Monday, September 10, 2012

The "BIG FORMAL SCIENTIFIC CRITIQUE PAPER THINGY" Introduction

For those who have come here expecting to read a 'formal' critique of John Michael Greer's "Theory of Catabolic Collapse", I'm afraid you may be in for a bit of a disappointment.  I did not set out, when I made my fateful post on theoildrum.com, to get John Michael Greer's permission and blessing to write a formal critique of his theory.  I wanted to have an open debate with him concerning his ideas.  He refused to do that on theoildrum, he also refused to do it on his blog.  He offered up the red herring suggestion that I write a formal critique instead.

I took on the challenge seriously and attempted to enlist the help of some real, qualified scientists, since I had been BANNED from theoildrum, and The Energy Bulletin would never publish my paper without acceptable credentials.

What follows are some excerpts from my correspondences with various scientists regarding the writing of such a paper.  I publish these here anonymously for the time being:

Hi Loren

Well it looks like I missed quite a bit while off on vacation!

Basically I've sort of reached the conclusion that none of this really matters - who is right about speed of collapse. No matter how reasoned and backed by evidence you might be, it won't really change anything.

I think Greer really believes his theory. He is an historian and counts on what has happened in history as guide to what may happen in the future. I've had my own "tussle" with him some time ago pointing out that this reliance is on the same order as: "I've never had cancer so I never will have cancer!"

From a systems standpoint I think one would need to provide a mapping from conditions of previous collapses, including the fact that such collapses were always relatively local within an embedding whole earth environment in which there was still a growing availability of net energy, to the whole world and be able to show that the same conditions prevail. I've talked to Joe Tainter about this and we both agree that it would probably take more time than we have before we ran out of money to complete the project!

My own argument is much simpler. I look at boundary conditions based on the availability of net free energy, the kind needed to do the useful work of supporting 7 billion people! I tried several times to raise this in guest posts on TOD and comments DB and got mild (at best) response. My contention is that the systems dynamics of draw down on the finite resources of BTUs locked in fossil fuels (which includes declining EROI) produces a much faster decline on available energy than, say, the classic peak oil models suggest (e.g. Hubbert's curve). Net energy is an absolute boundary.
And I responded with:

Hi __________,

Sorry I'm late again with this.  Please do forgive me.  As a student of the coming social collapse I can assure you that my cat pooped on my homework and I had to stay up all night to rewrite it!  I have a lot to cover here. 

To begin with, some house keeping.  I can't remember if I sent you a link to my latest blog post entitled "Memory Hole."  Here it is:
http://futilitist.blogspot.com/2012/09/memory-hole.html  I am not a big fan of censorship. 

Now, on to the good stuff:  Judging by the depth and thoughtfulness of your email I know that it is ideas, and the teaching and learning of them that propel you.  I am much the same.  I'm sure that my resume would not influence your ability to asses the validity of any ideas I might have, one way or the other.  But I thought it would be instructive to include some of my background in light of some of what I'm about to suggest. 

I have a bit of a background in showbiz.  In the 1980's I was a top level mechanical designer and SAG puppeteer in the motion picture industry.  I worked for many special effects companies including Make-Up Effects Lab, Kevin Yagher Productions, and ILM.  I was special effects icon Rob Bottin's lead mechanical designer and lead puppeteer for 3 years and two Oscars (Total Recall and Bugsy).  In the 1990's I switched my focus to computer animation.  I was a founding member of a company called Propellerhead Design (PhD) along with J J Abrams, Rob Letterman, and Andy Waisler, which developed novel animation tools and techniques, and formed a partnership with Dreamworks to build a 3d animation studio from scratch to produce Shrek. (There is a very big controversy surrounding the Shrek debaucle, and the real story is still unknown to the public)   I've also done a bit of screenwriting, in Los Angeles with my writing partner Tim Lawrence, and more recently with my some time current writing partner Gordon Gibson on a project called "The Procelladol Effect".  It is a meant to be a feature film concept based on ideas drawn from social theory concerning group think, and most especially the drama triangle, mimetic desire, and the scapegoat mechanism of Rene Girard.  I did a tremendous amount of research for this project.

I have a bit of a technical background as well.  I have a BS in Biocommunication Arts, which is now called Biomedical Visualization, and used to be called Medical Illustration.  I took all the same classes as the the first and second year med students, including gross anatomy, histology, embryology, physiology, and nueroanatomy.  I am a self taught, professional mechanical designer.  In addition to the movie stuff, I did a brief (1 year) stint in robotics, specifically the design of social robots for university research.  In addition to the mechanics, I also worked on developing content for the adaptive conversational software.     

I am also a professional drummer, where being a pattern freak is a real advantage.  One of my drummer friends calls me "Patterns, the Drum Wonder" (a play on Buddy Rich's childhood nickname "Kid Traps, the Drum Wonder").  I see patterns everywhere.
Also, I grew up on Tom Leher and Mad Magazine.  I absolutely love satire.  And I think this debate needs some serious razzmatazz.

But enough tooting my own horn.  Here is what I want to do about all of this:

First of all, the "Calling all Scientists" thing was a little tongue in cheek.  While I would love to work on a serious scientific paper, I agree for many reasons that this current effort would largely be a waste of time.  Catablolic collapse is not a real scientific theory in the first place.  If it were, it would already have been peer reviewed.  It does not deserve any attention at all.  I don't think anyone that I have argued slow collapse with has ever even read Greer's theory.  No one is likely to read it's rebuttal.

But the idea of slow collapse has a great many blind followers.  It is a false, deceptive, and seductive meme.  I wanted to change some minds.  So, I came up with a little plan to get people's attention.  It worked.   Now that I have their attention, I think I have a way to proceed from here. 

The genesis of this whole thing:
I started reading the oildrum back when it first got started.  At first I was totally bedazzled.  But over the years, I began noticing some very disturbing group think tendencies.  In 2010, I signed up and and began to comment.  I had the idea to use what I had gleaned from social theory and group dynamics to defeat commonly used argument deflections and try to steer the group toward more rational discussion practices.  Also, I wanted to directly challenge John Michael Greer regarding his theory.  This experiment was a complete and utter failure.*  Not only did JMG completely ignore me, but his supporters were only further inflamed by my suggestions that they were behaving in very rigid and highly PREDICTABLE ways, and were falling victim to many common fallacies and poor reasoning.  So sensitive.  Live and learn.  I signed off and went to the Pacific Northwest for a year to learn paleolithic living skills from a wilderness college.  But I never stopped thinking about all of this.

When I returned to civilization, I found the TOD situation was even worse.   I didn't really have much to say until David Korowicz's paper came out.  When Greer wrote his blog rebuttal of Korowicz's paper I was catalysed into action.  Only this time I had a much better plan.  I decided that rather than expose the social theory implications of each response, I would use techniques drawn from social theory to trick people instead.  It worked out much better than expected.  In chess terms I could not possibly have predicted each and every turn, but I had a basic strategy and good tactics.  I improvised a lot, but, in the end I attained my goals.

In the "The cat in John Michael Greer's Kitchen" I first carefully edge right up to the ad hominem attack line toward the end of my post.  This predictably draws immediate fire from sgage (this entire running battle was censored by Leanan).  Leanan then helps things along by agreeing that my post was an ad hominem attack.  This brings in the usual etiquette police (Alan from big easy and jokuhl).  Meanwhile Greer gets wind that something is up and joins the fray, at first only addressing his comments to others.  When he perceives what seems to him to be my weakness (no friends), he *WAY* underestimates me and oversteps into cat excrement!  The whole thing was like an updated Milgram Experiment!

Where to go from here:
I don't believe that Greer is really the originator of the slow collapse idea.  And I think he genuinely believes his own theory.  I believe the idea of slow collapse is a creation of the subconscious minds of it's believers.  It is just a rationalization born out of their fears and the normalcy bias.  Since writing a scientific paper is out of the question, I wanted, instead, to try a two pronged approach:
1.  The serious prong. 
     A.  Start a serious and uncensored discussion.  This has already begun.  Please check out the Doomstead Dinner discussion thread called "Sudden Stop or Long Emergency" at http://www.doomsteaddiner.org/forum/index.php?topic=842.msg7746#msg7746.  It would lend tremendous credibility to my project if you were to join and post a comment.    
     B.  Produce a decent, well written, serious breakdown of why Greer is wrong and why collapse must be fast.  With good charts and graphs.  I want to use some of yours.  This paper will help properly rebuild the world views that are collapsed by:
2.  The satirical prong (also quite serious).  Create a wider audience for the discussion and apply human nature.  In social theory terms, we expose the group's ideas to the scrutiny of a larger outside group.  Greer makes a great target for derision as the living embodiment of the slow collapse idea.  We do a public defrocking.  This hopefully causes much embarrassment for those caught holding the silly ideas at the end.  Everyone wants to be popular and shame is one of the best weapons known.  Once folks are relieved of their errant world views, we point them to number 1B above.                             

A few favors I'd like to ask of you:
Can I mention our correspondence?  Could I quote from it?  I would never embarrass you and would only use your comments with your expressed written consent.
Could you pass this email along to Joseph Tainter?  I read his book in 1990 and I am a huge fan.  I would love to hear what he thinks of all of this.  Do you happen to know Edward O. Wison, Richard Duncan, Richard Dawkins, David Price, and/or David Korowicz?
Would you proof read drafts of the serious paper as I work on it?

Doomstead Dinner started crossposting my blog and 751 people from all over the world have already read my indictment of the charlatan Greer so far.

Thanks for all of your help. 

Best Regards,
Loren

WARNING:  The success of this project could lead to mimetic contagion and help precipitate the onset of collapse!          
(*note---The thread in which I challenged Greer in 2010 seems to have been edited/censored/removed from the TOD database!)

And he returned with:

          Loren,
You certainly have been busy!
I need to make it clear, though, about my own intentions and motivations. I am not interested in proving anyone else wrong, or (even myself) right. I see no profit in such an effort. The issues we are facing are simply too complex for anyone to claim any real grasp on the reality. Whether the collapse is slow or fast is only important if you think there is some actions that can be taken under one or the other scenario that would somehow make a difference. I see no such action. In the end most of us discussing PO and energy matters related to economics do acknowledge that collapse is imminent and unavoidable. One way or another (fast or slow) civilization will unravel and the population size will seek its carrying capacity whatever that may be.
I am just presenting my interpretation of what is happening and presenting the evidence I find (with or without unconscious biases). I could have possibly written a book about it (I've certainly had publishing offers) but I don't need the money and do not seek any kind of fame. I'm content to let the Greers and Kunstlers provide the basic story with whatever interpretations they choose to make. The important issue is that the ideas be presented to the public. And that has been done.
Be it fast or slow there is no real preparation that anyone can make that isn't likely to be inadequate for one reason or another. My feeling is that we will just have to live through whatever comes. My hope is we can do it with grace, but I suspect those that do will be few.
Even though I may disagree with Greer's thesis on the details doesn't mean I want to show he is wrong. I'm content that the future evolution of collapse will tell its own story. Most of the people alive then won't care a hoot about who was right or wrong about the rate since everyone will face stresses that will focus their minds on just one thing - survival.
So please do not use anything I have written as suggesting that I support your efforts. If what I have written supports your thesis (that collapse will be rapid - not that Greer is being dishonest) you can certainly use it in that manner. As for the people you mention, though I know many of them I would not be interested in passing this on to them. For one thing a number of them will probably share my sentiment about not wanting to get into pissing contests over something none of us can know with any certainty. I would not want them to think I support proving Greer of being dishonest. I hope you can understand this position.
Regards


Here is example from a different correspondence:

Loren,

Wow, so they banned you before you could post the response that even Greer himself was expecting?  I really don't care for the increasingly tight moderation there.  I rarely post anything but am a frequent reader and have seen the limits of discussion gradually curtailed over time.

I am quite interested in your critique of Greer's catabolic collapse. (I bet he is too.)

Cheers,

And later:

> Hello Loren,

My apologies for the slow response. My best local friend is moving away to rake in the oil bucks (North Slope) so I and some of his other friends were busy giving him a proper send-off. By then it had sunk in my inbox and I forgot.

I am very interested in your results but do not have the time, nor likely the relevant expertise, to participate. In addition to what's already on my plate, I am trying to find a new job.

Cheers

And one more:

Hi Loren,

I saw your post on TOD**.  I really don't know what exactly the conversation was about, I have not been following TOD very closely anymore - too depressing to see so many highly insulated people discuss things in such a detached, clinical way ...  all seem to be in some perpetual "bargaining" stage.

I just know I identified very much with some of your remarks:

" All my cards are on the table. I can't pull any more 'stunts' because everyone is totally on to me."

I feel like we are all "faking it" most of the time - the "professionals" class has been "captured" as per Charles Hugh Smith's latest blog. 
Good luck in discussions with Greer over his catabolic collapse hypothesis.  It's interesting, but I think he is playing strawman with his "apocalypse not" stuff.  Either that or he is unaware of his own biases.

In any case, best of luck.  You are not alone.

And later:

Loren,

Thanks for the update.

re. Greer's "I've been waiting since the original paper was first published... for a meaningful critique..."

Where was it published?  Did he submit his paper to a refereed journal?  If so, what were the critiques by the referees?  If not, why not?  When he goes fishing, does he cast his line into a pile of sand in the middle of a grassy field?  Or does he go where the fish are and cast there? 

What is the audience he seeks ?  Why not go directly to that audience?  Or maybe that is exactly what he is doing - going to the general public and avoiding the scientists altogether?  Who knows.

I have to say up front that I have not read Greer's books, or his "theory," and just barely skimmed his "original paper".  I do like the name he uses - "Catabolic Collapse."  Sounds cool - suggests we will be trolling through the wreckage for generations to come... I don't know though what exactly he means by that and his attempted use of equations does not seem to add anything.

I do think it is good that you badger him about it - real science requires that sort of thing. But I am not sure how much time and effort it is worth.
(**note---It is lucky he saw my post before it was removed by the moderator/censor Leanan, otherwise we may never have even gotten in touch!)


So basically, I alone have been consigned to write a formal critique that no one will ever read, about a so called 'theory' that no one understands or has ever read, to be posted here on a blog that very few will ever likely see.

Hmmm.....

That doesn't sound like very much fun to me, so I've decided not to do it.


But I still want to have some kind of impact here, since I've already gone to so much trouble.  So I will instead publish a highly informal critique.   It will consist of two parts.  Part I will demonstrate that Greer, his apologists, and all slow collapsers, far and wide, are basically suffering from a mass shared delusion born out of fear, normalcy bias, optimism bias, and mimetic desire.  Once that shared delusion has been dispensed with, we will proceed to Part II where I will offer the simple, basic arguments in favor of a fast collapse.

This critique will be published in three posts, of which this short introduction is just the first.  I've been gathering the materials I need to write the arguments in Part I and Part II, and I will offer up Part I in my next post.

Until next time, I'll see you on the web.  Feel free to comment.  Please be gentle with me, this is my first time.


---Futilitist       






OK, I can't resist.  For a litle teaser for what's in store for my next post, I give you this item that was posted in the Sudden Stop or Long Emergency thread running at Doomstead Diner.  Monsta666 dropped this post just today.  He offers me some solid advise on how to approach my task.

I think a point that needs to be made because it has not been acknowledged much is that people - including people who are peak oil aware - often suffer from normalcy bias. It has been a few years since the financial crisis 2008 and whilst the economy has not actually recovered it has not collapsed either. Moreover what we have had instead is a slow decline  and since this decline has been going for a few years the natural belief is this slow decline can extend for several decades. A lot of peak oilers fail to see that there will be a tipping/inflection point that prevents this current trend from lasting a protracted period of time.

In addition we also have the situation were peak oil has not panned out quite as envisioned, well at least to how peak oil was popularly received a few years back. A lot of people did not expect to see a plateau and was expecting a terminal decline to start almost immediately after reaching peak. The fact oil production has plateaued 7 years has caused this theory to be less respected. While most peak oilers do not expect this plateau to last very long the plateau has had significant implications that have not really been considered. What the plateau has done is it has prevented a collapse in global financial sector. People who criticise peak oil and fast collapse theories tend to forget that one of the bigger reasons why the fast collapse has not happened as yet is because we have not yet experienced any declines in global oil production. It is ironic that this oversight in the earlier peak oil theories has played a big role (in my opinion) in how BAU has been able to continue to this present day. I suspect when oil production goes into terminal decline that would be the real acid test on whether we get fast or slow collapse.

I cannot envision how the global financial sector can hold together under an environment of sustained oil production declines. If the financial sector fails/collapses then I fail to see how the supply line problem can be averted by national governments. So I am a fast collapser. As for Greer, I do think he is arguing from a position of strength but I do not say this because his theory is robust rather I say it because he makes his theory of slow collapse while we are in a period of slow collapse or more accurately decline. As this is what people are seeing in their CURRENT environment and people have a normalcy bias naturally his theory will gain more traction. Conversely theories of fast collapse will be less well received as we are not currently experiencing a collapse or even the threat of imminent collapse. Notice how the fast collapse theories were much more prominent during 2008 than they are now when the threat of collapse was much greater.

When tackling this issue, I feel you need to address the issues of psychology. I do not fully agree with all of his Greer's theories but he does have a good lid when it comes to human psychology and this needs to be addressed in your blog. Also do try not to focus solely on Greer but make strong assertions why the slow decline is not feasible in the long-term. I believe there are some strong fallacies in this theory and one of the chief reasons it holds so much traction is peoples' susceptibility to normalcy bias not to mention the massive inertia in thinking which prevents people from contemplating faster collapse scenarios as that would be a big departure from the current mood of thinking. Finally I think the whole gravity and implications of a fast collapse makes it easier for people to reject as the mind naturally rejects this scenario out of fear so the slower, more comforting slow decline is more readily accepted.

Saying that, I am not entirely ruling out the possibility that we will only see a slow decline but I think it is unlikely and the arguments for faster collapse seem more convincing to me than slow collapse. The devil is in the details and I have noticed the faster collapse people can quantify their assertions with numbers more easily which is usually an indication of thinking more deeply. Notice in other dialogues how people can often make comments but when it comes to quantification it surprisingly sparse? I am sure you know who I speak of with this comment but I hope when devising your theory you can incorporate more figures as this will strengthen your case more.

As a final point I do notice with Greer that he has hedged his bets somewhat. On the one hand he does strongly promote the slow collapse idea with his theory of catoblic collapse but on the other hand he also suggests a stair case model which does incorporate some fast collapse phases. So in a way even Greer does suggest some fast collapse although I would say he is really pushing the slow idea, to point even where he is discrediting people who believe in faster collapse scenarios. This makes me believe that this slow catabolic collapse theory is his true belief and the stair case model is merely a hedge should his main slow catabolic theory fail. As a result of this even if his main theory does turn out to be wrong he can still say he correctly predicted that outcome as he can go to his stair case model. Now I will say this just so people are clear about this, there is a good possibility I have misunderstood Greer as I only follow his blog and have not read any of his books. So if I have made an error in this interpretation please correct me.    
Thanks again, monsta666

And one more thing.  Psychology is what this is all about.  A Greer supporting slow-collapser named Lucretius Carus kind of left this comment on my post "Let's Get Real".  Just to give you an idea of the hall of mirrors into which we are about to step:

Like most of us, what an ego you have and so freely exhibit, and without the slightest trace of irony, nor even much self-awareness it seems. You have some valid points to make (although certainly no discernible, over-arching point or philosophy worth mentioning), but you trip over your animus and, my guess is, with no sense of self-awareness at all. "It is just a product of the optimism bias and wishful thinking." And do tell us, you pessimistic (angry?) realist, what bias and inaccurate, perhaps overreaching thinking do you suffer from? Anything? Nothing?

You need to do some basic research into the ideas of complexes and psychological projection before you utter another word toward the erstwhile Mr. Greer, who has more than proven his bonafides against, I would venture to say, far better, more comprehensive thinkers than you. He's also quite graciously, and on numerous occasions, carefully explained his theories, provided much supporting information, incorporated changes and updates when warranted, and explained patiently the basis of his theory and beliefs. You, apparently, like many "doomers", just don't like the conclusions he draws, the primary one of these being that this, now, today, just as you see it, IS collapse.

And since you seem to have a bias toward the "fast collapse" scenario, are you even aware of why you might WANT this to be true? Or are you also unaware of the popular twin American myths, those of Endless Progress and its complimentary opposite, that of Apocalyptic Collapse?

Last chance to turn back....



---Futilitist

2 comments:

  1. Hi Loren,

    I don't know who wrote those first letters, but I like him. I think you should go read his letters to you like 20 more times.

    But if you do proceed, I think you should bag on the Part 1 stuff, and just skip ahead to Part 2. I know you're interested in sociology, and I'm starting to wonder if you're way more interested in that than collapse, but I would certainly keep them separate discussions.

    If you do want to produce a "scientific" paper, I would be glad to edit drafts. I have two Master's degrees and numerous professional documents and consider myself a good technical writer. I might be able to make it sound more "formal" (without changing the content). Up to you. I promise to keep my editorial comments to myself until after you publish! :)

    Cheers,
    -Adam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Adam,

      Thanks for the comment.

      I like the scientist who wrote the first letter, as well.

      I appreciate your preference, and the preference of many others, to skip ahead to Part 2. But I've been thinking about collapse for a very long time and I believe the sociology is essential to a full understanding.

      Besides, I don't have much to add to the core science on collapse, except perhaps a mental model I will propose that helps to visualize 'fast' collapse.

      I also appreciate your offer to help write a paper. I'm playing it by ear here, so we will have to wait and see if I will have the need to take you up on your offer. Stay tuned.

      ---Futilitist

      Delete