Last year a few learned friends, both university professors, and myself agreed to present through our community press a series of articles on two topics we understand to be of paramount importance. It was apparent to us that even as misinformation about global warming often overshadowed fact, the full implications of dwindling supplies of oil were virtually unknown to our fellow citizens.

In a preliminary meeting we discussed measures we might advocate for society to deal with these emergencies. I aired the growing opinion that even in the best conceivable scenario of dramatically increased government and business commitment to energy efficiency, coupled with a crash development program of clean and sustainable forms of energy, significant disruptions to our everyday lives appear unavoidable. We had best prepare to live without many of our accustomed luxuries if we want to avoid deprivations of the necessities.

Although his exact wording may escape me now I’ve not forgotten the exclamation from one of my co-conspirators: “You’re suggesting people change their culture!” He was right.

Our fundamental dilemma is how citizens of an industrial society – people of distinctly different backgrounds and means but all habituated to effortless energy use - might be moved to voluntarily phase out a previously unchallenged lifestyle of convenience in favor of one more self-reliant, more demanding - and more survivable.

According to Richard Heinberg’s afterword to The Party’s Over: Oil, War, and the Fate of Industrial Societies, the energy in a single gallon of gasoline is roughly equivalent to the work output of a human being (about a quarter of a horsepower) for a month, and an American working at a minimum-wage job can buy a gallon of gas for about 20 minutes’ worth of labor. Dr. John H. Leinhard of the University of Houston estimates that the average combined energy used by each American (for transportation, tool use, communications, climate control, lighting, entertainment, conveniences, etc.) is the equivalent of having over 150 human slaves 24 hours a day. The energy we’ve used to create our civilization has been incredibly cheap, and we assume it will be so tomorrow.

The easy availability of such a powerful energy source has given rise to tremendous complexity in our society. Labor-intensive functions like agriculture have been largely assigned to machines, freeing an ever-increasing portion of the population to specialize in “careers” far removed from the production of their own basic necessities. At the same time, the pursuit of luxury and convenience has become nothing less than a cult. Members of my generation can remember when color television was a neighborhood sensation; now it is considered a necessity. When the electric can opener and toothbrush came on the market, I admit I thought they would pass, as fads do. I was wrong, but pass they will, if only because we run out of steam (to use a dated metaphor) before we’re done with them.
The ride-me lawn mower and the power leaf blower reflect a culture not only heedless of the physical limitations of its energy sources but also oblivious to the true source of its own advancement. A mere blink of history’s eye has produced in our country an unprecedented un-consciousness of the laws of nature and the inescapable requirement of abiding by them. And while it has been a remarkable run, we are finally approaching the end.

The physical requirements of retaining the desirable characteristics of civilization through the coming energy shortfalls are no secret. Populations everywhere will need to convert to more localized, self-sustaining, low-energy economies, utilizing production loops that produce little or no waste. In other words, successful humans will be those that live in ways that harmonize with the earth’s whims, not vice versa.

In such a future there will be much to learn and adaptations to make, but the principles for doing so are understood. The more pressing obstacle in 2008 is that of redefining our ideals, and thus our goals. Neither “big” nor “new” will necessarily be better, the concept of “waste” will become much more widely understood and acted upon, and “success” can no longer mean he who possesses the most. To the extent our neighbors, upon whose actions we will become ever more dependent, come to appreciate and commit to the principles of true sustainability, we will avoid a lot of the strife toward which we currently seem headed.

Dave Wheelock, a member of the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, holds a bachelor’s degree in history from the University of New Mexico. He can be reached at davewheelock (one word, lower case) at yahoo.com. His views do not necessarily reflect those of Socorro News, but frequently do.

Copyright Dave Wheelock, 2008; all rights reserved.