Correspondent Rekha S. recently posed an excellent question about collapse: a topic brought to the fore by the political turmoil in North Africa and the mideast.

 

*   *   *
As I read today's blog, the question that arose in my mind was what the collapse
scenario might look like.  I understand and agree with all your logical analysis
and would like to get a better grasp of what you mean by "prepare for devolution
and collapse - hone your own skills, etc."

 

Given that choice, I think we had best prepare for devolution and collapse.
Make your own plans, strengthen your own communities and hone your own skills,
 because we as a nation are choosing implosion and collapse over pragmatism,
evolution and adaptation.

 

Thanks, and again, let me say that to me your observations and analysis are the
 most thoughtful and creative - leaving me with a sense of "yes, how unfortunate
but the current situation as entirely understandable as natural consequences of
the expression of human nature".  So in the very long run, what kind of a societal
 organization might we evolve too?
*   *   *

 

I have been mulling "punctuated equilibrium" as a model for political and economic change/collapse. This model comes from evolutionary studies, which found long periods of relative stability in species that were "interrupted" by sharp spikes of fast evolution.

 

The basic idea is that species can evolve quickly when placed under extreme environmental stress. The alternative is die-off: the species fails to adapt and goes extinct.

 

Species like the shark have not changed much in tens of millions of years because they were already "perfectly adapted" to their ecosystem. Humans, on the other hand, almost went extinct about 200,000 years ago, retreating to the coast of South Africa in dwindling numbers: perhaps no more than a few hundred individuals.

 

In a similar fashion, perhaps apparent economic/social equilibrium/stability is "punctuated" by periods of systemic stress:
like species, nations, cultures and societies must adapt/evolve quickly or perish.

 

The core thesis of the "Survival+" analysis (laid out in my book of that title) is that the Status Quo, whatever its composition or ideology, responds to these immense stresses with facsimiles of reform rather than real reform, for the simple reason that producing simulacra "reforms" is significantly safer and cheaper than risking real evolution, which might bring down those currently in power. Rather than risk that,the Status Quo feigns evolution and adaptation in the hopes that the modest modifications will magically dodge the systemic pressures.

 

This "project" is doomed, of course, and that's the core dilemma facing all Status Quo regimes everywhere.

 

Right now, the Status Quo around the globe is successfully propping up facsimiles of reform and transformation. They may well succeed for years, but eventually the systemic stresses will shatter the facades.
At that point, the "ecological systems" of society and the economy will have the opportunity to evolve very quickly, or collapse.

 

 

In a recent musing I wrote:
"... A visual representation of how much energy we each use annually (on average), for example: how much energy does our Internet usage consume compared to the jet fuel consumed by our air travel?"

 

Correspondent Nathan P. kindly directed me to this fascinating analysis of our energy consumption as "western consumers."
http://www.wattzon.c om/pdfs/GamePlan_v1.0.pdf

 

The first third of this document presents data on climate, CO2, etc., and the middle third looks at the author's own energy consumption/footprint.

 

Unsurprisingly, perhaps, air travel consumes far more energy than the rest of the Western lifestyle.

 

I highly recommend this presentation, for it goes step by step through the Western lifestyle's energy consumption, which is roughly ten times the consumption of developing nations. The author estimates his own energy footprint at about 25,000 watts, while the global average is about 2,250 watts.

 

 

In honor of my visit to Vegas, here is a story via G.F.B. on how to beat  scratch-off lottery games:

 

 

 

As a free-lancer for AOL's Daily Finance website, this could conceivably trickle down in some fashion to me. The general take in the blogosphere is that AOL overpaid and it's a financial disaster.

 

I am not so sure.  Huffington Post is an aggregator par excellence, pulling together 6,000 bloggers working for free. Aggregating massive streams of low-cost content is AOL's new strategy, and I think the CEO Tim Armstrong is pursuing that strategy.  $300 million is about one year's revenues, as I recall, so if this acquisition pays off, it could pay for itself rather quickly.

 

As the economic and societal pressures mount (see the item above on "ecological stress"), then politicized content might do very well--and HuffPo has gained popularity by staking out a left-of-center point of view. By making AOL's content less milktoast, Armstrong might achieve "separation" from the pack of bland content providers.

 

This topic relates to the next item:

 

 

My Space was sold to Rupert Murdock for $545 million a few short years ago (2005), and after laying off half its staff it is being prepped for sale, probably for around $30 million.

 

MySpace is considered in some circles a "blue collar" social network now. Regardless of its current user base, the bloom is clearly off the rose. Now Facebook is considered a global powerhouse supposedly worth $200 billion. HuffPo was considered a vanity project when it launched in 2006, and now it's worth $300 million.

 

History suggests that what aggregator or social network will be dominant five years hence is unknown.

Thanks for reading--
charles hugh smith