
The Myth of Human Progress and the Collapse of Complex Societies - mgunes
https://www.truthdig.com/report/item/chris_hedges_jan_27_column_transcript_collapse_of_complex_societies_2014012
======
lifeisstillgood
Wow.

I kind of agree - but really let's say we listen to our inner doubts, we
mutiny and throw Ahab overboard, we are still on a whaler in the middle of the
ocean. Now what?

Our (global?) society is on course for destruction on the ocean - but that
course is also sailing use closer to the promised land. Every innovation,
every step closer to the singularity requires us to move faster, land more
sure-footedly. Yes we could balls it all up, start a mindless war that tips
the balance, refuse to cooperate in trade or keep the next Einstein in a
poverty stricken barro to die of diseases we cure with a single needle.

but then we could not - we could survive on the knife edge - learn how to sail
better, close to the wind.

Destruction is not inevitable - it is just somewhere between likely and
probable. All the more reason not to give into dsspair - not let Ahabs
obsessions distract him from the survival of the ship, but for us to watch and
honestly discuss the ships course - and find a way for the whole world to
choose together our next course.

(yeah a little too flowery language - sorry. it's late)

~~~
MarkPNeyer
i dig this.

the author laments the hubris and arrogance present in all societies, as if
these exaggerations were bugs, and not features.

the arrogance of the leaders and the peddling of hope are there because we are
all afraid, and nobody wants to admit it. he talks about the chasm of human
reality and how you get burned if you get closed to it, and i agree - it makes
sense. i came out burned. i was mad at the world for a while and wanted to
tear the whole thing down, but i went back for a closer look because i figured
there must have been something i'm missing. there is beauty at the bottom of
it, and we can get through it.

there is still new land to be explored - we just can't get there by walking or
sailing. the ENTIRE GALAXY awaits us if we can just get off this damned rock.
let's peddle all the hope we need and beat our chests all day long; let's
spread the gospel to heathen civilizations on other planets if that's what it
takes for us to move out of this place and into another one. maybe we're just
delaying the inevitable and the end of the galactic civilization will be that
much more spectacular when it comes, but it's not as if we can go back in time
to change all the "best guesses" our world was built on and the gentle lies
that sustain it.

we are now heathens living on easter island. we know our civilization is built
on a lie. we can either stop telling that lie and kill each other out of anger
over mistakes our ancestors made doing the best they could, or we could all
keep telling the lie, keep playing our assigned parts with a wink and a nod,
and put fewer resources into enforcing what everybody knows is a sham story,
and devote all our efforts into finding the new land we think might be out
there over the great waters.

the only way through is forward. the only way out is up.

~~~
harshreality
The ecological situation _can_ be improved (damage slowed) by putting
resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws.
Encouraging the onward march _mindlessly_ is not helpful. There has to be some
self-reflection and reevaluation of current strategies on how to get to the
next technological age, if we are to get there without: nuclear holocaust;
human-made plague; trashing our planet so badly we can no longer eat or drink;
using up the resources needed for computers and therefore causing computer
infrastructure to stagnate and decay just when we need it to run an AI; using
up all our hydrocarbon energy reserves and running out of energy that we need
to keep up the onward march...

There are many pitfalls that might cause this march into the future to end
abruptly and miserably, even if the goal of a new technological era is
physically and strategically possible given our current resource constraints.
We would do well to avoid falling into a pit along the way, and a social
dialogue about possible pitfalls is a necessary part of that.

~~~
einhverfr
> The ecological situation can be improved (damage slowed) by putting
> resources into it, or encouraging a shift in resource use through laws.

But this itself has a long-term cost in terms of both consumption and
complexity. Put another way, _you can 't solve the environmental problems,
really, if you demand that consumption continues to rise exponentially over
time._

What I think we are actually being sold with the green energy agenda is a way
to continue to grow consumption because this is important to macroeconomists.
The problem though is that this leads to permamently debt-ridden, destitute
workers robbed of social context in order to make the wealthy even more rich.

The environmental damage could be contained by taxes to reduce consumption but
that has very significant implications for our way of life. Reducing
consumption though is the only way out.

------
FD3SA
Beautifully written and optimistic, but I would like to advise caution. There
is only one currency in existence: Power.

Historically, power has been proportional to a willing population. Technology
allows power to be decoupled from population, allowing a very tiny minority to
exert massive global power. This is the real danger, whether it takes the form
of government, corporation, elites or cults.

As power asymmetry becomes more and more pronounced due to technology, the
average person becomes far more prone to subjugation. This is the reality we
face. This enemy is far more challenging to fight than any historical
precedent.

Only time will elucidate our fates.

~~~
Tloewald
Optimistic?

If ever there were an example of "appeal to an irrelevant authority" as a mode
of argument, this overlong and histrionic essay would be it. Does it really
matter what _Moby Dick_ is about? Arguments should stand on reasoning and
evidence, not pretentious allusions.

And then, of course, we get to fascism.

The sad thing is, I pretty much agree with the writer's sentiments, but this
essay isn't going to convince anyone of anything.

------
Tycho
_The Federal Reserve purchases $85 billion in U.S. Treasury bonds—much of it
worthless subprime mortgages—each month._

~~~
ergoproxy
I think people are missing the main point. Debt-equity swaps have been a major
tool of the Federal Reserve in bailing out TBTF banks. Here's how it works:

I'm a banker. I paid $10B for MBSes in 2007. Big mistake. In 2008, their
valuation fell to $0. So I do a swap with the Federal Reserve. I give Ben
Bernake my portfolio of MBSes. And he gives me $10B in US Treasury Bonds he's
purchased.

I never would have made a dime off my MBSes. But now, the US tax payer is on
the hook for paying me $10B in principal plus interest. Meanwhile, the Fed
puts "$10B" of MBSes on its books. Doesn't matter that these debts are worth
zero. They get to do it...

Right now, the Fed has "$1.5T" of MBSes on their books from doing these deals.
Source: [http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/19/news/economy/federal-
reserve...](http://money.cnn.com/2013/12/19/news/economy/federal-reserve-
assets-four-trillion/)

I used to be VP of Mortgage Tax and Accounting at a Wall St. bank back in the
90s, and I try to stay up to date on this fiasco. I don't have a problem with
what Chris Hedges said, just how he said it: he said it too fast, and it came
out wrong. The main idea is still right.

~~~
Tycho
Technically I suppose the MBS issuers are now a subsidiary of the Treasury.
But I'm not sure about the 'worthless subprime debt' part. They're buying good
quality MBSs in order to keep rates down and support the housing market, not
to take toxic assets off the books of financial institutions.

~~~
ergoproxy
It's important to note that the Fed is purchasing these securities at "face
value"...they're not doing any kind of valuation.

Lawrence Hunter wrote an op-ed for Forbes back in 2012 saying the Fed's (at
the time) "$1.3T" of MBSes were "worthless."
[http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/10/29/are-
fe...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/10/29/are-federal-
reserve-regulated-banks-laundering-dirty-money/)

My main job was pricing MBSes. The calculation is basically sum of discounted
contingent cashflows. Even before the 2008 crisis, back in the mid 90s, I'd
often see MBSes with a negative net income. Then I'd get frantic phone calls
from upset clients, often accountants or CFOs or brokers, who couldn't
understand how a valuation less than zero was even possible, and I'd have to
explain how their expected expenditures were going to be greater than their
revenues...

I tend to agree with Hunter and Hedges that the Fed's "$1.5T" of MBSes are
mostly worthless.

That said, I also understand the reasons why the Fed is making these
purchases: increase MBS prices, increase liquidity in the MBS market, and so
forth. But the bigger reason still seems to me: bail out TBTF banks.

For the Fed's POV on this subject, they publish FAQs and data on their "MBS
Purchase Program" several places:

[http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_mbs.htm](http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_mbs.htm)

[http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/ambs/ambs_faq.html](http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/ambs/ambs_faq.html)

[http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WMBSEC](http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/WMBSEC)

~~~
Tycho
Thanks for taking the time to post the links. However I have some issues.

Firstly, the Fed is purchasing agency MBSs at _market rates_. They are pushing
prices up since they are bringing demand to the market, but they are otherwise
bidding competitively. The idea that these MBSs are basically worthless
doesn't make sense when there is a large market for them.

Secondly a lot of the MBSs (which are all government guaranteed) are newly
issued, so it can hardly be said they are helping TBTF banks decant their
toxic assets leftover from the financial crisis.

Thirdly, the Fed actually eventually made a profit on the toxic debt they
acquired during the bailouts. The current MBS purchase programs are far less
risky. Furthermore, the US Gov has guaranteed the future cashflows of all
these MBSs... so I think TBTF banks are a sidenote on this whole issue.

~~~
ergoproxy
> the Fed is purchasing agency MBSs at market rates

In what way are they "market rates" when the Fed printed $1.5T out of thin air
to purchase them? Rather, The Fed is using its market power to _set the
prices_ of MBSs.

~~~
Tycho
But it's not like they started bidding on these at 10cents on the dollar and
have pushed them all the way up to par. If you look at the transaction data,
starting from 2009 the prices have always been round the 100 mark, give or
take a percent or two. And why wouldn't they be? The Gov has guaranteed all of
these!

~~~
ergoproxy
> The Gov has guaranteed all of these!

The word "guarantee" gets tossed around a lot, but it's misleading:

Fannie and Freddie's "implicit guarantee" only means that the government will
_lend_ these GSEs funds to ensure timely payments of principal and interest to
_mortgagees_ (not MBS investors!), at rates slightly above the government's
own borrowing rate, up to the "conforming loan limit" which is $417,000 in
most areas. So it doesn't entirely eliminate default risk. And it doesn't
reduce servicer risk or interest rate risk at all.

Only in 2013 with QE3 did The Fed start buying Ginnie Mae MBSs with an
"explicit guarantee" that entirely eliminates default risk. (These securities
still have issuer/servicer risk.) But The Fed is still buying non-Ginnie MBSs
as well.

------
carbocation
With ghostery enabled, the content of this article is entirely blocked.

~~~
911_Inside_Job
this one too?
[http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/chris_hedges_jan_27_col...](http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/chris_hedges_jan_27_column_transcript_collapse_of_complex_societies_2014012)

------
ergoproxy
Chris Hedges took the red pill, and Agent Smith told him, "I'd like to share a
revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to
classify your species. I've realized that you are not actually mammals. Every
mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the
surrounding environment. But you humans do not. You move to an area and you
multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only
way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on
this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus.
Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."

 _The Matrix_ would have been a better allegory to use than _Moby Dick_ ,
particularly for HNers. _Moby Dick_ might appeal to Harvard-educated, Arabic-
speaking, Vermont liberals like Hedges, but most of us haven't read it and
don't want to.

It's not that I disagree with any of Hedges' major points, it's just that I
find his presentation erudite, pretentious and snobbish.

Economist Kenneth Boulding summed this up more concisely: "Anyone who believes
exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or
an economist."

And if Capitalism is a "plague," what is the cure? Hedges talks about Marxist
revolution, but stops short of calling for one, instead falling back on
quotations from Shakespeare, and Kant, and Dante, and Black Elk, and Nazim
Hikmet.

So, what is the cure?

1\. War and revolutions aren't the answer: If they decimate the population,
temporarily reducing resource consumption, decreasing the supply of labor so
that wages might finally start rising again after 30 years of stagnation, then
what? After all the misery and suffering that war brings, we've bought
ourselves a few decades with a slightly more equitable wealth distribution,
and put ecological disaster in check for a while, but it's only temporary, and
our populations will soon grow themselves back into the same problems all over
again.

2\. Technology? Increased efficiency will only spur increased consumption.
It's called Jevons paradox. Technology will only speed things up.

3\. Accelerationism... Help the capitalists steal all the wealth and push us
over the edge of ecological disaster. Evolution will make sure something else
succeeds us.

4\. Enlightenment: In the _Gospel of Thomas_ , Saying 56, Jesus said, "Whoever
has become acquainted with the world has found a corpse, and the world is not
worthy of the one who has found the corpse."

The world is already dead, and there's nothing Chris Hedges can do about it!
Whenever something we love dies, we experience mourning. The stages of
mourning are--

Denial - Most of the people in the world are stuck in this stage.

Anger - This is where we find revolutionary groups like the Tea Party and OWS.

Bargaining - I think this is where Hedges finds himself. He really thinks
there's a way to resurrect the planet--Art, Poetry, Novels--but he doesn't
seem sure.

Depression - Lot's of people struggling at this stage. About 800,000 to a
million people commit suicide per year.

Acceptance - Doesn't mean you're ever going to be happy again. It just means
you're awake to reality.

------
squirejons
The collapse of large nations is a Good Thing for the working class majority:
the elite always want large nations, especially large nations with lots of
racial, cultural and language divisions. That makes it easier for the elite to
control the nation. It's called the 'divide et impera' strategy. That was the
founding principle of the USA (see the letter from madison from jefferson
wherein madison writes that the divide et impera (divide and rule) tactic is
the way to rule america (madison was worth 100 mill in today's dollars when he
got his inheritance; jefferson, almost the same)).

When the elite can no longer hold large, divided nations together via violence
and or propaganda, the working class majority form smaller, more homogeneous,
less divided nations, nations that can be more easily controlled by the
workers, and less easily controlled by the elite.

Factions are the friend of the rich and the enemy of the masses.

How do the elite create factions so they can rule? Enlarge the nation; import
foreigners, especially those of another race and culture; create propaganda
that focuses on identity politics; etc etc.

Of course the centrally controlled dogma of the american edu-propaganda system
has programmed us to feel bad about collapse of nations. Oh, it's so sad that
such and such nation is breaking up.

But that is an elite-centric propaganda meme. It is always a good thing when
nations collapse and fall apart--a good thing from the perspective of the
working class majority. Of course the more "educated" you are, the more you
take the perspective of the elite--in general.

~~~
spiderPig
Thanks for the detailed comment. But could you go into a bit more detail about
how the elite actually benefit from factions within a large nation? Like with
an example taking today's elite into account.

~~~
squirejons
well, this strategy was all laid out by the designer of the american
constitution over 200 years ago in the federalist papers (the ones written by
madison) and his notes on the constitutional convention. Madison wrote that
the primary purpose of the structure of the american govt under his
constitution was to preserve wealth inequality. Madison wrote that the way to
do this was to prevent the majority from uniting and discovering their common
interest. The way he proposed to keep the majority from uniting was to create
factions in voting districts by creating enlarged voting district (federal
districts). Thus enlarged, the districts would have more factions and that
would "protect the minority of the opulent against the majority" (to quote
madison).

Also useful in preventing the majority from using the government against the
minority of the opulent was the pseudo-democratic structure of the federal
govt (strong checks and balances and separation of powers). This would hinder
the ability of the majority to control the government. That would keep the
wealth of madsison, jefferson, washington, morris et al., safe from that
dirty, brutish mob (i.e., you and me).

The benefit to the elite of factions created by nation enlargement? The elite
get to keep more of their wealth.

As the USA grows larger and more heterogeneous with mass immigration, we are
less and less in control of our own govt.

Our cultural cousins in the rest of the western nations (canada, australia,
UK, scandanavia, france, austria, germany etc) are all smaller and more
homogeneous, and so the majority there therefore have more control of their
own nations. However, as they elite cram more immigrants into those nations,
factions grow and there is less majority control. And of course the elite
created the EU along the lines of the USA so as to remove as much power as
possible from the majority in those member nations.

~~~
spiderPig
Ah, I see your point. Basically, fragment the power of the existing population
as much as possible by increasing heterogeneity within it. Seems like the only
solution against this is an eventual educated population that despite it's
cultural and racial diversity, will come to a common consensus.

~~~
squirejons
I agree--expose The Narrative via grassroots exposition on the web, and sooner
or later the truth will spread. Slowly, but it will spread. Many europeans
already know this.

