One interesting side note is that the big players in developing oil fields are losing experienced workers by the day, as they retire and few new workers are trained. "Brain drain" is a real issue - the only sector doing OK are those into 3-D underground geology, much of it based on computer modeling just like games.  

The two examples are Mexico (PEMEX) and Russia (Lukoil I think). Both counties have existing fields that are being played and need new investments in technology and trained manpower. Watch, Venezuela will have a similar problem soon, as they booted out most of the US technology companies.  

Of course, maybe brain drain isn't so bad if you want less oil!

Onward through the fog

It isn't just consumer habits that are going to undergo a change. Energy is fundamental to the whole economy. In fact it is the only true basis for an economy. Reduce energy and you reduce the amount of work that can be done. It really is that simple. Assume, for a moment, that peak oil production is the biggest component in the run up of oil price (supply and demand!) Now think about what happens in the years ahead as oil production declines each year.

Demand doesn't show much destruction other than in the obvious personal transport sector. Unless there is a spectacular breakthrough in investment in alternative energy capital equipment and efficiency standards there will be less energy each year to do economic work. That means less stuff gets built and/or shipped. What does get built will cost more in dollars (since in reality money = energy and with the number of dollars staying constant with energy declining the dollars per Btu goes up).

We will witness economic contraction coupled with inflation. If you thought stagflation was a bitter pill...

Then some day some bright bulb will put 2 and 2 together and get 4. But if it comes later than sooner there won't be enough FF energy left to invest wisely in alternatives.

Question Everything

George
PS. I thought sure I did take you up on that bet! Are you sure I didn't???

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

Yes, the cost of oil is a major problem for us. But at the end of the day, when oil is largely gone, they will be left with no exportable resources and a huge population they can't feed.

So a massive transfer of raw power is unlikely. We all will have to make serious adjustments down the road, develop new energy supplies, and for the Arabs start controlling population growth.

Victory in Pattani

One likes to think, as the author suggests, that a "paradigm shift" is indeed underway.

On the other hand, the global population is soaring toward 7 billion, with at least 9.5 billion of us projected by mid-century.  All needing food, clothing, energy, clean water.  Which means more land, more fertilizer, more transportation, more feedlots, more soil exhaustion, more hunting and fishing, more minerals and metals and plastics and wood.

Take cheap oil and natural gas and other fossil fuels out of the equation, and it could get ugly.  Fast

So it's great to hope we can each reduce our carbon footprints by, say, 25%.  But if our numbers increase by 25% in the meantime, we're right back where we started.

Even the head economist of the IEA is coming around to the view of near-term peaks:

What I can tell you is that one day global conventional oil will peak. This will depend on many factors, including the role of technology, investment, and production policies. When we look at oil outside of the OPEC countries, when you put all of them together, I think it is going to peak very soon. But we have unconventional oil, and we have oil in the Middle East as well. How much will come to the market from unconventional oil?

With regards to Middle Eastern oil, he answers himself:

Therefore, the bulk of the growth in the future needs to come from the national oil companies, and perhaps price will no longer be the main determinant when they make their [production] decisions, because for many countries, oil is their only natural endowment. And those countries legitimately value and want to leave their one and only natural endowment for future generations.

(This naturally raises the question: Why are the national oil companies starting to conserve now? Why didn't they start that 10 or 20 years ago?)

Others concur with this view, like the U.S. energy secretary:

The U.S. energy secretary said Saturday that insufficient oil production, not financial speculation, was driving soaring crude prices. ... "Market fundamentals show us that production has not kept pace with growing demand for oil, resulting in increasing prices and increasingly volatile prices," Bodman told reporters. "There is no evidence that we can find that speculators are driving futures prices" for oil.

And the CEO of Total:

Christophe de Margerie, the boss of Total, thinks that the world's oil production may be nearing its peak... Last year he declared that the world would never be able to increase its output of oil from the current level of 85m barrels per day (b/d) to 100m b/d, let alone the 120m b/d that energy analysts predict will be needed by 2030.

The bottom line is that global oil production has been on a "bumpy plateau" since 2005. Net oil exports have declined since 2005. The majority of the big oil fields are in decline, and new production is not ramping up fast enough to replace them over the long term (after 2-5 years from today).

There is a debate over the causes -- some say geological and technical, some say political. At any rate it's a solid bet that oil prices will continue on an upward trend for the foreseeable future.

Ped Shed Blog

Could I offer a non-professional hypothesis on what is happening with the oil price?  The oil price rise is essentially being driven by a change in perception about the availability of oil.

There have been several indicators in the couple of years. Russia is apparently close to its peak production. Mexico's phenomenal Cantarell field is in decline. North Sea oil is in decline. And it seems as if Saudi Arabia's ability to increase production may be very limited.

Millions of people are beginning to connect the dots. Many of the facts have been available for years, but for some reason we have reached a tipping point.  This realization set off other trends.

I think the speculation is an epi-phenomenon. Once one sees a trend developing, it's natural to bet that it will continue. If the price were to begin dropping, we'd probably see speculation favoring the other direction.

The desire for oil-producing countries to control their own resources is related. With the realization that supplies are limited, wouldn't you - as  sheik of Scorse-land - want to get the most value for your oil? Why drill more, if the current oil revenue is enough? Especially if you were going to be paid in dollars, the value of which declines with every day.

And if you were far-sighted, as some of the leaders are, wouldn't you want to leave some oil in the ground for the future?  

The conflicts in oil-producing countries also may be related. With oil near $150/barrel, control of the oil reserves are a rich prize.  (As versus a few years ago when oil was at $10/barrel). Some have argued that a concern with oil supplies was behind the Iraq invasion (some say this approvingly, others disapprovingly).

Ironically, as unpleasant as the price rise has been, it may be just the thing to save us. Just about everyone serious realizes that peak oil will be here sooner or later (now to 20 years from now).  Serious students realize that it is critical to make preparations beforehand, since being caught by surprise would be catastrophic. But serious students also understand that moral suasion is insufficient; real change requires the economic incentive of high prices.

And so we must thank the Markets for giving us this early-warning signal.  In this, at least, your faith in markets is vindicated.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

It is easy enough to blame "foreign" countries, as Exxon blamed "those Ay-rabs" for the l976 crisis.  One of the Exxon executives decided that he was not going to pay what the owners of the oil wanted and that they would just have to take what he offered. They immediately jacked up the price and the USA shut down.

OPEC is more prepared to strike a bargain now, but with the current Iraq government under siege to force the Bush/Cheney solution that situation could change any time.

But with the cumulative change in world-wide climate, food shortages will soon result in human migrations more disruptive to civilisation than we can imagine.  

Des Emery

Real forcefull position for a market expert allright!  You really stuck your neck out didn't you?  

Maybe it's as some have said?  Maybe it is not speculation raising prices beyond what the supply/demand effect would put it?  Maybe it is insider trading manipulation via the enron loophole and general unregulation.  Combined with OPEC and state oil companies that don't even pretend to care about free and fair trade?

Maybe OPEC and china are putting some cash into hedge funds?

"...global slowdowns have never been met with such commodity price inflation before"

Isn't that known as "stagflation"?  

"..new investment in alternative energy and new technology is booming"

But mainly in the wrong technology, like ethanol.

"...the fundamental economic prediction always turns out right: Higher prices lead to changes in behavior."

Ah, yes the mighty free market will save us.  The true believer returns to his faith.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

That could be downright scary. Wars couldn't be fought with vehicles and jets. Ships would run out of Bunker C and global trade would stop. Farm tractors would sit idle and food would rot even if you had any. People would run out of the cities and chop down all the forests for firewood.

I am kidding in a way, but mankind shows a remarkable ability to put things off and get slammed by whatever comes next. Intelligent monkeys don't make good planners, I suppose.

Onward through the fog

As for GDP, I'm with Herman Daly on the worthlessness of that particular measure of wealth. GDP goes up when bad things happen as well as good. So the real question is will we be better off materially when energy inputs begin to fall and continue falling thereafter? I'm betting no. On the other hand, if we play our cards right we might be better off spiritually - that is we might be happier not chasing the consumerist American dream.

GDP is measured in dollars. Bad choice. Dollars don't do real work, energy does. If net free energy (physics talk) goes down over time, less work gets done. Measure true income in Btus and you will see real income/wealth decline. There is no breaking or bending of the second law of thermodynamics except in the minds of neoclassicists. Don't know if you are one, but if so, the future is going to disappoint you again.

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

Intelligent monkeys don't make good planners, I suppose.

My other day job is trying to synthesize some work in psychology on 'wisdom' with neuroscience and sociology. Robert Sternberg has investigated the psychological aspects of wisdom and concludes that it is different from but related to intelligence (and creativity) in very subtle ways.

The real problem seems to be that humans are big on intelligence (as in local problem solving) and creativity (I + C = cleverness) but short on wisdom. As far as I can tell it appears that the part of the  brain that is most implicated in judgment (wisdom) processing is the newest part (the polar and medial prefrontal neocortices) to have evolved and therefore probably underdeveloped in relation to the cleverness part. The co-evolution of cleverness and culture seems to have deselected wisdom which might otherwise have down modulated greed and avarice as well as aggression. Oh well.

So we're clever primates (apes not monkeys) alright. And we don't do a good job of thinking into the future - strategic planing. But maybe the new world we are creating blindly will select better for wisdom in the future. We can hope.

George


George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

The co-evolution of cleverness and culture seems to have deselected wisdom which might otherwise have down modulated greed and avarice as well as aggression.

For all of history except the last 200 years, we've lived in local communities with strong traditions that provided some safeguards against short-term thinking.

Cheap energy and industrialization have broken down those communities and safeguards. Even in my lifetime, I've seen commercialism invade one sphere after another. We live in a society with the traditional restraints removed, and we are reaping the consequences.

The challenge is to look through history, anthropology and sociology to see which institutions and traditions helped us cope with our human weaknesses, and which ones exacerbated them.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

Amazing, do you ever pay any attention whatsoever to the world around you?

You either try and manipulate the market to get the desired results, accepting it's imperfections, or get a disaster by letting government decide for you who will control what, who will produce what, etc. etc. etc.

Of course, you think we are standing on the abyss anyway........ so I don't know why I bother.

Victory in Pattani

The altnerative to a free market is a directed market. And who directs it? The government. A quick glance at history and current events tells you what you get there.

We've got problems and the "free-market" philosophy of the last few decades is largely what got us into the mess.

Our thinking about economics and policy has become so ideological - as ideological in its own way as the dogma of central planning in the old communist economies.

If you look at the most successful policies in modern history, I think you see a pragmatic combination of government intervention and the market.  Examples: New Deal, European social democracies, Chinese communism-capitalism, Asian Tigers (government-led capitalism).

I think the problems of energy and climate will challenge capitalism as nothing else has before. Capitalism is resilient, but will it be able to adapt?  An open question.  

Bart
Energy Bulletin

There is no third way. Either the economy is directed or it's not and it's a free market economy.  To be sure in both systems there are elements of the other. Public fire and police, public education, etc. are all elements of a communist (socialist) society. But we are talking about basic general principals here, not tweaking.

So you have one of two choices.

Rag on capitalism all you want, but it beats the alternative. Sort of like Democracy. Flawed as it is, it beats the alternative.

Victory in Pattani

I don't think we in the west will be immune to it, but the Third World is definitely going to take the biggest hit.  Certainly some of our cities like Reno, Las Vegas, and Phoenix will dry up as people begin to realize that it was never sensible to have millions of people living in the middle of a desert.  Or...all those people in Phoenix could give up watering their lawns today and give themselves a few more years of water...but that's not likely.  History tells us that people would rather die than change.  Those that are willing/able to change are the ones who will survive.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

1. Longevity is the highest at any point in human history

2. Literacy is at the highest point in human history

3. Hundreds of millions of people each of the last decades have been lifted out of extreme poverty

4. Population growth rates are slowing- mostly because people are getting wealthier

5. A person born today has the lowest chance ever in history to be killed in armed conflict

of course there are big problems, but sometimes we need a little reality check- as bad as things are now they are nothing compared to other bad times- Depression, WW I & II, Communism under Mao and Stalin, even the Vietnam War- so let's put things in perspective.

And while I am an economist and believe in the power of markets, I have written extensively on this site about the various types of government policies that are needed to improve society so please, those of you who buy into the false notion that being in favor markets means complete Wild West capitalism, can you please pay more attention and be serious. Thanks.

J.S.

Economic Illiteracy Harms The Planet! www.voicesofreason.info.

There's nothing at all pessimistic about George's analysis.  The root of our problems is that human intellect is running wild while wisdom is ignored.  This has been going on at least since humans discovered agriculture.  At that time, human population began increasing substantially, but instead of wisely reducing birthrates accordingly, humans foolishly invented the "be fruitful and multiply" ideology, which gave the human species a cancer-like effect on the rest of the planet.

Pickens has an ad running for renewables and he mentions using natural gas as an oil substitute.  that ad might be a good one to post on the blog, DR?  

As per the nano tech storage breakthrough I have mentioned, it allows storage of natural gas at ambient temperature and pressure at nearly the energy density of liquid fuel.  That means a natural gas tank in your vehicle that is not a 3000 psi bomb.

Natural gas is one dollar per gallon of gas equivalent.  converting long haul trucking would relieve the demand pressurwe on oil for a short breathing space for our economy.  Time to switch to plugin hybrids and geo heat exchange powered by renewables.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

Replace oil with natural gas.  Use big wind.  The facts.

http://www.pickensplan.org/theplan/

I don't think he includes replacing natural gas heating with groundsource heat pumps.  But the wind plan could get rid of natural gas power generation.  

Has he heard of converting coal to natural gas? Naturally underground.  

Or biogas from waste to augment natural gas and offset CO2?  This plan is incomplete.

His plan may lead to peak natural gas.  Unless plugin hybrids take over most miles driven.  like 80% maybe?

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

must be here somewhere. maybe he left that part of the plan in his other jacket.

except when he and the wind energy whatsamahoozy association when to ask for transmission lines they weren't asking for anything fancy in the wiring. just "transmit that energy to cities and towns." no solar or storage or distributed or nuthin. 20% of electricity's plenty.

it's win-win-win-win-win-win-win!

Our thinking is likely to be skewed, living as we do in one of the most abnormal ages that human beings have ever lived in.

How did the age get so abnormal?

Wolverine summed it up nicely, but you can read more about the problems with human levels of sapience on my blog.

Question Everything

George


George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

That same restraint needs sometimes to be mandated, like reins restrain a wild horse, making it rideable.  Unrestrained democracy would be as dangerous to one's health as unrestrained communism.

That's why a regulated marketplace is essential to the quiet enjoyment of democratic principles, not giving free rein to insiders, manipulators, speculators,controllers, et al.  

If the Oil Market had been more closely controlled by the government and the legal system, and allowed to operate on proper market principles we would not now be caught on the horns of a dilemma.

Des Emery

The root of our problems is that human intellect is running wild while wisdom is ignored.  This has been going on at least since humans discovered agriculture

How did the age get so abnormal?

One reason this is a weak argument is that history and anthropology present us with a multiplicity of different societies. Humans have essentially the same brain structures; to what can this diversity be attributed? There must be something more than physiology, and that something is culture.

China has been a continuous civilization for more than 4000 years, for example. The Chinese culture must have learned something about sustainability (too bad they're forgetting it now in the attempt to imitate the US).

Traditional peasant culture had many good features built into it. Unless one studies it, one will never learn about it, since our culture is virulently anti-peasant, anti-rural. Many people admire the Amish, but what they are admiring is a peasant society from 17th century Central Europe, which has sought to preserve itself.  

Peasant societies aren't perfect by any means, but they did solve problems that our modern civilization fails at.  We have a lot to learn from them, as well as from other kinds of culture.

The problem is, modern commercial culture assumes that it is the Only Culture, the Most Developed Culture. Therefore, if there are problems, it can't be with our culture -- it must be human nature.  Our problems couldn't be due to institutions that humans devised and that we could change; it must be due to the stars, to DNA, to fate.

Fortunately, modern commercial culture is only one of many possibilities.  

I'll admit, it's pretty hard to see other possibilities from inside the belly of the beast. Some people have their eyes opened by foreign travel (best if done on a shoestring, away from tour groups).  Others have friends or marriage partners from outside the culture.  Learning a foreign language is another path.  And there are always the fields of history and sociology, whether done academically or as a hobby by reading.  

That said, I think systems analysis and the study of the brain are fascinating fields. It's just that, by themselves, they can't answer what to me are the most important questions.

Bart
Energy Bulletin

I'd take recent Chinese (and Soviet) history as proof that industrial communism destroys nature even better than industrial capitalism.

To hammer China's plight in a backhanded attack on OUR culture is absurd.

(I take the general "Blank Slate" position, the book not the literal meaning, that cultures vary but along lines generally bounded by "human nature."  A reasonable and moderate recognition of what really is human nature ... that's the tricky bit.)

If you look into the subject, O, I think you'll find it more complicated than the stereotypes. In the early years of the Soviet Union, there were apparently some far-thinking environmental policies. Also, the Soviets were leaders in soil science.

Remember that they were undergoing a transition from an agricultural society to an industrial society, and environmental concerns are pretty low on the list of priorities in any society undergoing that phase of its development - whether the society is capitalist or communist.

China is a strange case, since it seems to have more the characteristics of a capitalist economy after the time of Mao.  Even so, it has a green movement that periodically becomes visible.

On one thing you're definitely right -- after Stalin, environmentalism was NOT part of official communist doctrine. In fact, official communism was anti-environmentalist, labelling it "neo-Malthusianism."

However Soviet-style communism is only one segment of the vast spectrum of socialisms. It's dead now, and shows little sign of returning.

In any case, environmentalism is no longer verboten, although there's a residual suspicion of it among some old-timers. Many socialists now are active environmentalists. In Australia, for example, there is the publication Green Left.

One of the best of the socialist publications is Monthly Review, which has just published a special issue on ecology.  What's funny is that in spite of their association with Marxism, they don't sound much different than many current activists who have never heard of Marx. Editor John Bellamy Foster who co-wrote  the intro to the current issue (The Moment of Truth) is an environmental thinker worth reading. He teaches at U. of Oregon, Eugene. (I have no ties with him or with MR).

Bart
Energy Bulletin

China and other countries with state owned oil companies set the price to boost their economy too.  But they are undercutting US.

Gas was 10 cents per gallon in pre-invasion Iraq.

So our economy is suffering.  But how about Europe?  They have taxed oil up to high prices all along?  That seems to have worked, their economies are stable despite oil prices.

Taxes turn out to be good for business, in the longer term?  Currency exchange and international trade turn price fixing within an economy into a way around trade agreements.  Low gas prices in the case of china, is like a tarrif for our medium (remember europe is double!) fuel price economy.

Natural gas at 1 dollar per gallon equivalent would be a great bargaining tool to get all the gas guzzling, trade gaming, monopoly pricing problems solved.  And get real GHG reducing treaties signed.  Right now the worst, oiliest OPEC and exxonmob actors, like darth cheney, have been placed in control of the world economy.

The largest consumer market in the world, the good old USA, could shrug off oil in favor of renewables, conservation, and natural gas.  That is the "big stick" we need to use to get global GHG reduction going.

If we control 25% of world demand for oil, we control the markets now monopolized by OPEC and state owned oil companies (or state owning companies, like exxonmob owning bush), so let's take control.  Start dropping demand and make them some offers they can't refuse.

With all the savings from stopping oil wars, invested in this renewable/conservation economy, the rest would fall in line behind GHG reduction.  Rapidly switching their energy economies to mimick ours.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

http://www.grandcouleedam.org/

During one of the presentations they mentioned that a single generator there could run Chicago.   Wow.   It has so much energy it started a whole industry in Washington -- manufacturing aluminum.

The thing is, it almost seems like if a single generator could run Chicago, then almost the whole country could run on a single dam as big as the Columbia if we ran it at full tilt!

That leads me to believe there is a load of excess capacity in the system right now.

The other thing is, if we did need more power (which we don't) why don't we build a few more dams...it seems like we've got the environmental management angle down pretty well.  

Right now, China is going gangbusters building hydroelectric dams:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_hydoelec ...

They lost money while oil has soared.  Now are mutual funds dumping them?  

Is that why oil is slumping?  Less cash for hedge funds to use for insider trading?  Less trust and cooperation amongst hedge fund crooks?

No honor amongst thieves?

Hehey, congress examining speculators, considering re-regulation (this just on CNBC).  Maybe the smart money is deserting hedge funds?  And going into safer, lower return investments.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

It sounds as if you are arguing that biology determines destiny.  Human beings are born with a certain nervous system, you seem to be saying, and therefore the present social structure is preordained.

That is a leap. The world isn't black or white. There is an in-between where nature and nurture combine. But it is the case that you can't do something that your brain isn't wired to do. I have written about the brain basis for sapience (wisdom and judgment) in my blog. Before making leaps of assumption about what I am saying it would be a good idea to do some background checking.

BTW: I did mention the co-evolution of brain and culture, didn't I?

China has been a continuous civilization for more than 4000 years, for example. The Chinese culture must have learned something about sustainability (too bad they're forgetting it now in the attempt to imitate the US).

You seem to be comfortable with logical inconsistencies. If the Chinese had 'learned' sustainable practices and they were wise enough to realize what they had, then how do you explain what is happening now? Forgetting? Would a wise person allow the forgetting of hard-earned knowledge? Better think your assertions through to logical conclusion before using such examples.

George
Question Everything


George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

Preindustrial Chinese civilization demonstrably knew at least a few critical things about sustainability.  They have rice fields that have been under continuous cultivation for thousands of years.  You can't do that without attending to your nutrient cycles.  Their traditional agricultural model placed a high value on "night soil" for just this reason.

However, I doubt very much that the old model was based on "sustainability" as we understand the concept.  They were just doing what they had been traditionally doing.  And when the communist revolution came along, many old traditions were intentionally purged precisely because they were part of the old order.  I'm sure lots of bad old ideas went down the tubes, but it seems that some good concepts went with them, unfortunately.

The challenge that China now faces with regards to sustainability is of a whole different order: now they need to figure out industrial sustainability.  Towards that end, many of the old concepts (e.g. soil conservation and nutrient cycles) are key, but the traditions themselves are not really applicable: the manual collection of nightsoil, for example, is simply not feasible with their new level of urbanization.

The issue is that if humans were truly wise sentients they would not have forgotten their lessons. That is actually what writing is for! The original argument is that human beings lack adequate sapience, the ability to process wise judgments to guide decision processing (a part of intelligence and creativity). Bart thinks this is a pessimistic statement, but it is based on the evidence - look at the state of society, the leaders we elect, and the global challenges that arise as unintended consequences (or in other words not thinking ahead).

I imagine that a wiser species would not have let its population and gluttony get out of hand to produce these conditions. Hence they could understand and maintain sustainable practices. The big question in my mind is: Are humans wise enough to recognize their mistakes (before it is too late) and do something constructive about it? That is, I think, a very open question.

George

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

The other part of wisdom, it would seem to me, would be the ability -- or desire -- to understand, or even just want, that the well-being of the whole society would also be good for you.  So, in other words, most people are worried about the short-term, and generally their concern maybe goes to the family or a little beyond, while a wise person would be concerned about society as a whole, in the long-term -- or am I just projecting what I think a moral person would do?

In human evolution we had not been selected for wisdom beyond our grandchildren and our tribe (also local tribes for trade). But the present conditions of our complex, technological, and energy-driven cultures, which emerged blindingly fast in evolutionary terms, has produced a need for global scale wisdom. Wisdom that can see sustainability for all future generations. That kind of wisdom is not ordinary in our population.

Wisdom depends on tacit knowledge (justified true beliefs) and models of how the world works. Wisdom is seen in the nature of judgments people make. It requires considerable storage capacity in brains, hence requires more than normal intelligence. But even normal intelligence should be able to serve a greater level of wisdom than you see in average individuals.

I see sapience as the capacity of individuals to think systemically and strategically with a strong moral consciousness. This capacity was just beginning to emerge in early Homo and selected for to produce Homo sapiens when the discovery of agriculture changed the selection dynamics (in my theory) to raise the need for short-term organizational skills and violence reactivity (to protect or invade land needed for food production). Still, sapience did develop. We have seen people with substantial capacity, and everybody has a little of it in themselves. So your projection is quite natural because we see a glimpse of it in ourselves. We just may need more than most people can muster to deal with the problems our species has created.

George

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life

Well, George, I bet that you could get most people to reel off long histories of...their favorite sports team, a large set of celebrities...I think it depends on what people are interested in, which unfortunately does not often include the long-term viability of the biosphere.

George

George Mobus, Associate Professor, Institute of Technology, University of Washington Tacoma, and Professional Student for Life