Sunday, May 03, 2009

Is there anything left to write?

It's been rather quiet around Dodosville lately - while a new job (and a full time one at that) and what seems like endless home renovations meant to make our house less of an energy sieve have certainly cut into my writing time, there is something else as well. One of the biggest reasons I haven't written much lately is because I just plain haven't felt inspired to do so. Sure, I felt like writing about Susan Boyle and what a crock of shit the whole thing was, but then I remembered I wrote about the whole thing when the person's name was Paul Potts and I made the same point then that a million other writers did the last few weeks. And sure, I felt like writing about how absurd it is that Canada's ghg emissions are INCREASING at a higher rate than the U.S.'s and that Saskatchewan, the one freaking province who is weathering the recession rather well, is scrapping their election promise to reduce ghg emissions because is would be "a pretty huge burden on industry," but then I thought - what's the point? Nothing I write here makes a shred of difference to those in power (or those who vote mind you, because let's be honest, I'm preaching to the choir here). And there were a million other things I thought I should write about and then I realized that when it comes right down to it, I feel like I've said it all. Or at the least, I've said all I want to say at this point and time.


Look, the reality is that we as a civilization are on the wrong side of inevitability. The die has been cast and we are looking at a long decline back to animal power and the extinction of Wal-Mart and all its kind. Those of you who read this blog know that. I know that. And we also all know that unless there is some major change in the way that the current mass of humanity thinks and acts, we won't do a damn thing about it until it's too late. We've invested so much into the myth of progress that we will never, ever let it go until it's far too late (which it may already be). So at this point, the only sensible solution is to prepare for the worst. Reduce your energy usage. Eliminate your debt. Grow as much of your own food as possible. Find a safe and stable community of people you can rely on. I'm repeating myself here because I've said it all before, as have many others. At some point, you have to wonder how many times you can say the same thing over again in as many different ways as possible. I'm just not that talented a writer.

Now I'm not saying this because I'm ending this blog - Dodosville is too close to my heart and it will never cease to exist. What it does mean is that posting will probably be far more sporadic. For too long I've let my words take precedence over my actions and I need to start dedicating my time and energy to achieving what it is I need to do rather than talking about it. When it comes right down to it, words are cheap (just ask any non-enlisted chicken shit who rambles on endlessly about the goodness of the mission in Afghanistan from behind a computer in suburban Canada). We all know that. Actions are what really matter - there are a million books out there telling us how fucked up the world is and not one has created the mass movement we need to create a more sustainable world. At some point, all of us who write about this stuff need to take matters into our own hands and realize that while words are great, they can only take us so far. Plus at some point, aren't we just covering the same ground and in effect, going nowhere? While I am a huge fan of Derrick Jensen, his message board strikes me as an endless loop of information about how screwed the world is with occasional cries of "we need to take civilization down now" followed by more information about how screwed the world is followed again by more cries of how it all needs to stop, etc.., etc..., etc...

So in short, yeah, I just feel tired of writing. Or just plain tired. Or uninspired. Or a million other reasons. But again, it doesn't mean I'm stopping. It just means that posting might be weekly or bi-weekly or whatever, until inspiration strikes. Or until I have something meaningful to say again.
Recommend this Post

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

The Man who Allowed me to Sleep Again - A Review of The Long Descent

The peak oil world can sometimes be a very depressing world. There is no doubt that peak oil is a reality and that in my lifetime we will see consequences - the depressing part is that like all things that challenge the myth of progress, most well meaning people either A) have no idea what peak oil is, or B) if they do know what it is, stubbornly refuse to believe that it could be possible. The result is a society that is in no way, shape or form ready to take on the challenges that lay ahead.

The other depressing aspect of peak oil is the fear of a quick and nasty collapse of civilized society. As much as I realize the need for civilization to come to an end because of the destruction it causes the natural world, ourselves included, I am still very much dependent on the system. While I am far less dependent on the system than your average middle class suburban dweller, I still require the system to survive. An overnight collapse has haunted me for a long time because I know that I'm not prepared and it certainly is not because of a lack of knowledge - it's a lack of means (read - money), time and energy. Being reliant on the system means that it's hard to extricate ourselves from it.

Enter John Michael Greer, or as I call him - "The man who allowed me to sleep again." Greer is the Grand Archdruid of the Ancient Order of Druids in America, an organic gardener and author of one of my favorite blogs, the Archdruid Report. His latest book, The Long Descent: A User's Guide to the End of the Industrial Age, is a must-read for any person who thinks about peak oil and the end of civilization. What separates Greer's book from all the other's that deal with peak oil, climate change, or anti-civilization is his belief, based on history, that civilization will not end overnight:

This same pattern repeats over and over again in history. Gradual disintegration, not sudden catastrophic collapse, is the way civilizations end. On average, it takes about 250 years for a civilization to complete the process of decline to fall (27).
Greer likens the demise of our civilization to a staircase - there will be periods of extreme chaos and those of peace and even prosperity (with each step down being at a lower level of technology and wealth). Ultimately, when all is said and done, life in the world will be much like it was 300 years ago. We will live with limited technology and energy sources (human and animal muscle) and we will live much more locally. The key, according to Greer's, is to start preparing for that world today - it is an inevitability and one that we cannot avoid. We can, however, make the transition as easy as can possibly be.

What separates Greer from most peak oil enthusiasts (for lack of a better term) is that he rejects most of their solutions - to Greer, political action, survivalism and lifeboat communities are not the solution:
The core assumption to all three proposals is that there's no middle ground between preserving the modern industrial system intact and a rapid descent into primal chaos... There's a wide middle ground between contemporary society and a Road Warrior struggle of all against all. It's in the middle ground that the most likely futures of the industrial world will take shape, and aiming for a constructive response to the futures of the middle ground is in all probability the best strategy we have (128).
The constructive response that Greer suggests is one that see people A) reduce their energy use as much as possible (peak oil doesn't effect those who use no oil), B) choose a profession/skill that people will need even in hard times (and one that uses little energy and simple technology), C) take care of your own health care (the industrial health care model will die a painful death with peak oil), and D) build community networks.

Greer's advice is as commonsense as it gets - peak oil and the decline of civilization are inevitable but there are things we can do to mitigate the consequences. And we have time to prepare because it won't happen overnight. The key is to start now and in the wise words of the Boy Scouts, "be prepared." I'm already well on my way to reducing my energy use and building community networks, but far behind in learning a low tech skill (I'm thinking beer making would be ideal because as Greer says, even in the hardest times people still want beer) and learning to care for myself outside the mainstream health care system. But instead of being paralyzed by fear that I have to hurry because collapse could happen tomorrow I know that I have some time - not much mind you, but enough to not feel panicked. And that's why I can sleep again
Recommend this Post

Thursday, April 09, 2009

Mr. Future Speaks about Twitter

Sorry for the lack of substantial posts lately. Busy at work and trying to fix my house - long story that I'll share with you all soon. So instead, get a good laugh from Mr. Future and his thoughts about modern forms of communication. H/t to Canuck Guy for sending me this and giving me a good and needed laugh.

Recommend this Post

Monday, April 06, 2009

William Black on Wall Street Fraud

Found a great interview of William Black by Bill Moyers. Black does a great job detailing the fraud that has occurred on Wall Street, but the coverup at the political level as well. His advice - we need a major bipartisan panel to look at how we got here and uncover the fraud that has transpired. Only then will the U.S.'s economic system be fixed.





Recommend this Post

Saturday, April 04, 2009

All A Twitter

Everyone and their dog seems to be writing about Twitter these days and since I hate being left out (probably because when I was a fat kid I was always picked last in Dodge Ball) I need to put my two cents in. In short, I just don't get it. Well that's not true - I do get it. In a world full of self-obsessed computer addicts who replace virtual with real experience, Twitter is just the next step in our anti-social evolution. What I don't get is A) how people find enough time and exciting daily events to fill multiple tweets a day, and B) why people care about the minutiae of daily occurrences in other peoples lives. I am by no means interesting enough to fill out multiple tweets in a day. In fact, if I were to Twitter my day yesterday, it would have looked this this:

6:45 - Fuck I'm tired. Dreamt of George Bush naked again. Think I need help.

7:45 - Yum, Bran Flakes.

9:00 - At work. Drinking third cup of coffee today. It tastes like cat pee.

12:00 - Still at work. Eating a sandwich.

2:00 - Going home - ah, the life of a contract worker.

3:00 - Taking the dogs for a walk. Love picking up dog poop. No, really.

5:00 - Watching Seinfeld. Who the hell would ever waste money buying the DVDs when it's on TV 14 times a day.

6:00 - Ate dinner. Bran Flakes rock!

7:00 - Off to Yoga my week away.

10:00 - Bed time. Sleepy.

Seriously, I nearly fell asleep writing that shit. It's my life and I don't even care. Why would anyone else? Have we become so narcissistic as a society (and please, that is a rhetorical question - I know the answer), that we need to update everyone on every little detail of our lives? Do we think that we are that interesting? Do we think that people should care that much that I ate a sandwich? Do we really need more reasons to spend time on our computers and in the virtual world rather than actually sitting across from someone and telling them, in person, about our day?


I know I sound like the crotchety old man sitting on his front stoop, but I've just about had enough. Look, I love my computer. If it had interactive sexual software I would probably get it on with my Mac, but I think I've learned where to draw the line. Computer's are supposed to supplement our lives, not become them. And no-one will ever convince me that our social interactions on here are even close to being on par with those we have with other flesh humans. I've often cited it, but in 2006 a study was released that showed that 25% of Americans felt they had no one to turn too. 1 in 4 people are completely alone. In a world with so many supposed communication tools, that is a mind-blowing statistic. And it's why I believe things like Twitter take us in the wrong direction. We can spend hours reading about others lives and commenting on our own - but are we really living them?
Recommend this Post

Monday, March 30, 2009

Peter Schiff Was Right

Since I am not an economist (and in fact, I failed Math 11), it's been very difficult for me to figure out what the hell is going on with the economy. Everyone has their own interpretation of what's happened and what we need to do and since my understanding of all things economic is so weak, it's hard to decipher for myself who's right and who's an idiot. But like all things in this world, sometimes you need to wade thru a lot of shit in order to find out the truth and Peter Schiff seems like as close to the truth as we have. Schiff called this disaster long before anyone else did and while he was roundly mocked as being too pessimistic (sound familiar?) he was ultimately right. So if I'm going to take my cues from anyone over what's happened and what needs to be done, I think I'll go with the guy who called it from the start. So as a primer, here's a recent video of Schiff on MSNBC. For more info, I would suggest his website - Euro Pacific Capital.



I think one of the interesting things is in regards to the clips that they use to roll into the interview - people were laughing at Schiff and asking him how fun he was at parties. The message being that A) the faith people have in the system is above all else, and B) its laughable to ever suggest the system can fail. To do so makes you negative and pessimistic - its make you Mr. Mopey Pants rather than someone who looks at the reality of things, rather than the fantasy. I would rather be a Dr. Doom than an idiot with my head in the sand believing that things will always be as they were. The latter is the best way to get caught with your pants down, the former the best way to be prepared for what is about to come. Dr. Doom Peter Schiff was right - all the other talking heads were wrong. It's a lesson that we all need to learn.

(BTW - I also hate the suggestion that being a critic of civilization and warning others of its demise means that you are "no fun at parties." I am actually quite a fun person. I don't walk around all day with my hands in the pockets, head down, worrying about the end of the world. In fact, I feel great because I know that when the inevitable decline happens I will be prepared. The suggestion that I'm no fun because I engage in the dissemination of troubling information is simply a response from people who cannot let go off the fantasy that this is the "one right way to live" and that in the end, technology will save us. Calling people like Schiff doomsayers says way more about the people saying it than Schiff or anyone else in his position.)Recommend this Post

Thursday, March 26, 2009

The Problem With Earth Hour

The hard facts are these: If we sum up the easy, cost-effective, eco-efficiency measures we should all embrace, the best we get is a slowing of environmental damage... Obsessing over recycling and installing a few special light bulbs won't cut it. We need to look at fundamental changes in our energy transportation and agricultural systems rather than technological tweaking on the margins, and this means changes and costs that our current and would-be leaders seem afraid to discuss. 
From Thomas Friedman's Hot, Flat, and Crowded
When I first started to write this post the working title was "Fuck Earth Hour." I guess at the time I was feeling particularly ornery and felt like making a statement with the title - but after heading out to yoga and getting my wits back about me, I realized that not only was the title too harsh it was also unfair. I don't mean any ill-will towards the WWF (the creators of Earth Hour) or those who participate - when it comes to climate change doing something is better than doing nothing and so far we as a species have been doing a whole lot of the latter. But saying that, I think that ultimately, events like Earth Hour have the potential to be dangerous, just like the "go green" movement launched by countless companies and environmentalists. The reason? At the end of the day they give people a false sense of what we need to do in order to mitigate the coming disaster.

The theme for Earth Hour this year is "Your light switch is your vote." Essentially, if you turn your lights off for one hour you are telling the world that you vote for doing something about climate change and in effect, for the Earth. While an interesting and neat idea my concern with this is that some people will replace turning off their lights for an hour with real action. Not only that, the real fear is that people will come to think that solving the climate crisis is as easy as shutting off your lights every once in a while. Look, being green is the new chic fad. Everyone who is anyone changes their light bulbs, recycles and composts. And those are all great things but at the end of the day they are the bare fucking minimum we need to do. I think the problem is that most left leaning and well meaning people have an ethos that a local hot tub company is explicitly stating in their radio ads: "I want to reduce my footprint without altering my lifestyle." 

The bottom line is that we will never buy our way out of the climate and environmental problems we face. You can't go to Home Depot install a low flow toilet and put insulation in your attic and be done - especially if you are living in a 2,000 sq foot home. It's just not possible. George Monbiot, amongst others, has argued that if we want to avoid the real nasty aspects of climate change we need to reduce our emissions by 90% (and we will undoubtedly face some consequences even if we stopped emitting C02 all together tomorrow). Since 2000, we have been increasing our emissions by 3% a year - we have been headed the wrong way for a long time now. While switching to CFL's and high efficiency furnaces is certainly a step in the right direction, the real change we need is a complete and total rework of not only how we live, but how we think about our place in the world - in short, we need to end the experiment of civilization. We need to reconstitute our communities so that they are walkable, end the unsustainable horror that is suburbia and make it so every home is a net zero home; we need to make it so all the food a person eats comes from their garden or a local farmer (no more 3000 mile Caesar Salads); we need to put an end to our car culture; people need to stop flying; we need to shut down every single coal fired power plant; we have to stop consuming like our life depends on it; we have to reduce the global population by a lot; we have to revitalize the railways; and we have to realize that we were not meant to rule the world (and by no means is this an exhaustive list). At the end of the day, we have to live at an energy consumption level like people did 100 years ago. 

Now people have said to me that at least things like Earth Hour bring awareness to climate change - and my response is always the same. If you haven't heard about climate change yet your probably an idiot and won't ever do anything about it anyways. Others have said to me, well, if you tell people how much they really need to do they will just throw up their arms and give up because the challenge is too great. My response is twofold - generations have sacrificed much more in the past (granted they were a lot less narcissistic and materialistic than the current humans we have living here), and if we tell them the solutions are easy now and then later tell them they have to do a lot more, their going to wonder why they were lied too. Not to mention the fact that the need for action is urgent - we need to start acting seriously now or all move to the Arctic, which will end up being the last hospitable area of the planet if we continue to allow ghg emissions to sky-rocket. Ultimately, the problem with Earth Hour and similar campaigns (such as One Million Acts of Green) lies in that it propagates the belief that the solutions to climate change are easy and simple and can be bought at your local hardware store. So if you really want to vote for the Earth, sure turn our your lights, but above all fundamentally change how you live your life. There is no other way. 
Recommend this Post

Monday, March 23, 2009

The Need for Compatible Solutions (or no Solutions at all)

A few weeks ago I attended a presentation on renewable energy. The gist of the evening was that given the realities of climate change, we need to find renewable and non-fossil fuel energies (and engage in a serious societal wide energy efficiency retrofit) in order to power our way of life. The presenters argued that wind was the best placed renewable source to replace oil and coal given how cheap, reliable and ubiquitous it is - sure, there are issues such as storage which need to be worked out (and yes, this is a huge issue that was glossed over by the presenters), but if you're gonna back a horse in the renewable energy race, wind is the one to get behind. While I certainly believe that there is a place for wind in our future, overall, the presentation just didn't sit right with me. Did we really want to replace all the energy we use given the problems its created for us? And by relying on wind and other renewables, weren't we just making other problems we face worse? 


As I see it, the problem with wind generation is twofold. First off, in order to generate enough wind to power our way of life, even after a worldwide efficiency overhaul, our country sides and cities would literally be covered in windmills. While windmills can be placed in a way so that the site's are multi-use, there is also the serious issue of those towers interfering with birds. Just today a report was issued by the U.S. government which showed that the U.S. is in the midst of "a four-decade decline in many of the country's bird populations" (source), with part of the blame being thrown at different types of energy production, including wind. Secondly, the presenters argued that in order to deal with the issue of  wind's inconsistent nature (it doesn't blow all the time, although in Saskatchewan it sure as fuck feels like it), hydro could be used in conjunction to back it up. Now if you know anything about hydro power, you'll know that not only do dams cause terrible damage to the land itself and the indigenous populations who tend to inhabit those lands (see the James Bay hydro project in Northern Quebec for example, or the Three Gorges project in China), but they also hinder and kill many fish species who inhabit those dammed rivers. While hydro, like nuclear, is called clean energy by its proponents, that only relates to the amount of ghg it produces, not the damage it does to the environment. And therein lies the problem - while wind may be a great solution to climate change and peak oil, it only exasperates other problems we face, namely environmental degradation and species loss and ultimately, why we can't pursue wind generation to the depths that many want us too. 

The way I see it, the problems we face can be broken down into 5 categories:
  • Peak Oil
  • Climate Change
  • Overpopulation
  • Environmental Degradation (this includes ecosystem destruction, species loss, and pollution)
  • Personal Dysfunction
As we move forward to try and create a more sustainable society, we must make sure that the solutions we present for one problem don't make others worse. For example, there is no point in solving peak oil by moving to coal if that will only cause climate change and environmental degradation to worsen. There is no point trying to solve climate change by moving to biofuels, because that will just result in more forests being chopped down. So moving forward, government, environmental organizations, and whoever else is working on these problems can't work in isolation - we all have to work together to produce the best solutions possible for all our problems. 

One of the bigger issues we have to face, however, is whether or not there are solutions to some of these problems and if there is, whether we actually want to employ them. Take for example the issue of peak oil - the reality is that given the severe problems we face in the world, we may never find an alternative energy source that A) can provide us with a decent amount of energy, and B) doesn't make some of our other problems worse. Furthermore, even if we can find a source of energy that replaces oil and has no harmful environmental side effects, do we really want to produce the same amount of energy we currently use given what we've done with all that energy the last one hundred plus years? If we can use wind to replicate what we get from oil and coal, won't we just continue to live the same kind of life with all the same environmental, population, and personal problems (save climate change) that we currently face? Now I doubt that wind or any other alternative energy ever could give us what oil has, but we need to start asking ourselves some tough questions about the solutions we propose to solve our problems. We need a plan, or at least, some sort of end point - where do we want to end up? Do we want the same way of life with the only difference being how we power it? Or do we want a different way of life that lives in more harmony with its surroundings and makes human beings more happy? If we answer that, then maybe we can start looking at real solutions, rather than just rushing ahead nilly-willy, doing more harm than good. 
Recommend this Post

Friday, March 20, 2009

George Galloway Banned From Entering Canada

One of the concerns of the crash is seeing the government or some other entity use the hardship to crack down on free speech and civil liberties. While most of us like to think of Canada as a relatively free country, we might have more to be concerned about than we think as news out of England today is that British anti-war MP George Galloway has been banned from entering Canada because of his views on the war in Afghanistan, and apparently because the Jewish Defence League doesn't like him very much. Here is the full article:

Anti-war MP George Galloway has been banned from Canada, it emerged today.

A Canadian spokesman confirmed that the Respect MP had been deemed inadmissible on national security grounds and would not be allowed into the country.

Galloway today branded the ban "idiotic" and vowed to fight the ruling with "all means" at his disposal. He is due to give a speech in Toronto on 30 March.

Earlier today The Sun said border security officials had declared Galloway, 54, "inadmissible" because of his views on Afghanistan and the presence of Canadian troops there and would be turned away if he attempted to enter the country.

A spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Canada said the decision had been taken by border security officials "based on a number of factors" in accordance with section 34(1) of the country's immigration act.

The act states:

"A permanent resident or a foreign national is inadmissible on security grounds for:

(a) engaging in an act of espionage or an act of subversion against a democratic government, institution or process as they are understood in Canada;

(b) engaging in or instigating the subversion by force of any government;

(c) engaging in terrorism;

(d) being a danger to the security of Canada;

(e) engaging in acts of violence that would or might endanger the lives or safety of persons in Canada; or

(f) being a member of an organisation that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c)."

Immigration minister Jason Kenney has the right to exempt people from the act if it is felt that their presence would not be "detrimental to the national interest".

But the spokesman said Kenney would "decline to exercise that discretion" in Galloway's case.

Responding to the news, Galloway issued a statements headed: "This idiotic ban shames Canada."

He is this afternoon exploring with organisers of his speaking tour and with legal advisors avenues to challenge the decision, which he branded "irrational, inexplicable and an affront to Canada's good name".

Galloway said: "This decision, gazetted in Rupert Murdoch's Sun, is a very sad day for the Canada we have known and loved – a bastion of the freedoms that supporters of the occupation of Afghanistan claim to be defending.

"This has further vindicated the anti-war movement's contention that unjust wars abroad will end up consuming the very liberties that make us who we are.

"This may be a rather desperate election ploy by a conservative government reaching the end of line, or by a minister who has not cottoned on to the fact that the George Bush era is over.

"All right-thinking Canadians, whether they agree with me over the wisdom of sending troops to Afghanistan or not, will oppose this outrageous decision.

"On a personal note – for a Scotsman to be barred from Canada is like being told to stay away from the family home.

"This is not something I'm prepared to accept."

Galloway, MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, is due to speak at a public forum entitled Resisting War from Gaza to Kandahar, hosted by Toronto Coalition to Stop the War later this month.

He is also due to speak at a second public forum in Mississauga, just west of Toronto, on 31 March.

His proposed visit prompted the Jewish Defence League of Canada to write an open letter to the country's government urging it to do "everything possible to keep this hater away".

In 2006, Galloway was refused entry to Egypt on the grounds of national security after he travelled to the country to give evidence at a "mock trial" of former prime minister Tony Blair and ex-US president George W Bush.

He was held overnight in a police cell before the authorities changed their minds and allowed him into the country.
Recommend this Post

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Stephen Harper doesn't know what's going on with the economy

h/t to Steve at Far and Wide for this video.

 


All I can say is that it is totally irresponsible for the Prime Minister of Canada to be telling people that the current economic problems aren't that bad and that we are the best place to get out of said problems and will probably be first (and it's even worse considering, as Mercer points out, how wrong and all over the map he's been in regards to the economy so far). Let's not gloss over the problem here. As David Dodge said yesterday, 
Canada and the world are facing a long and deep recession that will fundamentally alter the nature of capitalism, former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge said in an exclusive interview a year after he left the bank.

Recovery “is not going to be as quick as everybody thinks,” he said on Tuesday. “I think anybody would be dreaming in Technicolor to think that you're going to get through this by the third quarter of this year” (source).
One thing we all seem to be forgetting is that our recovery hinges on recovery in the U.S. They are our biggest trading partner - if things continue to be flushed down the toilet there, we will follow. If no one is buying our oil or timber, we will suffer. Period. We also need to remember that Canada is losing jobs at twice the rate per capita than Americans. That doesn't bold well for a quick recovery. Now obviously, Stephen Harper needs to be optimistic - a recession on your watch is death in politics. If Canada doesn't climb out of this soon, it will be his head in the next election. But there is a difference between being optimistic and being foolish. This is the same man who during the election campaign last year said it was a good time to invest. One can only imagine how much you would have lost personally if you had done that - and this man is a freaking economist! If he was a real leader he would be honest with us - nobody knows how long this will last, so better safe than sorry. Telling people we will be out of this soon will only give people false hope and it might give them the permission they need to go out and spend foolishly, only to lose their job in 6 months and end up on the street.
Recommend this Post

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

A bad day for rationality

For those of us who believe in being rational (and look to things like evidence and cause and effect), loading up the Globe and Mail's first page was a bit rough today. First off we had an article on Pope Benedict's trip to Africa, where the pope has stated in regards to condom distribution in Africa in an attempt to curb the AIDS epidemic that "[y]ou can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms...On the contrary, it increases the problem" (source). If anyone can explain to me how using condoms increases the number of people with AIDS, I'm all ears. The reality is that if the Catholic church would just endorse condoms, rather than the failure known as abstinence, the AIDS epidemic would at the very least have a chance of being dealt with. 


Secondly we have an article on Gary Goodyear, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, who won't answer whether or not he believes in one of the cornerstones of modern science - evolution. Goodyear, a Christian, when asked about whether he believes in evolution said that "I'm not going to answer that question. I am a Christian, and I don't think anybody asking a question about my religion is appropriate" (source). The question is, why is the Minister of State for Science and Technology a Christian who seems to not believe in evolution? Isn't that like having a Health Minister who is a Jehovah Witness, or an Environment Minister who used to be a CEO of an oil sands company? And does this explain why there were cuts in the last budget in regards to scientific research (which was a travesty given the need for vast amounts of money we need to invest in alternative energy technologies)? 

And finally, in an attempt to speed up the boondoggle known as Canada's stimulus package, the Globe reported this morning that,
For the next two years, certain public projects will be excused from the rigorous federal environmental assessment process in order to get Canadians working and stimulate the sluggish economy, the Conservative government announced yesterday.

Environment Minister Jim Prentice told a receptive business audience in Calgary that the move is intended to streamline the approval process, and insisted that projects won't go ahead at the expense of the environment (source).
Now first off, no kidding Calgary's business community was receptive to the move - being able to move forward with projects without doing an environmental impact assessment is like telling an obese person they can lose weight by eating chocolate. Of course they will be excited, but that doesn't mean it will have a positive effect. For too long we have destroyed our environment in the name of economic growth - now it seems we will continue to destroy it in the name of economic recovery, and at a time when more and more people are becoming aware of the damage we are doing to our ecosystems and what the long term consequences will be. 

Now I'm not one who believes that science will cure all our problems - in many cases, science has been the problem. But being rational about things is what is needed more than anything. We can't cure the problems that we face by ignoring the reality of the world - AIDS is spread by unprotected sex (and the poor status of women in many parts of the world), evolution has and will continue to occur, and the environment is more important than the economy. Rational people don't disagree with these things - ideologues and religious nut cases do and for too long have they run our world. If we are to have any chance to work towards a new way of living, we need people who care about being rational, weighing evidence, and being objective and not ideological. Ideology and religion have proven to be wrong about too many things - it's time we left them in the dust and started worrying about what works and what doesn't. It's all that matters. 
Recommend this Post

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Population Problem

All measures to thwart the degradation and destruction of our ecosystem will be useless if we do not cut population growth. By 2050, if we continue to reproduce at the current rate, the planet will have between 8 billion and 10 billion people, according to a recent U.N. forecast. This is a 50 percent increase. And yet government-commissioned reviews, such as the Stern report in Britain, do not mention the word population. Books and documentaries that deal with the climate crisis, including Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," fail to discuss the danger of population growth. This omission is odd, given that a doubling in population, even if we cut back on the use of fossil fuels, shut down all our coal-burning power plants and build seas of wind turbines, will plunge us into an age of extinction and desolation unseen since the end of the Mesozoic era, 65 million years ago, when the dinosaurs disappeared.
 - Chris Hedges in his article, Are We Breeding Ourselves to Extinction?
Of all the problems that we face, there is little doubt that the issue of population will not only be the most difficult to solve but is also one that inflames the most passion. As animals we are hardwired to breed and maintain the species. Offspring are a source of pride and joy for parents, and having them is seen as one of our fundamental rights. The vast majority of us don't want to be told how many kids we can have, but the truth is that in the near future, as our population continues to soar, resources begin to dwindle ever more, and the destruction of our biosphere becomes ever more complete, there might be a time when the number of kids will be legislated. 

Now many will argue that the population problem isn't a first world problem but a developing and third world problem. And there is some truth to that. But we need to keep two things in mind. One is that first world people use many more resources per capita than developing and third world people do (and as a result, we also produce more C02 and destroy ecosystems and non-human life at a greater rate). As Hedges points out, "[t]he United States alone gobbles up about 25 percent of the oil produced in the world each year." I don't need to tell you that the U.S. doesn't make up 25% of the world's population. As first worlders, we are much more responsible for resource use, ecosystem destruction, and climate change than all the developing world and third world individuals combined. So if our populations increase even the slightest, and they are as a result of immigration, our footprint does as well - much more than a developing or third world country does with much more growth. The second thing we need to keep in mind is that, in the words of Thomas Friedman, "the world is flat." We live in a global community and the first world gets many of their resources and commodities from developing and third world countries - as their populations continue to grow and industrialize (as is happening in China and India), they will use more and more of their local resources and, as Hedges states, those "resources that industrialized nations consider their birthright will become harder and more expensive to obtain." In a global and rapidly developing world, overpopulation anywhere affects people everywhere. So whether or not this is a developing or third world problem is irrelevant - we will all face the consequences.

So what do we do about it because I for one don't want to live in a world of 10 billion people all wanting and trying to live like Canadians and Americans. We would need something like 12 planets in order to do so, but we have only one and all the efficiency, alternative energy, and conservation programs in the world will fail unless we address the underlying problem we face - there are too damn many of us living in this world and if we continue to breed at the rate we are, we will gobble up whatever resources we have left (and fight with each other over those remaining resources as the dwindle faster and faster), destroy whatever natural areas are left standing in order to get at those resources, and kill off whatever species we haven't already (us included). While the solution to things like climate change are relatively easy (we need to invest heavily in efficiency and alternative energy and adjust our expectations in terms of what is a good life), the population problem has no easy solution. Actually, that's not true - the solution is to A) have people limit themselves to one child per couple, B) provide women in third world and developing countries with education and access to contraception, and C) get the world's religious institutions to stop opposing contraception, especially in the developing and third world. The difficulty in doing this is having people overcome their instinct and their cultural training - we want to have children. Many people are defined by their ability to do so. And considering the long-standing debate over abortion, one can only imagine what type of chaos would ensue if a non-dictatorship (read - not China), tried to implement a one child policy. It would be pandemonium. But all I can say is that when thinking about having kids think about the future of those kids - they will be the one's who have to deal with the fallout from over-population, not us. 

Note - Just in case somebody misinterprets what I'm saying, I am in no way suggesting a cull of the human species or forced sterilization or any other drastic measure. I am suggesting a course of action that A) allows people to still have a child, and B) creates the least amount of hardship. Will there be consequences to a "one child policy?" No doubt - as we saw in China, preferences for what gender parents wanted led to infanticide. I'm sure abortion rates would increase as well. The point is that we can either A) continue to breed like it's 1950 and let our children suffer the real and serious consequences of an over-populated world, or B) be responsible and let our children have a decent chance at living a decent life. 
Recommend this Post

Saturday, March 07, 2009

Earth and the American Dream

Recommend this Post

Friday, March 06, 2009

What do you want to be when you grow up?

When I was a little boy I was always asked, like most little boys and girls, what I wanted to be when I grew up. For the first three or four years of my life, my answer was always the same - I wanted to be a fire-truck and the answer was always met with a round of laughter and giggles. To this day, I think it's probably the best idea I've ever had.


I've always thought it was cruel to ask kids this question, especially when you think that the vast majority of things we want to be when we grow up, whether it is a fire-truck, a third basemen for the Philadelphia Phillies, or an astronaut, we, for the most part, never become. Nobody growing up says I want to be a chartered accountant or a bureaucrat - well, some might, but those would be pretty creepy fucking kids if you ask me. It's almost like we get setup - what do you want to be Billy? A movie star? Oh, how cute. How crushing is it to poor little Billy when he ends up spending his life in a cubicle writing TPS reports and getting 12 calls from 12 different bosses telling him he forgot to attach the new cover page? I've long thought that part of the crushing disappointment of many 20 and 30 somethings is the fact that we felt lied too and deceived when we were young - why were we promised such glorious futures, and why the hell didn't anyone tell us not to dream of becoming a fire-truck, when the chances of it happening are so slim? It's kind of like the whole Santa Claus thing - how badly do we create trust issues in young children after telling them repeated lies about Santa Claus? It's no wonder so many people don't get along with their parents - they get lied too and promised the world, and end up working at Wal-Mart and realizing their first few Christmas' were based on a lie.

The other thing I don't get is why were only allowed to pick one thing? Why do we want to pigeon hole kids into doing just one thing? One thing I've struggled with as an adult in the working world is that my skills, like many other peoples, are very limited (and I don't mean that I have limited skills - I mean that my skills only translate to a limited number of occupations and circumstances). We have become so specialized in our skill set today that when we lose our jobs, or quit, generally we need to find something within the exact same field which can be difficult at times. And not only that, but we have become dependent on numerous others with specialized skills in order to get along in this world. We rely on farmers to grow our food, child labourers to make our clothes, and any number of specialists to maintain our homes. We are totally fucked if the system comes crashing down because none of us have any of the skills we need to survive. As a writer/researcher/teacher, my skills are useless in a post-collapse world. If I don't develop those skills or find others who have them, I'm in deep, deep trouble. 

So what's the point of all this? Next time you talk with the little one's, don't ask them what they want to be when they grow up. Instead, try and get them interested in as many things as possible - the more practical the better. Not only will they not get their souls crushed when they finally enter the work world, but they will be far better suited for a world that looks more ominous by the day. 
Recommend this Post

Tuesday, March 03, 2009

The End of Cell Phones - Another reason to love the collapse

I hate cell phones. Hate them. I hate that when I go out with someone and their phone rings or they get a text, their attention moves away from me and the time we're spending with each other and moves to their phone. I'm the one who has made the effort to go out and spend time with this person, so why does the person who has gone to such great lengths to, you know, pick up a phone get priority? I honestly think that cell phones have done more to damage people's inter-personal relationships than any other technological device (well other than TV). I've read stories about young people getting together and having texting parties rather than just speaking face to face because I guess that's so 20th C. Just tonight I was out at a pub and saw three middle aged men sitting together, not saying a word, each looking at their cell phones, probably checking their e-mail or the latest sports scores. I mean, what's the point of going out then? Why not just sit at home and text each other and save the $20 for dinner.

And please, don't get me started on what cell phones and texting are doing to people's writing skills. Then there's the issue of cell phones and driving -people don't need anymore distractions than cars already give us. A few weeks ago I narrowly avoided getting t-boned my a young woman who ran a red light while talking on her cell phone. She even got bonus points for giving me the finger after I honked at her. Now I understand that cell phones have their place in society - they are great for emergencies, but we've allowed them far too prominent a place in our lives. When the crash comes (and given the financial news the last couple of days, it might come even sooner than I thought), one of the best parts might be an end, or at the very least, a downturn, in the culture of distraction that we've created with all our technological gadgetry. And I for one, can't waitRecommend this Post

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Shifting our expectations

What is required now is for this country to pull together, confront boldly the challenges we face, and take responsibility for our future once more....In other words, we have lived through an era where too often, short-term gains were prized over long-term prosperity; where we failed to look beyond the next payment, the next quarter, or the next election.
There is little doubt that we face a great many challenges today in our quest to create a more sustainable and less damaging way of life. But not all of these challenges are equal - some will be harder to deal with than others. Many of the challenges we face require easier technological solutions, such as producing commercially viable alternative and renewable energies such as wind and solar and the batteries we need to store the energy they produce. Granted, finding the political will to come up with the money for these technological solutions will be difficult, especially if we continue down the nuclear or "clean coal" path as a solution to our current energy problem, but those challenges don't seem totally over-whelming. With enough money and will we can produce any technology we set our minds too. I like to think of these challenges as "do-able." Tough yes, but not out of the realm of possibility for a culture that has produced nuclear weapons, the Internet and iPods.

No, I think the biggest challenges we will face won't be technological, but personal. We as a people have taken conspicuous consumption and immediate gratification to a level Aldous Huxley almost couldn't imagine. For fifty plus years now, the people of our culture have come to expect that when they want something (and given the perverse levels of TV we watch, that's pretty fucking often), we simply walk out the door and get it. We are a people who define ourselves by what we have - our entire social system is based on the notion that the more you have, the better off you are. But as we all know, this continuous chase to keep up with the Jones', or in recent years, the Jolie-Pitt's and Winfrey's, has not only done horrific damage to our personal well-being, but to the planet and our non-human neighbours. The consumer orgy we have undertaken since the end of WWII has all been about meeting our immediate material needs and never once have we taken into account what the long-term affects of our actions will have. But as we face a warming climate, a sixth great extinction, and untold environmental destruction, the actions of the past are starting to catch up to us - they always do.

For too long the future has been ignored by the people of our culture. It has been said of traditional Aboriginal peoples that when they made decisions, they always had in mind how those decisions would impact those of the seventh generation, meaning they were conscious of the long-term implications of their actions. We're lucky if we take into account what will happen seven minutes after we make a decision. We are not great long-term thinkers - and that's where our greatest challenge will be. How do we as a people, who have been raised to think only about the present and what we can get out of it, start to worry about the future? Part of the problem is that most people can't, or won't, connect our daily actions to larger consequences (see climate change skeptics). We've lived in such a consumer/TV bubble for so long, completely disconnected from nature, that for most there is no outside world to reap the consequences of their actions. There is only them, their house, their car, their family, their TV, and their stores. But that insular world has come to an end and we need to adjust our thinking - every action and step we take from here on out must take into account the long-term consequences of those actions, whether those consequences will be faced by the land, our non-human neighbours or future human generations.

The good news is that by shifting our focus away from our immediate material gratification, maybe we humans can find our happiness again. Maybe we can re-discover that while TV is fun, real-life human beings are so much more fun. Maybe we will learn that while driving everywhere is convenient, walking or riding a bus is a great way to connect with your community. And maybe, just maybe, we can discover that the value of a person is not in what they own, but what they do for others. This transformation in our thinking won't be easy - we are literally asking people to reject every single notion they have about their life. We are asking people to think and act as if the needs of tomorrow are more important than their needs today. We should never under-estimate how tough this will be, especially if we continue to watch so much TV, a medium designed to continually convince us that we need more shit to be happy. But of all the changes we need to make, this is the most important. Without this change, all the technological solutions won't matter - sure we can produce cleaner energy, but if we continue to believe that our immediate, material needs are the most important, and in turn consume goods and rape the natural world like it's 1988 all over again, nothing will change and the future will be as bleak as we hardly dare to imagine.
Recommend this Post

Monday, February 23, 2009

So just how bad is it?


If you're like me, you probably have a lot of friends who aren't too up on the latest doomer news and believe one of the following things about the current recession: A) It's not as bad as the media is making it out to be, B) Yeah it might get bad for a bit, but by Summer or Fall we should be back on track, or C) Who cares, I have a job and it's a great time to invest in the stock market. I honestly think that with knowledge comes responsibility - whenever I hear someone I know say something like this I try and tell them, without scaring the absolute shit out of them, that perhaps they are underestimating what is happening here. As you can see from the graph above,
the current crisis is far worse at this stage than either the 90's Tech crash or the the 70's oil embargo, and not all that much better than the Great Depression. And by all accounts, things are going to get worse. A lot worse. So bad that billionaire, and chief liberal operative trying to take over the world, George Soros has said that when Lehman Bros. went down last year "[w]e witnessed the collapse of the financial system...It was placed on life support, and it's still on life support. There's no sign that we are anywhere near a bottom."

The numbers from across the world aren't pretty:

  • 598,000 job losses in the U.S. in January - the biggest monthly job loss numbers in 34 years (source)
  • 129,000 job losses in Canada in January (source).
  • Retail sales were down 5.4% in December in Canada - the biggest decline in 15 years (source).
  • Japan's GDP fell an amazing 12.7% (the annualized rates) between October and December of last year, and their economy contracted by 3.3% over the previous three months (source).
  • Things in California are so bad that some government employees are getting IOU's instead of cash money and now there is some concern that tax rebates will be issued in the form of IOU's (source).
  • Alberta, the juggernaut that has driven the Canadian economy for the past ten years, is now forecasting a deficit and seeing many huge projects either being put on hold or abandoned all together (source).
  • And let's not forget Europe, which has already seen one countries economy collapse (Iceland) but predicting that several other, including Great Britain, could follow (source).
I think it's important that those of us who truly believe that what we are seeing is a collapse and not just a recession need to make people aware of this fact and tell them that they need to re-adjust their thinking - the rules have changed. Every decision we make from now on has to be done within the context of a possibly collapsing economy. Good time to invest in the market you say? What if 5 years from now their is no market? Good time to invest in a time share in Hawaii? What if you can't get there in 5 years? My advice to people is that if you have extra money either pay down your debts, make your house as efficient as possible, or store it in a mattress. Now is no time for big purchases or foolish spending that in the past we could get away with. Those days are over.

I'll leave the last words to the King of the Doomers, James Howard Kunstler:
Dear Mr. President, you are presiding over an epochal contraction, not a pause in the growth epic. Your assignment is to manage that contraction in a way that does not lead to world war, civil disorder or both. Among other things, contraction means that all the activities of everyday life need to be downscaled including standards of living, ranges of commerce, and levels of governance. "Consumerism" is dead. Revolving credit is dead -- at least at the scale that became normal the last thirty years. The wealth of several future generations has already been spent and there is no equity left there to re-finance.... No good, in fact, will come of a campaign to sustain the unsustainable, which is exactly what the Obama program is starting to look like. In the folder marked "unsustainable" you can file most of the artifacts, usufructs, habits, and expectations of recent American life: suburban living, credit-card spending, Happy Motoring, vacations in Las Vegas, college education for the masses, and cheap food among them. All these things are over. The public may suspect as much, but they can't admit it to themselves, and political leadership has so far declined to speak the truth about it for them -- in short, to form a useful consensus that will allow us to move forward effectively.... It's not too late for President Obama to start uttering these truths so that we can avoid a turn to fascism and get on with the real business of America's next phase of history -- living locally, working hard at things that matter, and preserving civilized culture. What a lot of us can see now staring out of the abyss is a new dark age. I don't think it's necessarily our destiny to end up that way, but these days we're not doing much to avoid it.
- From Kunstler's latest article, The Abyss States Back
Recommend this Post

Thursday, February 19, 2009

The Future Revealed....

Recommend this Post

Monday, February 16, 2009

Dealing With Depression

Perhaps one of the deepest, darkest secrets of industrial society is that despite a rise in income levels, levels of depression are at an all-time high. In a 2006 report published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, “[a]ccording to the respected Psychiatric Morbidity Survey, [if testing were universal,] one in six of us would be diagnosed as having depression or chronic anxiety disorder, which means that one family in three is affected.” The Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion’s Healthy Ontario website states that “[a]t any given time, almost three million Canadians have serious depression.” That means that right now, around ten percent of Canadians are suffering from serious depression. These numbers are alarming on their own, but when we take into account that since the end of World War II the rates of major depressive disorders have increased ten-fold, it is clear that the problem is much more serious than many of us realize. The rates are increasing so rapidly that the World Health Organization has predicted that depression will be the second leading cause of death and disability worldwide by 2020, largely due to undiagnosed depression, a leading cause of suicide, which is becoming an epidemic in its own right.
- From my 2007 article, The Depressing Reality of Materialism, published by Briarpatch Magazine
(Note - I am not a doctor, nor do I play one on TV. The observations and suggestions in this post are the result of my experiences with depression and the extensive conversations I have had and research I have done in regards to depression. If you or someone you know is depressed, go see a doctor. Now.)

If we are to move forward and create a new and sustainable way of life, one of the first things we need to do is deal with the issue of depression. A society of depressed and dysfunctional people will not be able to undertake the massive changes we need as healthy, strong, creative and rationale people are required to make the necessary changes and right now we have very few of those. And while depression is certainly much easier to talk about these days it is still a somewhat taboo subject and one that is grossly misunderstood. Depressed people aren't weak and they don't need to suck it up. They need help and hopefully this post can help you or a loved one get the help you need. 

The good news is that depression is relatively treatable, and it is my belief that a move away from the way of life the civilized consumer economy has created for us will ultimately reduce the occurrence of depression by a whole lot (and yes, that is an official measurement). But this isn't a chicken or egg scenario - to move forward we first need to deal with our health, because healthy people produce healthy communities and ultimately, that's what we're striving for.  

What is Depression?

I think this question is easiest to deal with by answering the question "what depression isn’t." Depression isn’t having a bad day or being a little down. Depression isn’t feeling a little lethargic or melancholy. Depression is a long-term feeling of uselessness, anger, mental and physical pain, fatigue, sadness, hopelessness, and overwhelming negativity. It is marked by irrationality; not only in how you act but also in how you interpret the world. It’s important to note that not all people who suffer from depression exhibit these signs – depression manifests itself differently in different people. For me personally, my depression was marked by anger – the smallest thing set me off and at times I felt I would explode with rage. Others lie in bed for days and don’t move. Others sob uncontrollably. Whatever the case, depression is incapacitating and ultimately, destructive to the person themselves and the people around them and without help, there is little they can do about it. 

What Causes Depression?

The truth is that we don’t really know what causes depression, but the general consensus seems to be that it is a mixture of things that can cause a person to have a depressive episode. Certainty heredity plays a part – if someone in your family has had a depressive episode, you are probably more susceptible. Life events, whether being molested or abused as a child, the death of a loved one, or daily stressful interactions, can also play a role and in many cases, trigger an episode. Drugs and alcohol are also commonly involved – whether it is as a cause or, more likely, as a coping mechanism for depression itself. More recently, evolutionary biologists like Randolph Nesse have argued that depression and depressive symptoms serve the adaptive function of stopping humans from engaging in activities that are harmful to them or of little benefit. In a 2000 article entitled “Is Depression an Adaptation?”, Nesse argued that

Some negative and passive aspects of depression may be useful because they inhibit dangerous and wasteful actions in situations characterized by committed pursuit of an unreachable goal, temptations to challenge authority, insufficient internal reserves to allow action without damage, or lack of a viable life strategy.

In a 2006 study with Matthew Keller, Nesse also found that certain negative situations aroused particular depressive symptoms. They found that people who were engaged in “failing efforts” were stricken with depressive symptoms such as “guilt, rumination, pessimism, and fatigue,” leading them to conclude that these reactions “may have been shaped by natural selection to minimize wasted effort and to re-assess failing strategies.”

My theory? Rising rates of depression are the result of engaging in an unhealthy way of life. Authors such as Tim Kasser and Juliet Schor have shown that those who are more materialistic are more susceptible to depression because they engage in activities that are of no physical or mental benefit to them – watching TV, shopping, and worrying whether you measure up to the image advertisers portray. Not only that, but the modern consumer lifestyle precludes us from doing things that we need to be healthy – spending time with others, exercise, and community service. I’ve argued that if depression really is a biological adaptation as Nesse and other suggest, that perhaps what we are seeing today with the rapid rise in rates of depression is our bodies telling us to stop engaging in a way of life that is unhealthy and harmful. Materialism as a way of life doesn't provide us with what we need as humans - in fact, it harms us physically, mentally and spiritually. Rising rates of depression are a sign that our bodies are screaming out at us to stop the madness and to try and find a new way to live, one that provides us with what us humans need. 

What do I do if I’m depressed or know someone who is depressed.

Here’s the thing – most people who are in the middle of a depressive episode cannot get out of it by themselves. They need help. The dangerous thing about depression is that when people are in an episode they likely don’t know that they are in a depression, especially if they have never been diagnosed or had a previous episode. They know they feel terrible. They feel angry. They hate themselves. Some may even feel like ending it all – and the thing is that to them, all these feelings are completely rational and justified. Of course the reality is that they aren’t rational feelings, but there is nothing rational about depression. In fact, at its core, people with depression interpret the world and themselves in a completely irrational way. I’ve known people with depression who when they’ve thought about engaging in any activity, whether it is as mundane as leaving the house for milk or applying for a job, it will end up in disaster. Others believe that when they leave a room full of people, all those they left behind begin talking about how much they hate them. For me, if I saw a cup or plate not put away, I took it as a personal slight and a grandiose statement about how my partner felt about me. Rational people don’t act like this – depressed people do. And that’s why if you know someone who is in the middle of a depressive episode, you need to help them get help. I’ve known people who have literally dragged their partners into doctor’s offices and begged for help. My partner told me that she couldn’t live with me anymore if things continued as is – my depression not only affected me, it affected her, badly. And much like an addict, you can’t make excuses for someone in a depression – you can’t enable their behavior. They need help. Get them to a doctor anyway you can. Their life may depend on it.

Treatment

The big issue with depression is whether or not medication should be used. Now again, I’m not a doctor so really, if you have depression talk to your doctor about this. They are much more knowledgeable about it than I am. But since this is my blog and my post, I will tell you what I think. It’s pretty clear that anti-depressants are being prescribed as solutions to depression and that's wrong. While some people may forever need anti-depressants in order to cope with their depression, most should be able to live a normal life without. This doesn’t mean that anti-depressants shouldn’t play a role in helping people deal with depression and ultimately, change their lives. I took anti-depressants as part of a larger program to help me - my belief is that anti-depressants are needed to A) get people out of their depression, and B) help them learn the techniques they need to combat their depression and hopefully, avoid future episodes. I saw anti-depressants as a tool – a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. If all your doctor does is prescribe anti-depressants then you probably need to find a new doctor. 

While anti-depressants helped me get out of my depression, what really saved me was therapy. Talking with someone else who really has no history or attachment to you as a human being is an unbelievably liberating experience. And ultimately, it allows you to get to the bottom of why you are depressed in the first place. My therapist guided me through my unbelievably negative self-talk (which led to my anger which led to my depression) and my horrible self-image and helped me see that I wasn't quite as horrible as I thought I was. For me, I think my biggest problem was that I put a lot of pressure on myself to succeed in the traditional sense and I beat myself up relentlessly when it was clear that I wouldn't (yes, Mother Culture is a bitch). Add to this my feelings of inferiority as a result of a childhood marked by obesity and the scourge of all teenagers everywhere, pimples, and I had become my own worse enemy. Freud has been quoted as stating that depression is anger turned inwards, and that's exactly what my depression was - I hated myself for my perceived lack of success. Without therapy I would have never been able to recognize the destructive self-talk I had, or been able to, at the advice of my therapist, not to see my 13 year old self simply as a fat-pimply kid who I hated with all my being, but as a funny, kind-hearted kid who just wanted to make people laugh. 

I've learned over the last 18 months what I need to do to be healthy - I workout more often and go to Yoga. I eat better and I try to go out with friends for coffee and walks more often (and it's important to note that people need to engage in healthy relationships - dysfunctional and unhealthy relationships only hurt depressed people). I watch less TV and read more. I've learned that I shouldn't base my aspirations on a sick society that in the end, wants you to feel bad about yourself so you'll buy more shit. And most importantly, I've learned to like myself again - to not be so hard on myself. And I'm not alone in believing that moving away from the way we are expected to live is good for depressed people. Stephen Ilardi, a University of Kansas psychologist, has shown that when people actually change their habits through a method he calls “therapeutic lifestyle change,” they have a better chance of treating their depression than those using medication and therapy. In a February 12, 2007, Los Angeles Times article, Ilardi argued that human beings were not designed “for our sedentary, socially isolated, indoor, sleep-deprived, frenzied, poorly nourished lifestyle”—in short, the modern consumer world. His treatment method has people exercise more, sleep more, eat more Omega-3’s, and, finally, interact more with their fellow human beings. The results have been stunning: ‘in an on-going study of 79 patients, with two-thirds assigned to his therapy and the rest to a control group treated mainly with antidepressant medication or traditional psychotherapy, Ilardi reports a 74 percent favorable response, compared with 16 percent for the controls.”

Things can get better. 

Depression is a terrible existence - while I never considered ending my life I could certainly understand why some people did. Depression is a trap that is very hard to get out of and one that is self-reinforcing. When in a depression, the vast majority of things you do and think only make the depression worse - its the ultimate negative feedback loop. My cycle would work somethings like this - be depressed --> do nothing all day --> feel shitty about yourself for not accomplishing more --> be more depressed --> get angry at nothing --> feel guilty about getting angry --> feel more depressed --> eat a box of chocolate chip cookies --> feel fat --> get mad at myself --> feel more depressed --> stay inside and don't go out for days --> feel useless, lonely, and more depressed. You get the idea. 

I've always believed that while there are a lot of great reasons to stop living this way (the damage we are doing to the environment and our non-human neighbours, climate change, peak oil, etc...), the best reason is that the way we live makes us so dysfunctional. People are hurting, depressed, and lonely. A study cited in the Washington Post in 2006 said that 1/4 of all Americans have no-one to talk too in times of need. Just think about how fucking insane that is, especially in a day and age when we have more communication tools than ever before. Our culture is insane and its demands of us, both materially and aesthetically, are insane. And most importantly, it makes us insane. So please, if you or someone you know has depression - get help and change the way you live your life. You are not alone. We need you to be healthy - I can think of no better people to produce the changes we need for a more sustainable way of life than those of us who have fallen victim to civilization itself. 
Recommend this Post

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Calvin the Soothsayer

Found this on Reddit this morning - who knew that Calvin and Hobbes was the place to go for critique's of civilization, especially since it was penned 15 years ago. Enjoy.

Recommend this Post

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

A Dodosville Milestone - 400 Posts

As with most people, there have been several moments in my life that have changed the course of my existence. When I was in Grade 9, I snuck out of basketball tryouts (namely because I was scared I wouldn't make the team, and, um, I sucked) and as a result, never became the shortest starting PF in the history of the NBA. When I was 24 and on a road trip through the U.S., my friend Greg Williams and I narrowly avoided a tragic accident that took the lives of four people and as a result, I went back home to Vancouver, questioned what the fuck I was doing with my life, quit my lucrative job in the video game industry, and went back to school which helped launch me on my journey to explore and critique civilization. When I was 33, after returning home from a friends wedding overseas and in the midst of the worst depressive episode of my life, I finally, at the insistence of my wonderful partner, went and dealt with my depression and as a result, avoided alienating and losing everyone I loved, including myself. And on February 22nd, 2005, I started this blog. 


I have had a love/hate relationship with this blog over the years. Part of me wishes that I had a bigger readership (hey - my civilized ego can only be suppressed so much) and that my most popular post over the years wasn't some obvious observation that the only reason Paul Potts became famous was because he was short, fat, and somewhat ugly. But then I realize that one of my favorite posts, I am a failure, is read weekly by people typing those exact words into google or some other search engine - people who need to be reminded that in this culture, being a failure isn't such a bad thing. I truly believe that this blog has been a reflection of me - depressed, angry, and hopefully, thought-provoking and even at times, amusing (well, at least to me). I have been criticized for being too depressing at times, but I honestly believe that the state of the world is depressing - literally. The way we live produces unhappy, dysfunctional, and angry people - in many ways this blog, as well as myself, is living proof of that. But I also think that this blog is proof that we can get better - we can be less angry and less depressed. We can come back from the brink (although the struggle, alas, will probably never go away).

So where does this blog, and I, go from here? Truth be told, I am at a crossroads in my life and as the old saying goes, I need to shit or get off the pot (no, not that kind - I gave up that habit/addiction quite a while ago). I need to start doing things that will allow me and my family to live a better life and that will help us deal with the inevitable turmoil that is ahead. Most of all, and it pains me to say this, I need money and that means getting a "real" job. I do not believe that our way of life will sort itself out and be saved with billions upon trillions of bailout dollars - you cannot save the terminally ill. Having worked on contract over the last several years, its become clear to me that if I want to become energy/food/heat independent, I need to spend a lot of money to do so and contract work is too sporadic and stressful to achieve these things. And of course, timing is everything - what a better time to need a full time job than a time when millions are losing theirs. Our world is not setup for us to make the transition to a more sustainable way of life easily - in fact, pretty much everything is working against us, especially when our governments are investing in trying to sustain the unsustainable, rather than helping people transition to the inevitable changes that are ahead. 

Ultimately, I want to stop dwelling on the negative - I think I've shown, as have many others, that this way of life is doomed. People are suffering. The environment is suffering. Our non-human neighbors are suffering. This way of life doesn't work and will never work. No amount of hoping, wishing, or injecting money into failed banks will ever make it work. Ever. While most bloggers are completely ignoring this reality, and instead, arguing about things such as whether or not the national anthem should be sung in schools, or whether Obama is a Muslim/Communist/Fascist/Alien, or whose worse, the Palestinians or the Israeli's, I want this blog to be about solutions. Where do we go from here? How do we as individuals extricate ourselves from this mess and how do we help others do the same? How do we help people stuck in depression? How do we go about becoming food independent in an urban setting? How can we generate our own heat and electricity on a modest income? How do we build healthy communities that can help us do these things? And how do we continue to laugh amongst all this struggle?  One of my favorite authors Derrick Jensen says that hope is useless because many times hope is a substitute for action - and I understand what he is saying. For too long I have just hoped that things will work out for me, because to be honest, they always have. But the time for hope is up because the same rules don't apply anymore - the world is changing too quickly and we need more than words (and no, I don't mean the Extreme song). It's time for me to get off my lazy ass and start doing something, rather than writing about what's wrong and hoping someone else will deal with it. I've felt stuck in this blog for sometime now and have had trouble generating ideas because it does feel so hopelessly negative, much like my life has at times. But as I get healthier I'm realizing that I need solutions rather than anger. I need to move forward and find a new path. And I hope that you'll come along with me. 

On a side note I just want to thank everyone who has visited Dodosville over the years. While I am highly critical of the blogging community as a whole, there are still good and decent parts of it. And many of you who come here and who I visit on a regular basis are what keeps me blogging. Cheers. 
Recommend this Post

Thursday, February 05, 2009

A Better Day Will Come

We live in tough times. People are being laid off left and right. Our economy and way of life is collapsing around us. Depression and suicide rates continue to skyrocket and suffering as a whole, in the human and non-human worlds, continues unabated. And as our world falls apart around us, that suffering will only increase. People will die and buildings will burn as civilization and its proponents try and keep this sinking ship afloat. But while things look dark now, I have hope that a better day will come. A day when people aren't burdened by the ridiculous demands of an out of control materialistic system. A day when people will live closer to nature and don't exploit it into extinction in order to make a buck. A day when people stop hating themselves because they don't look like those they see on TV. A day when the land isn't forced to endure the destruction we heap upon it. A day when people will live in real communities and have real relationships with healthy people and as a result, be healthy themselves. I really do have hope that one day this demeaning and destructive existence will come to an end and our fellow beings, human and otherwise, can find a better way. We have to have that hope, because without it, what will this struggle be for?  Recommend this Post

Monday, February 02, 2009

Why we are doomed.

From Consumer Energy Reports:

The recent fall in gas prices is spurring consumers to once again begin purchasing large cars and SUV’s, according to Chrysler President Jim Press.

When gas was selling for above $4 a gallon back in July of last year, customers started becoming more aware of the miles per gallon achieved by the vehicle they were intending to buy which in turn caused growth in the small car market.

But now, with gas prices falling below $2 a gallon nationally, the market for large cars is back once again.

The recent swing “shows the fickleness of the market,” says Press, speaking after a J.D. Power and Associates conference for auto dealers in New Orleans.

While Chrysler decided to phase out the company’s full-size Dodge Durango SUV after gas prices skyrocketed, Press says that the vehicle is currently in the shortest supply among all the vehicles sold by Chrysler.

Hybrid sales plunged 43 percent in December and 50 percent in November, according to the auto Web site edmunds.com. Toyota’s Prius, the top-selling hybrid in the U.S., tumbled 45 percent in December, while sales of Nissan Motor Co.’s Altima hybrid fell a whopping 70 percent.
Sure, oil prices are down - some believe that it is a lack of credit and a drop in demand that has created the drop in oil prices. Whatever the case, low oil prices don't mean that peak oil is a myth. If anything, low oil prices will only hasten peak oil because those low prices mean that certain alternative oils, such as those found in the oil and tar sands, are not worth digging out of the ground because it costs more to develop them than to sell them. Whatever the case, the fact that SUV sales are up highlight A) how incredibly stupid some of our fellow civilized humans are, and B) what a short memory people have. I remember listening to the radio when oil prices were at their peak and a local car retailer bluntly said, "people will forever buy cars now with $1.50 a liter gas prices in mind." I assumed the same. Both of us were wrong. It is probably the one time in my recent life where I have given the benefit of the doubt to others and now I know why I don't do it more. 

The thing that really kills me is peak oil or not, we are in the middle of a serious financial crisis. With this in mind, why are people buying overpriced SUV's and large trucks that take more gas regardless of the price? Doesn't every penny count in a situation like we find ourselves in? Silly humans. 
Recommend this Post

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The Boondoggle Budget

Economic collapse has a way of turning economic negatives into positives. It is not necessary for the United States to embrace the tenets of command economy and central planning to match the Soviet lackluster performance in this area. We have our own methods that are working almost as well. I call them “boondoggles.” They are solutions to problems that result in more severe problems than those they attempt to solve.
- Dmitry Orlov in his post Boondoggles to the Rescue

Let me start out by saying that I am not opposed to large government spending - what I am opposed too is large government spending that creates more problems than it solves. While I had hoped that the current Conservative government would table a budget that moved us towards a more sustainable economy and away from the current collapsing, never to be revived economy, I knew that I had a better shot winning the lottery than anyone in Ottawa having the foresight and courage to push the change we really need. What we got from our government-just out-of-exile was what you would expect from a group of people who believe that the current economic system is not only reformable, but the "one right way to do things." Ultimately, it is a boondoggle budget - it will only exacerbate the current situation and hasten our countries collapse.

Now before I go into specifics, let me frame the debate here - I do not believe that any economy is sustainable if it is based on A) the belief in perpetual growth, B) the exploitation of everything and anything not nailed down for profit, and C) the use of non-renewable resources that are warming the climate and whose supplies are peaking. As a society we need to, at all costs, develop a sustainable economy that is localized, based upon the use of renewable resources, does not have as its main tenet "profit at all costs," and which doesn't destroy the environment we live in or the species we share this planet with. Any money, in my opinion, thrown at the former rather than the latter will do nothing to solve our problems simply because they can't be solved. You can't make the unsustainable sustainable by wishing really hard and putting more money into it. It's an impossibility.

So what did yesterday's budget offer Canadians and our collapsing economy (all quotes are from the Globe and Mail)?
  • A $20-billion cut to personal income taxes, increasing the basic personal amount and top of the two lowest income tax brackets by 7.5 per cent - while I always like having more money in my pocket, the theory behind tax cuts is that with people having more money they will buy more stuff and that will save the economy. Buying more stuff will only result in more damage to the natural world, increased ghg emissions, and more stores being built. While these tax cuts might prop up some businesses in the short-term, they do not address the long term problems with our current economic system.
  • Home Renovation Tax Credit, offering $1,350 in tax relief for home renovations - I wouldn't mind this part of the budget if the government had placed a caveat on it - the home renovations must improve your homes heat and energy efficiency. Our current housing model of huge single family dwellings that use way too much energy and heat is unsustainable - why give people money back if they are only going to renovate their kitchen for the third time in six years?
  • An additional $50-billion to the Insured Mortgage Purchase Program and First-time home buyers to get up to $750 in tax relief - The current model of single family dwellings in ever-increasing suburban sprawl is not sustainable in a world with dwindling resources such as oil and gas and no alternative energy ready to take its place. We don't need more homes that follow the status quo. We need smarter city designs that allow people to use their cars less and that use space better.
  • Almost $12-billion in new project funding over two years, including a $4-billion fund for shared-cost projects with provinces and municipalities to repair roads other infrastructure. The government will also create a $500-million fund for recreational facilities like hockey arenas. Projects include improvements to the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto rail corridor; repairing Montreal's Champlain bridge, twinning a section of the Trans-Canada Highway through Banff National Park; improvements to the Sarnia and Fort Erie border crossings - Growth, growth, and more growth. Build more stuff, that will save us, especially in a world of shrinking non-renewable resources that warm the climate. I especially love the idea of twinning the Trans-Canada in Banff National Park. Yes, let's destroy more of the remaining habitat of our non-human neighbours. Also, we don't need to repair roads - we need to dismantle them. As James Kunstler is fond of saying - "the days of happy motoring are over." The car culture will die, hybrid plug in or not. Why not take the 12 billion and invest it in rails and mass transit? We're going to need it anyways, so why not start now.
  • New disclosure rules and a minimum grace period on credit cards - Exactly what we need - to make it easier for people to use their credit cards. Have we learned nothing? The problem we face is partially because of the ease with which we can access credit and as a result, overextend ourselves. We need to learn to live within our means, not make it easier to buy whatever the TV tells us too.
  • Offering short-term repayable loans to the industry and Create a $12-billion credit facility to support vehicle and equipment financing - Do I really need to comment on this one? The auto industry is dying. Let it die.
  • $170-million over two years for Forestry and Mineral exploration tax credit extended by one year - How many trees can we really cut down? How much more of the earth can we lop off to find minerals?
  • $350-million over two years for Atomic Energy Canada Ltd, and Accelerated write-offs for companies that invest in carbon capture and storage technology - The very definition of boondoggle. We use too much energy and produce too many ghg emissions and other pollutants. The prudent thing to do is powerdown to a level where some alternative energy sources can be used. Carbon capture is not a solution. Nuclear energy comes with its own problems, both in terms of storing its waste and the fact that uranium is one of those peaking resources.
  • New Clean Energy Fund, to generate more than $2.5-billion in investments and New $1-billion green infrastructure fund, including transmission lines to connect renewable energy projects - While at first glance these seem like good things, apparently the New Clean Energy fund is mostly directed at carbon capture and storage. And one billion for Green infrastructure? One billion?
Where is the money for real alternative energy technologies? Where is the money to help train a new generation of farmers (which will be needed as modern, industrial agriculture dies out as a result of peak oil)? Where is the money to help communities transform to dense and sustainable communities that don't require cars to get around? Where is the money for mass transit and rail lines which will be needed as peak oil and climate change change our driving and shipping habits? Where is the money to help industry, business and individuals become more energy and heat independent? Where is the money we need to shut down and clean up the tar sands, the biggest boondoggle of them all? The answer is, that while some of these are addressed in very small amounts, the vast majority of money spent in this budget is being put towards trying to save a dying and failed economic model. It won't work. You can't save those that are terminally ill - you can make them worse, however, and hasten their demise and ultimately, that's all that this budget will do.
Recommend this Post

Friday, January 23, 2009

Things America can apologize for...

We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
- President Barrack Obama in his inaugural address
America has a long and sordid history. While it is certainly the most dominant and important state in the world today, it is not the nice and benevolent nation that it would have you believe it is. In fact, America, like most empires before it, has had to do some downright terrible things to build and maintain its position as the most dominant nation on earth. So while I understand what President Obama said in his inaugural address, I respectfully disagree - America has a lot to apologize for and they can start with these.
  • To the indigenous peoples of the Americas the U.S. can apologize for the systematic destruction of their lands, their people, and their way of life. The U.S. waged war on Indigenous peoples for two hundred plus years, forcibly moving them off their lands, putting a price on their scalps, destroying their food base (the bison), and breaking so many treaties that it boggles the mind.
  • To the land itself the U.S. can apologize for hacking down millions of acres of trees, damming thousands of rivers, polluting countless lakes and rivers, and sucking the life out of millions of acres of once fertile soil.
  • To the non-human animals we share this land with the U.S. can apologize for destroying their land base, polluting and damming their rivers, keeping them in confined cages, and slaughtering them by the millions and sending thousands into extinction.
  • To the numerous countries that the U.S. has interfered in order to further their national interests, the U.S. can apologize for the pain and suffering that interference has caused them (see Iran in 1953).
  • To the people of countries like Saudi Arabia, the U.S. can apologize for supporting their dictators and population, many of whom want to kill Americans, with their vast oil purchases.
  • To the people of Iraq the U.S. can apologize for supporting Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, supporting a destructive embargo in the 90's and early 21st C, then invading their country with absolutely zero evidence that they were a threat to anyone and having no plan for the postwar invasion, which ultimately led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
  • To the millions of people who the U.S. has put in jail for possession of a simple weed, many of whom need it to reduce their pain. Bonus points for spending billions on this useless endeavor and then calling themselves the land of the free.
  • For promoting a way of life so destructive and unsustainable and exporting it, sometimes by force (see Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine), to nearly every corner of the planet. Extra bonus points for saying you don't have to apologize for it. Ever.
There are lots more things the U.S. has to be sorry for and by no means are they the only nation that needs to apologize for these things - we are all guilty and complicit in some way. But for now, this should be a good start.
Recommend this Post