Maintaining The Megamachine
A recent quote on a listserve to which I belong peaked my interest:
“…the real religion of our times is Technoscience with its faith in infinite Progress: limitless expansion of size, scope and power of the human technolgocial [sic] system (the megamachine). The ‘developed’ world (i.e. the world to the extent that is it has already been incorporated into megamachine) is populated by greedy credulous consumer-fetuses.”
This is certainly true in western societies, especially the United States. Aldo Leopold wrote about it in his 1933 essay “The Conservation Ethic,” as did Edward Abbey.
Leopold correctly believed that socialism, communism, fascism, capitalism and what he called “technocracy” all shared the same end: the distribution of more machine-made commodities to more people. The underlying theory for all was “salvation by machinery.” Land is nothing more than an economic commodity, and we adjust our activities only to produce more goods.
The idea of a “community of life” is absent in this philosophy, and it’s been absent in the United States since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.
The results are easy to see. Heavily burdened ecosystems stretched to their limits, some beyond their limits. Species loss and extinction. Climate change, polluted waters, rivers that no longer reach the sea, an entire biosphere, stretched to the limit by human growth. The megamachine has places an illogical imposition on the planet, but in the end, it is humans will ultimately pay the toll.
And this is where we are today. Realizing the error of our ways, many humans are trying to find a technological fix to problems made possible by technology. Instead of examining our behavior and changing the destructive aspects of our behavior, we’re looking for ways to sustain the behavior, only with different tools.
Peak Oil? No worries. Humans are well on their way toward developing fuel cells and ethanol technologies while ignoring several important facts along the way. Fuel cells cannot deliver nearly the same punch as fossil fuel, and fuel cell technology has a negative EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). In other words, it takes more energy to make it than the energy produced, and it’s not cost effective.
Corn based ethanol also has a negative EROEI, and there are also major problems with mass biofuel production, including low energy yields, erosion and dependence upon fossil fuel for its production. All of this means biofuels are non-sustainable and are therefore destructive. Perhaps as much if not more than fossil fuel.
A solution?
I believe the only logical alternative is to change our behavior. We have use less fossil fuel and find renewal alternatives that are not seriously damaging to the environment. Cycling and walking are a couple of options.
A lot of people don’t take that very seriously, and quickly dismiss any discussion about cycling and walking as impractical, primarily because they’re too lazy and too comfortable to consider it. Most people in the mainstream environmental movement seem to be looking to technological fixes to keep the machine rolling and are caught up in the newly fashionable “green movement.”
In doing so, they’re doing their part to keep the destructive machine rolling along. Everyone wants a Prius, organic foods shipped in from gawd knows where, so-called “eco” products from catalogs like “Napa Style.”
There’s not a goddamned thing green about any of it. It’s all a bullshit laced fantasy designed to keep goods rolling off the assembly lines and the growth machine growing.
If only a small percentage of the 196,000,000 cellphone addicted, distracted, angry, licensed drivers in the United States would take some simple steps, we could make some real “progress.”
American commuters drive over 1 billion miles per day, burning millions of gallons of fuel. More than we import from burning, tortured Iraq on a daily basis. Total gasoline usage in the United States is over 9 million gallons per day.
If Americans simply reduced that number by ten percent, the results are pretty profound.
A step toward getting there? What if just ten percent of the commuters in this country would cycle or work from home two days per week? How many of those 196 million drivers are commuters that don’t carpool or take mass transport? According to recent statistics, the average commute is somewhere between 16 and 32 miles, both ways. Average fuel economy for American cars is around 21 miles per gallon. So, if you figure the average commute at 24 miles, that means that commuters burn 1.085 gallons for each commute.
Millions of commuters saving two gallons per week each. Those numbers add up very quickly. Think of the benefit to the biosphere. Think of how much quieter it would be. Less money spent. Fewer accidents. Less road rage. In all, a much more pleasant community.
The bottom line is this: it’s simply impossible to develop an alternative fuel that will allow the U.S. to maintain its present course, not to mention growth. The only possible solution is to admit the party is over, change behaviors and start serious conservation efforts.
That means if you really want to be “green,” you should strongly consider making more changes. Cycle to work. Walk. Move closer to your work, and if you can’t, find new work. Quit making excuses why you can’t.
Technology isn’t going to save us this time. There’s no magic bullet. No vaccination. No super pill to save us.
The party is over. The age of extravagance is past. We’re in the period of the Great Transition and the Future Primitive lies beyond.
Regarding the biofuels, saw an article this morning about Gov. Shwartzenegger and how he reduced his Hummer fleet to 4 and converted two of them to run on biofuels. What an eco-hero!
On a listserve that I belong to someone recently posted that soil scientists have been excluded from the biofuels debate and they have some important things to say, including:
Removing “crop residues…would rob organic matter that is vital to the maintenance of soil fertility and tilth, leading to disastrous soil erosion levels. Not considered is the importance of plant residues as a primary source of energy for soil microbial activity. The most prudent course, clearly, is to continue to recycle most crop residues back into the soil, where they are vital in keeping organic matter levels high enough to make the soil more open to air and water, more resistant to soil erosion, and more productive” (Sampson 1981).
“…Massive alcohol production from our farms is an immoral use of our soils since it rapidly promotes their wasting away. We must save these soils for an oil-less future” (Jackson 1980).
These are old studies, but so what? As the second one notes, the value of good growing soil will increase immensely in an oil-less future and we are going to piss it away so midwestern governors (including our Gov. “Diamond” Jim Doyle) can scratch the mega farmers’ backs and pretend that he cares about WI family farmers. What a mess.
Dear Mr. Jack Burns,
I found your post very disturbing. As an American it is my right to drive my Ford Mastadon a mile down the road to the store. If I want to keep it running in the parking lot while I’m there, then so be. Mother Earth will have to deal with it because I pay taxes and she doesn’t! It’s like those silly indians who think they had a right to live here in harmony with the land. What were they thinking?? You can’t have a viable society without harvesting the resources and selling them at outrageous prices to people who already have more stuff than they need. Ok I gotta go, need to drive the car down the driveway to check the mail. Such a pretty day out!!
Sincerely,
Suzy Q Soccer Mom
P.S. Praise Jesus.
The whole food vs. fuel debate is simply another result of our disconnected state. Perhaps the most frustrating thing is how many so-called “greens” have jumped on the bandwagon, apparently without much thought.
That the scientific community is being dismissed is no surprise. Since when has science ever been more important that profit in this country?
I listened to Noam Chomsky the other day as he discussed his optimism over the state of thing. Mostly about human rights issues and progress made in those areas, but I was frankly a little surprised at his overall tenor.
I don’t share this optimism and primarily because of environmental issues. As things heat up (no pun intended) with climate change, peak oil and shrinking aquifers, social pressures will increase, and as social pressures increase, so does the pressure applied by a militarized state on the populace. So, while some strides have been made, that situation could take you back a long, long way with regard to civil rights and freedom.
As my good friend Hayduke often points out (and do did Abbey), all of this is ultimately Good News, because we’ll once again learn how to live in place and live sustainably. That, or we’ll cease to live.
Michael wrote an interesting response to my piece on his blog:
I quite agree, it’s about time we came to terms with our responsibility to the environment and stopped falling back on technophilic dreaming.