When talking to a friend of mine about collapse a few months ago, he said, “the progression is exponential…like an exponential curve.” I knew just what he meant and I agreed. I happen to have learned a fair amount of mathematics, so I know what an exponential curve is. Having worked so many problems about exponential curves, it is also internalized. Only now do I see that most people don’t have any idea what I mean even when I try to explain it as “the acceleration is accelerating.” Maybe this little video will help some, but I think that even the very first slide which showed the equation for figuring doubling time looks like the Far Side to most people.
This video rocked, it was a good review of the power of mathematics as something beyond an abstraction. The professor has a very humorous presentation, I’m sure many of his students have enjoyed his classes.
Hmm, so 7% growth is bad, and Coal and Oil won’t last forever, and we can’t endlessly grow our population & economies, what a bummer!
I can’t watch the video either, due to my, um, energy-efficient computer, but the comments ring a bell or two. The very fundamental difficulties humans have in understanding exponential growth has been described by German psychologist Dietrich Dörner in “The Logic Of Failure”, something of a classic work in the field of popular psychology, cybernetics and complexity studies, published in the 1980s. I can only recommend it to anyone who wants to gain a basic understanding of fundamental issues in those three fields. If I hadn’t lended my copy out, I could be a bit more specific, so this has to remain rather vague:
He experimented with computer programmes which simulated a complicated situation, often in a fictitious Third World (not Fifth World! ;-)) setting, and observed how the players reacted to unforeseen consequences of their previous (in-)decisions. But he also describes how test persons dealt with a somewhat more down-to-earth heating thermostat.
Dörner notes how we tend to extrapolate the future from trends of the past, implicitly assuming a linear progression, unable to grasp the effects of real-world interference, let alone “tipping point” situations resulting from developments that follow an exponential curve. Having read this, I am utterly convinced that hierarchical top-down structures, where few people try to think and decide for all the others, are structurally unable to deal with complex situations, and we can only hope that a more collective approach will be instituted rather sooner than later. One way to achieve this would, of course, be a return to basically tribal structures where everyone’s experience and opinion matters. Building upon this, Rhizome promises to be a sound organizational structure. But, luckily, this is just one aspect of The Truth™…
Anyway, it is utterly important to understand what economic growth, and not just growth, but changes in growth ratios, really mean, and how insane it is to demand a steady increase of growth ratios.
Comment by Michael K. — 7 September 2006 @ 6:16 PM
I’ve been showing this video in my classes for a year or so, and it’s a knockout. The key concepts that grab me are:
1. the idea of doubling time (I used to grow bacteria in my old job). A population doesn’t realize it’s running out of room until it’s too late. You can say, hey, we only use a quarter of the Earth’s resources. But if you’re doubling population every 20 years, the way we are, that means in 40 years you’ve eaten the whole planet. You can go for millennia without grasping that you are chewing up a planet.
2. “At current rates of use.” The head of Aramco just said that we have over a century of oil at current rate of use. Problem is, that rate is accelerating. If you factor in the acceleration, his stated reserves are gone in 25 years. “Current rate” never holds still.
3. He convinces us that population growth must stop, then shows what things increase and decrease population. To increase: medical care, nutrition, more food supply, technology, etc. To decrease: Famine, war, disease, and, oh yeah . . . birth control. And he gently asks, which of the latter do you want? With no further comment he shows how murderous and irresponsible the anti-population control viewpoint is.
Have we podfaded? Honestly, yes. We still harbor plans to bring back the podcast, once we have a place where we can record! Expect us back sometime in 2008.
The Directory gathers links to some of the best rewilding and primitivist sites we know of, gathers them in one place. Syndicated from the Anthropik Ma.gnolia Group.
Hey, taxes, hunting & fishing licenses and all the rest cost money. Besides, you'll need field guides, books, and some other gear anyway. The indigenous peoples of the world have spoken: the most useful thing to come out of civilization is the t-shirt.
A fine example of this comes from the Globe and Mail, with “Peak Oil Theorists Don’t Know Jack,” dealing with the new “elephant” field in the Gulf of Mexico, called “Jack.” Once you’re convinced the whole “Peak Oil” thing must be wrong, see Jeff Vail’s latest for a much-needed reality check.
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 September 2006 @ 10:16 AM
When talking to a friend of mine about collapse a few months ago, he said, “the progression is exponential…like an exponential curve.” I knew just what he meant and I agreed. I happen to have learned a fair amount of mathematics, so I know what an exponential curve is. Having worked so many problems about exponential curves, it is also internalized. Only now do I see that most people don’t have any idea what I mean even when I try to explain it as “the acceleration is accelerating.” Maybe this little video will help some, but I think that even the very first slide which showed the equation for figuring doubling time looks like the Far Side to most people.
But I loved it. Thanks, Jason.
Comment by casemeau — 7 September 2006 @ 11:16 AM
From now on, my reaction to people talking about colonizing space will be, “THREE NEW PETRI DISHES DISCOVERED!”
Comment by Jason Godesky — 7 September 2006 @ 11:32 AM
This video rocked, it was a good review of the power of mathematics as something beyond an abstraction. The professor has a very humorous presentation, I’m sure many of his students have enjoyed his classes.
Hmm, so 7% growth is bad, and Coal and Oil won’t last forever, and we can’t endlessly grow our population & economies, what a bummer!
Comment by Bubba — 7 September 2006 @ 3:40 PM
What is this video about? I lack the bandwith on my computer to watch it. Could someone give me a synopsis?
Comment by mont — 7 September 2006 @ 5:05 PM
I can’t watch the video either, due to my, um, energy-efficient computer, but the comments ring a bell or two. The very fundamental difficulties humans have in understanding exponential growth has been described by German psychologist Dietrich Dörner in “The Logic Of Failure”, something of a classic work in the field of popular psychology, cybernetics and complexity studies, published in the 1980s. I can only recommend it to anyone who wants to gain a basic understanding of fundamental issues in those three fields. If I hadn’t lended my copy out, I could be a bit more specific, so this has to remain rather vague:
He experimented with computer programmes which simulated a complicated situation, often in a fictitious Third World (not Fifth World! ;-)) setting, and observed how the players reacted to unforeseen consequences of their previous (in-)decisions. But he also describes how test persons dealt with a somewhat more down-to-earth heating thermostat.
Dörner notes how we tend to extrapolate the future from trends of the past, implicitly assuming a linear progression, unable to grasp the effects of real-world interference, let alone “tipping point” situations resulting from developments that follow an exponential curve. Having read this, I am utterly convinced that hierarchical top-down structures, where few people try to think and decide for all the others, are structurally unable to deal with complex situations, and we can only hope that a more collective approach will be instituted rather sooner than later. One way to achieve this would, of course, be a return to basically tribal structures where everyone’s experience and opinion matters. Building upon this, Rhizome promises to be a sound organizational structure. But, luckily, this is just one aspect of The Truth™…
Anyway, it is utterly important to understand what economic growth, and not just growth, but changes in growth ratios, really mean, and how insane it is to demand a steady increase of growth ratios.
Comment by Michael K. — 7 September 2006 @ 6:16 PM
This was fantastic, thank you for sharing.
Comment by Anonymous — 8 September 2006 @ 6:59 PM
I’ve been showing this video in my classes for a year or so, and it’s a knockout. The key concepts that grab me are:
1. the idea of doubling time (I used to grow bacteria in my old job). A population doesn’t realize it’s running out of room until it’s too late. You can say, hey, we only use a quarter of the Earth’s resources. But if you’re doubling population every 20 years, the way we are, that means in 40 years you’ve eaten the whole planet. You can go for millennia without grasping that you are chewing up a planet.
2. “At current rates of use.” The head of Aramco just said that we have over a century of oil at current rate of use. Problem is, that rate is accelerating. If you factor in the acceleration, his stated reserves are gone in 25 years. “Current rate” never holds still.
3. He convinces us that population growth must stop, then shows what things increase and decrease population. To increase: medical care, nutrition, more food supply, technology, etc. To decrease: Famine, war, disease, and, oh yeah . . . birth control. And he gently asks, which of the latter do you want? With no further comment he shows how murderous and irresponsible the anti-population control viewpoint is.
Comment by Toby Hemenway — 18 September 2006 @ 3:57 PM
I found this recently on Google Video. I emailed Al Bartlett, and found him to be an interesting guy, who’s very busy (despite being in his 80’s).
Apparently, he has presented his slideshow to many more audiences than Al Gore has shown his.
Comment by Carl — 20 September 2006 @ 4:06 PM