I had just met this guy. And were discussing how civilization is fucked, like i do quite a bit.
I was wondering if anyone has experienced anything similar.
Here is a synopsis of said conversation
Me: we are all fucked blah blah blah
Guy: If we are totally fucked, i would prefer not to know.
Totally serious here.
I think I’ve often had some version of that conversation.
I think it stems from a lack of hope. Perhaps they think that, either life after collapse will be so miserable that it’s not worth living, OR they worry that they themselves are unfit to live in the kind of world that would exist after collapse. Either way, since the results of collapse are utterly bleak to them (dead, or wishing they were) they want to enjoy life now rather than be made miserable by the knowledge of that future.
This is a problem of fauls assumptions. They assume that either:
[ul][li]Life before current civ was miserable (therefore, life after civ = miserable)[/li]
[li]Life before civ was ok for the natives, but I’ll be miserable (or dead).[/li][/ul]
Honestly, I don’t know how to challenge these assumptions well. I think a good strategy is to be very up-beat about the future and all the good things it will bring; like more time for leisure, better relationships, and fewer rules, laws, and regulations. Unfortunately, I usually keep these good facts to myself as I blather on about evidence for the coming crash. The gleam in my eye is probably seen as sadomasochistic derangement when I’m really only looking forward to that better day to come.
The funny thing is, if the two assumptions above really were true, denial and just “trying-not-to-think-about-it” would probably be a good, stress-reducing coping mechanism.
Maybe they’re right in a way: with their current outlook on life and artificial “needs” they would be miserable in that future. They assume that there outlook and their needs can’t change; if this is true (and only they can decide if it is), then they will be miserable and in danger of starvation or worse. In that case, then only need to change perspectives in order to become happy and healthy in that future.
Dmitry Orlov spoke about this in the second part of his article, “Survival Advice” (http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Archives2008/OrlovPartTwo.html). About part-way down, under the paragraph heading "The Middle Age, he speaks of “Mike and Mary”, two baby-boomers with a big choice: blank walls in a FEMA camp, or nimble adjustment to a new way of living. He speaks of the danger older folks face of “ossification” of their views and their way of living. I think there is truth in this, but it can affect the young as well if the mistrust their own abilities and capacity for change.
In talking with my college roommate about the collapse, I’ve run up against several different barriers. One is that he believes technology can probably solve all our “problems”, which isn’t too unreasonable a position to take, if you’ve been led to believe for years that renewable energy will make civilization sustainable. I actually need to read more to refute that idea more effectively.
But besides that, there are two others, combined into one. He says that, both politically and religiously, even if he grants that I’m right, he can’t accept it. He’s said that straight out - that he would deny the truth because he couldn’t believe his religion would let that happen, and because eh knows that proclaiming the imminent death of civilization would be immensely unpopular. He’s a very smart guy, but his ideologies can get a bit too powerful in his thinking, I think. I might be misrepresenting him to some degree, but as well as I remember, that’s what he said.