listen to fairly regularly – it features John Michael Greer and Chris Martenson. There is a passage in the interview with Chris that really hit home for me, and I think would for many others. Basically, he said that up until five years ago, he thought he was in the information business, but it turned out he was in the belief challenging business. And when you challenge someone's beliefs, you're inviting them to go through a pretty difficult process that forces them to re-examine just about EVERYTHING they've ever taken for granted. And it's other people's perogative to say, "No thank you," to that invitation.
That's an important thing to keep in mind. People learn by stories, not by data alone. It's been wired into our psyches ever since early humans developed language. When you tell someone the story of Limits to Growth, what you're doing is directly challenging the story of Unlimited Progress that they've lived pretty much their entire lives believing. It's really no different, as John Michael Greer has written, than if you traveled back to England in the year 1000 AD and told a peasant farmer that God, Jesus, and all of the saints were just figments of their imagination, and they had no influence whatsoever over their lives. The reaction you would get would range somewhere on the spectrum of blinkered confusion to chasing you down to burn you at the stake.
What is it that makes the PP crowd different in that regard? I think it's because we are, pretty much as a rule, an intellectually curious bunch (something I've heard Chris M. say in an interview too). I doubt that many of us are economists or mathematicians or even farmers as a "profession" – yet we voluntarily delve into such subjects rather than spend time on such inanity as the Kardashians, Deflate-gate, or hand-wringing over the pandemic of measles that is about to wipe out an entire generation. We read and work on new projects rather than watch TV, because we're more interested in learning and being creative than being mindlessly entertained.
But in my own experience it has become important to keep in mind that this mindset is something that makes me DIFFERENT from the vast majority of people, and that most are never going to develop any interest in these matters, no matter how much prodding we may give them in that direction. As a rule, I try to refrain from pushing these views on others – and the times I end up ignoring that rule anymore it's usually been the result of having a drink or two too many, and never ends up being a productive discussion. The antidote to this (again, in my personal experience) is to try and find other like-minded people to hang out with and discuss these things and work on projects together.
It's also important to keep in mind that, as the situation becomes more difficult for more people, they will be looking around for ways to make their life more livable. If you're known as the eccentric person on the road who is able to produce a lot of food off of a small acreage, when times get tough they'll forget more about the "eccentric" part and instead come to you looking for help. At that point, you'll have another member of your "community" not because you convinced them of the Limits to Growth – but rather because you got head of the curve and provide a tangible example of true abundance just by the way you live your life. As difficult as it is to process on an emotional level for me, this is really much more in alignment with the Permaculture Ethics of Earth Care, People Care, and Return of Surplus (to the first two) than converting the unconverted.
Especially this part:
It's also important to keep in mind that, as the situation becomes more difficult for more people, they will be looking around for ways to make their life more livable.And I would add, 'with the least amount of effort'. I think another difference between PP readers and the world at large is that most people only dig as deep as they have to to make themselves more comfortable, whereas PP readers seem to want to get to something close to the 'truth'.
I hope it's not too harsh a statement, but many people are marked for extinction (by Nature, if you will). We can't be sure in advance which ones exactly, nor does that account for unprepared people who will "make it" and prepared people who won't (by sheer luck). I guess the important thing is to triage the people we encounter as best we can and work with those who look like they're going to "make it" and with those who might "make it" if they get the right help in time. We do a disservice to those two small groups and to ourselves by "wasting" time on the great majority who willfully refuse to wake up. And we at least owe those who seem to be in the majority who aren't going to "make it" to give them at least one effort at waking them up to the truth and not writing them off completely.
"Welcome to the Hunger Games. And may the odds be ever in your favor."
Tom
John…I admire your preparedness, but more than that your willingness to prepare for your neighbors who don't yet understand. I know a lot of hoarders who plan to wall off their compound and have the "to hell with everyone else" attitude. You take prepping to another level. Thanks for reaffirming that charity, compassion, and kindness have a place in even the worst of situations.
One approach, the 5 gallon bucket: Rice, beans, powdered milk, hot sauce, water filter, matches, flashlight, some other odds and ends. Goes for ~$35 per bucket, plan would be for families with kids (to buy them a bit of time). Hoping for a temporarily interrupted or reduced supply chain over time. Hope is not a strategy, however.
If there's a short, abrupt shift that takes out the supply lines…looking at an NSE for many, if not a majority.
After watching your video i found this little gem;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9w6QYPzF2TI
My takeaway point was skill acquisition and knowledge sharing.
Roll on March so that i can start my seedlings! 
Luke, thanks for sharing, interesting video.
Some thoughts that popped up. The final decline (chaos) phase doesn't seem to be 'burnt into the system', but seems to be the result of a number of elements that work together and are mutually reinforcing (not in order of importance):
- A disconnect between the 'top' of the society and the 'bottom', with both having different priorities and pursuing different agendas (with the bottom lacking the organisation to really get its points through).
- Increasingly complicated/ complex hierarchical/ power, administrative systems set up to manage the 'dynasty'. To a large extent these system start as means to increase efficiency (i.e. sluice the maximum of resources to the 'top' and the management of society) and create loyalty to 'the king'. These systems start to live their own lives though and start to be parasitic to society as a whole.
- Focusing on the 'wrong' priorities; wealth, efficiency, rules, religion (which can be a positive force but also a negative one), the 'self' (narcissistic elements), the short term, false pride, the own group, instead of rational and equitable sustainability (resilience is part of this) that covers all of society with its environment (including climate system), and including groups affected by your society.
- Environmental degradation; while the demands/ expectations of society grow (the 'top' needs to grow and have their luxuries and the 'bottom' need to be provided with their 'bread and plays' and some hope), the foundation on which it is built (i.e. ecosystem services, relatively stable conditions) is degrading through.
- In general not being able to adapt to changing conditions and natural/ cultural carrying capacity of society (think population numbers, carrying capacity of ecosystems).
- Growing hostility (internal and external), possibly linked to earlier conflict, abusive relations, cultural differences, others trying to obtain the resources of the initial society.
There is much more depth to be explored here, and I'm certainly missing elements.
A jewel that explores this is the book 'Collapse' from Jared Diamond (much of my thinking is based on this book). For an introduction, see the video http://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse#t-288939
I'll follow the link tomorrow when i'm sober and extend the same courtesy of a thoughtful response. There is also a paper on the cyclical nature of civilisations which i think serves well as a primer, The Fate of Empires written by John Glubb.
The idea that the world might be going to "hell in a hand basket" is depressing and not a fun topic to discuss with anyone, except those of similar ilk. It is very,very hard to drum up any sort of conversation with friends and acquaintances without them looking at you like you have a third eye. People outside of PP generally don't see our predicament because they are not looking for it, not paying attention, don't care…as you accurately note we are all "busy" taking care of the day to day things. The brittleness of our systems we have come to rely on are taken for granted by the vast majority of people. But I think my (teen) kids are starting to get it now.
"Finance and Liberty" recently posted a discussion on "How Bad Will It Get" with Elijah Johnson (FinanceAndLiberty.com), Andy Hoffman (MilesFranklin.com) and Chris Duane (SilverShieldXchange, YouTube.com/Truthnevertold) that I thought may be of interest to some posting on this thread. I don't think there's anything terribly shocking/new. But I found a couple of points they made to be interesting. E.g., they gave one example of a person moving out of the US, only to find hatred of Americans where he moved to. So he moved back, thinking it would safer for him in his own home country during a collapse.
Here's the link:
Why don't we call a spade a spade–the US has become a fascist police state. The bankers, politicians and special interests are all on the same team, and they owe NO allegiance to country, only to their own selfish interests. George Carlin talked about the real owners of this country years ago, when he said, "it's a big club and you ain't in it". This truly does bring up the issue of our beliefs being threatened by facts.
What I liked about Prins was how she talked about about JP Morgan and his friends sorting out the panic of 1907, eventually leading up to the founding of the Fed on that island on that weekend. Despite Chris baiting her, she explained it all as it may actually have happened. People in the same line of business got together and did what had to be done as normal people do. She didn't go in for " New W O" Conspiracies or Evil Master Planners. Ordinary human nature seemed to explain it all. Am I too naive?
From Rolling Stone on 2/9/15: "Will HSBC Deal Come Back to Haunt Loretta Lynch? Deal to save HSBC's American office looks very bad in retrospect". The story is at http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/will-hsbc-deal-come-back-to-haunt-loretta-lynch-20150209,
In a report released on Sunday, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists… said that secret documents revealed that bank employees had reassured clients that HSBC would not disclose details of their accounts to tax authorities in their home countries and discussed options to avoid paying taxes on those assets.This story traces back to a leak of files apparently stolen by a former HSBC IT employee named Herve Falciani in Switzerland in 2007.
Taken out of Switzerland, the files were then shared with authorities in France, Spain, the United States and Britain. The monster flush of info about wealthy tax avoiders came to be referred to as the "Lagarde List," after Christine Lagarde, who was the French Finance minister at the time the information first began to be circulated.
What HSBC's Swiss unit was doing went far beyond passive bank secrecy. The bank was actively helping its wealthiest clients avoid paying taxes in their home countries, sometimes using highly creative methods – a sort of criminal advice service, if you will.
As our analysis concerns human societies I shall attempt to explain how human beings differ in their behaviour from other creatures. I see two unique characteristics inherent in homo sapiens that are not present in any other species;
1) The ability to form abstractions
2) The ability to develop methods for deliberate extermination
Chimp-ManAs a member of the biological kingdom our genome is passed through successful breeding with a healthy partner resulting in children. To maximise the chances that our offspring are successful in mating we enter into competition for the womb of a healthy and attractive female. To maximise our chances at winning the affections of such a female we seek to offer what none of the other primates can – security. Security in chimpanzee societies is obtained through a monopoly on violence within the troop. The alpha-chimp secures the right to the healthiest females by earning recognition through his display of strength. Effectively the chimp is securing recognition for himself by ensuring that all other chimps in the troop acknowledge his ferocity.
1) The ability to form abstractions
Human societies are a little different based upon what we define as recognition. The unique nature of the human brain (namely the large neocortex) allows us to develop complex language. Through this language we can develop abstractions. So whereas a chimp will compete with other chimps to gain recognition for himself, a human will compete with other humans to gain recognition for an abstraction – this can be a flag, a prophet, a culture or an ideology. Undermining this abstraction causes distress. Having another person recognise this abstraction results in happiness for the believer as the body raises the amount of serotonin, a critical neurotransmitter, in his system.2) The ability to develop methods for deliberate extermination
My second point is probably a bit more obvious for all to see. Homo sapiens are the genocidal species par excellence. No other creature on this planet can exterminate life with either the scale or the efficiency that we are capable of. We have utilised our understanding of science (through our ability to abstract) to either exterminate or control other peoples, other species or indeed as unintentional environmental destruction through biological, chemical and nuclear methods.Now if you combine the two; that is – a being who feels distress after having their fundamental value system ridiculed along the ability to commit genocide you have somewhat of a problem.
Last Chance Saloon
Finally, add our necessity to compete for a female into the equation. If our ability to compete is based largely on our underlying values – such as disposable culture, or the acquisition of wealth, it is difficult for me to see how a person would abandon their competitive edge and embrace a simpler existence if he lacks either the charm or the wit to engage a woman. If his sole means to ‘get lucky’ is reliant on either violence or greed then I really don’t see how he will abandon those traits. It would be a form of self-termination.
Abstractions in relation to breeding
Here is where my points regarding the unique attributes of Humanity intersect with those of the Chimp-Man. Men are capable of forming abstractions to aid them in their ability to have healthy and attractive offspring at the expense of a woman’s own desires. Such abstractions include polygyny, God’s mandate to go forth and spread across the earth, homophobia, suppression of women’s rights, sex-slave markets, prima nocte – take your pick.
So where does this put us in the collapse of society?
The Elites
I think the Elites worked this out a long time ago and have since been perfecting Philip 2nd of Macedon’s divide and conquer strategy ever since as a means to be the class who initiate the genocide should it be required. The Technocratic Elite have risen to prominence because they are best able to exploit Man’s abstractions for their own gain. The mandate would simply read; ‘placate Man and he will not rise up.’
In an effort to avoid interaction with us lesser beasts they insulate themselves through a measurement of wealth knowing full well that we will never reach that level of status. To do so requires plunder on the national scale, over which they have a monopoly.
So now you have a disconnect which Jared was talking about in the lecture you posted – the Elite are isolated from the rest of us. They think in short term prosperity at the cost of long term stability. They demand recognition of their wealth and prosperity. They demand access to the healthiest and most prestigious women. And they will rob you to get it, and if that means genocide then so be it.
The collapse comes when there exists no more surplus energy with which to placate us lowly debt-serfs. The Elite take a well-earned holiday, wait until the chaos passes and then return. King’s go into exile. Peasants go to the grave. Just ask Napoleon…