The DW-TV interviewed a German meteorologist today, who confirmed that climate change science has predicted what we are seeing today: more extreme weather events. Right now 14 million people are being hurt by the floods in Pakistan, and thousands more in India and China, in a disaster worse than the tsunami and recent earthquakes combined. Similar floods have ravaged Germany and other parts of Europe. The death toll from smoke in Moscow has doubled in the worst heat wave in a thousand years. Record heat and oil spills in the USA. This and more will only increase, and all to protect the convenience of a few corporate CEOs. What is more important, the convenience of a few rich corporate CEOs, or the lives and livelihoods of millions of people across the globe? It is time for all of us to decide. Which is more important? Those who makes excuses for these pigs, are a major part of the problem. Wise up and get involved. The Senate is fiddling while the Earth burns.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

I was wondering if anybody here feels the Dust Bowl of the last 4T was also caused by some type of global negligence. The fossil fuel onslaught has clearly manifested itself of this 4T's equivalent of the Dust Bowl. I do believe when I saw something on one of the TV stations about it, that it may have been caused by the practice of farmers planting the same crops and the same land plots year after year. And that the idea of crop rotation, thus restoring some nutrients to the soil, became norm in post-Dust Bowl agriculture.

The specter of global warming is being recycled because the eastern half of the nation has been experience a warmer and more humid summer than normal. But what did they have to blame last summer's record cool weather on?

I heard one theory that dry periods in the American south and southwest might be associated with the long hurricane cycle. There are decades when hurricane seasons are quite easy, followed by decades where activity is heavy. When the Hurricanes are heavy, you also see droughts.

But I heard that theory once in passing, and have been unable to find a source for it.

I have heard many times that poor farming methods contributed to the Dust Bowl.

The 1930s were a time of rising temperatures, but temperatures globally were in about the same range until 1980. From about 1940 to 1980 there was a cooling trend. Part of this is a solar long cycle. Part is global dimming. Before the first Earth Day, there were few scrubbers on industrial smoke stacks. Much soot was released into the air. While CO2 was building up in the atmosphere, in the Norther Hemisphere at least less sunlight was reaching the lower atmosphere due to the soot and the increased cloud cover induced by the soot.

Anyway, things are messy. Lots of folks will look at a warm spell in a certain place or a cool spell somewhere else and either blame global warming or deny global warming. Shouldn't do that. Climate is not Weather.

When you know the fact that global warming is increasing beyond any time in hundreds of thousands of years, according to ice samples in Greenland etc., then when you see very anomalous bad weather it confirms what scientists expect.

Gee whiz, Skabungus, whoever you are; I have stated my newness to this material from the start. It is with an open inquiry that I have taken pains to frame my questions, and yet it has seemed to elicit a consistently prickly and defensive response from you, and your irritable responses might be best seen as an example of projection, I'm afraid. It is you, not I, who are being lazy, and if you choose not to be constructive, then I am the one to suggest to you to refrain from participating.

I will try again, but with considerably reduced expectation on actually engaging in a deeper discussion of the issues, with a realization that as with so many other forums, folks just don't know how to react due to the inherent limitations of the medium.

While I have never claimed to have a comprehensive understanding of the S&H material, I will ask anyone out there to consider the following points and topics as legitimate inquiries that ought to have non-defensive, non offensive answers. Since Skabungus misunderstood my distinction between Diamond and S&H, I do feel the need to elaborate a bit more on the topic. Specifically:

The difference between S&H and Diamond's analysis of culture is that Diamond looks at a given culture's traditions in terms of how sustainable they are in light of the local carrying capacity of the land it is a part of. Those cultural traditions that mine the carrying capacity in unsustainable ways are doomed to not be sustainable themselves. Collapse explores the ability of a number of historical cultures to confront the unsustainable nature of their cultural practices and try to figure out why some cultures were able to change while others were not.

One of the key findings that Diamond espoused was that those cultures who adapted did so because they developed a clear-eyed connection between what parts of the ecosystems were threatened by their cultural practices, and were able to consciously alter those cultural habits in ways that allowed them to sustainably exploit the natural resources without permanently depleting them.

This conclusion that only those cultures who adapted their lifeways to living within the carrying capacity of the land is a provable, falsifiable, measurable, assertion and also has a utilitarian value in terms of being applicable to other settings. In other words, it posits that cultural practices can be evaluated in ecological terms, and that this is an essential measure of that custom's adaptive value. It provides a way to incorporate our symbolic, cultural world into the ecological realities of the planet. This is a hugely important insight with predictive, reproducable value and has enormous utility.

So the insights of Diamond challenges the work of S&H to dig deeply within itself and find those points of ecological sustainability in this time of great crisis. And I'm not talking about the S&H brand of cirsis, which is why I chose to explore this in the global warming forum in the first place. Cultural constructs that ignore the ecological realities that support our human endeavors can ultimately plant the seeds of destruction for that culture, so it's worth trying to connect the dots.

In all the discussion of generational dynamics, archetypes, turnings, cohorts and seasons I've read nothing about how human economic systems have over-exploited the surpluses of the planet in unsustainable ways, which has led to ever larger circles of cultural overshoot, widespread extinctions, and an unprecedented ecological crisis that is manifesting itself with oceanic acidification, dramatic drops in phytoplankton productivity, temperature rises, etc. And without this essential context being front and center or even addressed as more than the usual generational cycle challenge, then S&H seems to me to be like a beautiful poem at best (i.e. a perception that deepens insight about eternal relationships and dynamics) or, even worse, another example of the reification fallacy where ideas are mistaken for concrete thing.

Another point: how can you prove that the S&H treatise is false? What criteria do you use? Are these measures concrete or are they artificial constructs? I've talked to Jared Diamond, and it's clear that verifiability, falsifiability and measurability are all important to him, so I think that I can say with some authority that he would be able to distinguish his observations from those of S&H on those grounds.

I'm not saying that this is impossible, but I'm saying that they haven't done it yet and that is the next challenge for their work: how do you de-reify their concepts and translate them into empirical observations that aren't just abstractions? This is the black and white that I'm talking about, and as I have tried to painstakingly point out, I don't really care if it's black OR white--it just can't be both. And I think I can point out plenty of evidence on the S&H websites that they are trying to pass themselves as being as solid as this desk that I am sitting at. Look up the reification fallacy if this doesn't make sense.

The beauty of Diamond's work is that it doesn't limit itself to the ecological underpinnings, but it makes it perfectly clear that without it, cultural constructs can steer you over the cliff. That's why his work is so important. And if S&H want to ground their ideas in ecological thinking, I would be the first to applaud that. And if they have, please show me where!

Originally Posted by DougCounty

The beauty of Diamond's work is that it doesn't limit itself to the ecological underpinnings, but it makes it perfectly clear that without it, cultural constructs can steer you over the cliff. That's why his work is so important. And if S&H want to ground their ideas in ecological thinking, I would be the first to applaud that. And if they have, please show me where!

I don't know if they will Doug, but the first thing to realize is that half the team of S&H won't be able to, unless he can do so from beyond the grave. Maybe you can find a competent channeler or medium? Given your evident views on spirituality and astrology, I don't expect that you know anyone.

I think all that needs to be said besides that is that ecology will be the main item on the plate of the 4T. People just need to realize that. If we start to deal with it soon (perhaps unlikely now), then a new high of prosperity and technical innovation could occur in spite of lingering problems--- as there often are in any part of a cycle (witness the Korean War in the 1950s after WWII). If not, then the crisis will be a failure, and there won't be a new 1T in America to discuss when the time comes! A possible 4T failure is already part of the S&H theory. So then the relevant trend will just be the continuing ecology and many other problems and which nations can lead the way toward eventual solutions. An awareness that we are in 4T is not at all incompatible with recognizing the ecological crisis, and many do I think, though some here do not.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

Gee whiz, Skabungus, whoever you are; I have stated my newness to this material from the start. It is with an open inquiry that I have taken pains to frame my questions, and yet it has seemed to elicit a consistently prickly and defensive response from you, and your irritable responses might be best seen as an example of projection, I'm afraid. It is you, not I, who are being lazy, and if you choose not to be constructive, then I am the one to suggest to you to refrain from participating.

I fear these forums are habitually partisan. Much more time and effort is spent convincing the other guy he is wrong rather than combining the positive aspects of competing views to refine something new. I have spent much time wishful thinking that this were not so. You are not alone in feeling as you do.

But the confrontational culture here is not going to go away lightly. It isn't just Skabungus. There is a habit of drifting away from discussing ideas to discussing each other's attitudes and character.

Whatever your intent is, ware, you are falling into The Trap.

And welcome aboard, alas.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

Gee whiz, Skabungus, whoever you are; I have stated my newness to this material from the start. It is with an open inquiry that I have taken pains to frame my questions, and yet it has seemed to elicit a consistently prickly and defensive response from you, and your irritable responses might be best seen as an example of projection, I'm afraid. It is you, not I, who are being lazy, and if you choose not to be constructive, then I am the one to suggest to you to refrain from participating.

You are not the first to label me a prickly sort. I do believe a part of that comes from my failure to sprinkle my text with emotocons or even to bother to read over anything I write before posting it. In that regard I am certainly among the most lazy. Prickly? I dare say that is the nicest thing I've been called recently There you even got an emoto.

What you find to be "defensive" is instead impatience. I find this post you have submitted in response to my rant much more direct and to the meat of the issue. Thanks.

I do understand that you are new to the S&H material, but do not believe you should let that state to continue if you want to delve deeper into the theory to see if it holds up. Possibly you don't and that is fine too. However your series of questions posed in your John Keats post read a lot like a set presented by some kid trying to mine the forum for some fodder for his next term paper. I'm not going to respond to that approach.

I will try again, but with considerably reduced expectation on actually engaging in a deeper discussion of the issues, with a realization that as with so many other forums, folks just don't know how to react due to the inherent limitations of the medium.

Fair enough. I have to confess that I don't give as much effort here as I would say over a cup of coffee with a colleague in large part because I can contribute here only on breaks.....think quik, type fast, send. Further, it is an unmoderated forum and this thread is likely to be bombed at any minute.

While I have never claimed to have a comprehensive understanding of the S&H material, I will ask anyone out there to consider the following points and topics as legitimate inquiries that ought to have non-defensive, non offensive answers. Since Skabungus misunderstood my distinction between Diamond and S&H, I do feel the need to elaborate a bit more on the topic. Specifically:

Beautiful. The bolded above is just what I was hoping to elicit.

The difference between S&H and Diamond's analysis of culture is that Diamond looks at a given culture's traditions in terms of how sustainable they are in light of the local carrying capacity of the land it is a part of. Those cultural traditions that mine the carrying capacity in unsustainable ways are doomed to not be sustainable themselves. Collapse explores the ability of a number of historical cultures to confront the unsustainable nature of their cultural practices and try to figure out why some cultures were able to change while others were not.

One of the key findings that Diamond espoused was that those cultures who adapted did so because they developed a clear-eyed connection between what parts of the ecosystems were threatened by their cultural practices, and were able to consciously alter those cultural habits in ways that allowed them to sustainably exploit the natural resources without permanently depleting them.

This conclusion that only those cultures who adapted their lifeways to living within the carrying capacity of the land is a provable, falsifiable, measurable, assertion and also has a utilitarian value in terms of being applicable to other settings. In other words, it posits that cultural practices can be evaluated in ecological terms, and that this is an essential measure of that custom's adaptive value. It provides a way to incorporate our symbolic, cultural world into the ecological realities of the planet. This is a hugely important insight with predictive, reproducable value and has enormous utility.

Good. We agree on that.

So the insights of Diamond challenges the work of S&H to dig deeply within itself and find those points of ecological sustainability in this time of great crisis. And I'm not talking about the S&H brand of cirsis, which is why I chose to explore this in the global warming forum in the first place. Cultural constructs that ignore the ecological realities that support our human endeavors can ultimately plant the seeds of destruction for that culture, so it's worth trying to connect the dots.

I understand where you are going. I'm feel Diamond is spot on in his work and support the direction he suggests we go in using his model. Diamond certainly isn't the first to look at calories and carrying capacity as a measure of societal success, but he's certainly the newest and his approach reflects a lot more insight as a result of new scientific data available. I'll not elaborate on that more here since a simple search of this forum will turn up a number of my past posts on other threads that point that out.

Nevertheless, I dont think that requires S&H to prove out under the same set of measures. Diamond, looking at societies on the whole in the macro scheme, as they relate to the ecological conditions and thus adapt/fail to adapt is one thing, but not the only thing worth proving to. S&H don't exclude that approach but they certainly don't focus on it. Instead, their work began with an investigation of the history of the the first 13 anglo american generations. It began as an examination of history and culture and the generational dynamics exhibited in that society over time. One familiar with the ecological history of the white settlement of North Amercia (see Cronon's Changes in the Land and other works, or Pyne's, World Fire: the Culture of Fire on Earth) can certainly see where generational dynamics have a significant influence on societal approaches to perceiving using, managing and responding to the local ecology --for better or worse, often for the worse. The history of the conservation movement in America over time fits well with S&H's theory even though they chose not to give focus to it. The ebb and flow of the conservation movement, and latter evolution into the broader environmentla movement and newly forming mood toward "sustainablity" follows side by side the tracks laid by S&H. Yet, S&H were not focused on such. Instead they focused on understanding American History and the trajectory past and future. The development of a conservation ethic, environmental movement etc. fit with S&H because they are a part of the society and history, they examined.

Forwarding generational dynamics beyond it's application to modern western society is dangerous ground. That is just my opinion and there are many on this forum that would insist otherwise. Hunter-gatherer, horticultural, early agrarian, feudal peoples, and even some modern groups that remain separate such as the Amish in America and the Mennonites the world over, dont seem to fit well with S&H. These culture pulse differently, and in general much more slowly. I don't see where application of S&H to these cultures, or even to some modern cultures far removed from the western experience is all that valuable.

In all the discussion of generational dynamics, archetypes, turnings, cohorts and seasons I've read nothing about how human economic systems have over-exploited the surpluses of the planet in unsustainable ways, which has led to ever larger circles of cultural overshoot, widespread extinctions, and an unprecedented ecological crisis that is manifesting itself with oceanic acidification, dramatic drops in phytoplankton productivity, temperature rises, etc.

I think that simply boils down to the fact that such matters are not within the scope of study for S&H. When I see this I think of many professional experiences I've had when in the mixed company of engineers, bankers, lawyers and fish biologists. At some point one professional will speak up and say that the contribution of one or more of the others is invalid or fluffy window dressing because said contribution does not adhere to the conventions of the speaker's school of thought. Not so I say. It takes a number of valued perspectives to shed adaquate light on a problem and cobble together solutions. So it is with the work of S&H and Diamond, and Crono, and Pyne and Leopold and a long list of others. I'd be hard pressed to say Leopold was less than cogent because he did not come to the fray from the perspective of an anthorpologist. Rather, his work has more impact and more value simply becuase what he conveys DOES NOT come from that perspective. All these folks are pointing in the same direction even though at times they are speaking different languages and choosing what may appear to be mutually exclusive perspectives. Blind spots are at least as valuable as spot lights.

And without this essential context being front and center or even addressed as more than the usual generational cycle challenge, then S&H seems to me to be like a beautiful poem at best (i.e. a perception that deepens insight about eternal relationships and dynamics) or, even worse, another example of the reification fallacy where ideas are mistaken for concrete thing.

Even though I agree fully that ecological matters are the lynch pin of success or failure for this society (be in simply North American, or Global society) I do not believe that all work should begin from that perspective. Some of the most illuminating comes from left field so to speak. Looking into how generational cycles influence a society can serve to better inform the brass tacks of getting said enviornmental agenda front and center.....by way of the back door.

Another point: how can you prove that the S&H treatise is false? What criteria do you use? Are these measures concrete or are they artificial constructs? I've talked to Jared Diamond, and it's clear that verifiability, falsifiability and measurability are all important to him, so I think that I can say with some authority that he would be able to distinguish his observations from those of S&H on those grounds.

Agreed. I think his observations are different than S&H, just as the accountant, and the engineer, and the lawyer all have different observations about a particular probem. Possibly the value of this point you make is lost on me because I am a generalist who sees more perspectives as better and find excitement in cobbling together a way forward from a polyglot.

I'm not saying that this is impossible, but I'm saying that they haven't done it yet and that is the next challenge for their work: how do you de-reify their concepts and translate them into empirical observations that aren't just abstractions? This is the black and white that I'm talking about, and as I have tried to painstakingly point out, I don't really care if it's black OR white--it just can't be both.

I think, as a study in history, based in primary source material and with a sound understanding of demographic trends, social, political and cultural movements, S&H have done a great deal to document the evidence. Much of what they've done is catalogue events in a multitude of social dimensions and place them on a time line. The observations they make from said evidence are credible, but certainly open to question and debate. Much of that debate takes place here, in a rather fractious, partisan, unmoderated format which I find less than ideal. As for the studies, experiments and reseach to test the theory, I see it taking place daily in the form of polling, ACT and SAT testing, DOW averages, and the clear articulation of political positions, social commentary, marketing pieces, etc. This material is studied, albeit not from an anthropolical/ecological perspective. I think the activity is out there and it is ongoing. There are "true believers" I am sure, but you have that with anything and it is not the measure of lasting value. What is the measure of lasting value is the questions an idea prevokes and where it leads people to go. Diamond and S&H, coming from different schools of thought altogether, make vital contributions to any effort to chart a way forward. Both make predictive models that prove valuable in the charting process. Possibly where I disagree the most is with the idea that either Diamond or S&H should have to prove out under the other's standards. Apples and oranges are good on their own, but make for a far better fruit salad.

And I think I can point out plenty of evidence on the S&H websites that they are trying to pass themselves as being as solid as this desk that I am sitting at. Look up the reification fallacy if this doesn't make sense.

No shit. The cynic in me is never surprised at this. Authors try to sell books, speakers try to set up the next engagement, and "consultants" want you to know they've got all the answers. Nuf said.

The beauty of Diamond's work is that it doesn't limit itself to the ecological underpinnings, but it makes it perfectly clear that without it, cultural constructs can steer you over the cliff. That's why his work is so important. And if S&H want to ground their ideas in ecological thinking, I would be the first to applaud that. And if they have, please show me where!

See my comments above. As a subsistence farmer, environmental professional, government policy maker and father of 3 that S&H have provided a tool that lends itself well to decision making and trajectory taking on the myriad of issues that confront our society. Because the authors (policy wonks and academics) didn't use ecological underpinnings as their point of departure for research doesn't bother me. I don't see it as a requirement either. If anything, I see it as liberating. S&H has application at the macro and micro level in a way that enables it to be applied to environmental policy making, examining cultural constructs and understanding how society (and it's generations within) can and will (or wont) choose to fail or succeed in addressing said ecological issues. I for one, find the theory quite useful in addressing exactly that on a daily basis, both professionally and as a member of our cultural matrix we call America. In that way Diamond, Cronon, Leopold, S&H and a slew of others provide a really neat fruit salad that enables me to cobble together a way forward, better informed than a person living on a steady diet of taro.

Originally Posted by Tone70

Perhaps not just the crux but the trump as well. If we don't square this circle then we descend to semi-primitivism and other generational cycles obtain (as discussed in the beginning of the Fourth Turning).

Question. What would be wrong with that?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Question. What would be wrong with that?

I might point out that we currently have a global population of about 7 billion. When we were primitive hunter gathers the earth supported about 10 million. Granted I said semi-primitive in my post, so put the sustainable population much higher, say at 1 billion. What happens to the other 6 billion?

In short, I believe we have too many people to go backwards without major population reduction. This reduction would likely happen in a catastrophic fashion. The deaths of even a billion people is a horror the likes of which we have never seen. Hopefully we never will.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Question. What would be wrong with that?

Besides the massive die-off that would have to ensue?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Besides the massive die-off that would have to ensue?

Hey. It's the purity of one's theory that is key. If one is concerned about practical considerations, one shouldn't join the conversation. [/irony]

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Besides the massive die-off that would have to ensue?

Look at it as carbon sequestratin.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

... Lots of folks will look at a warm spell in a certain place or a cool spell somewhere else and either blame global warming or deny global warming. Shouldn't do that. Climate is not Weather.

It may be that the only reliable, reasonably short term measurement of climate shift is the delta between direct radiation arriving and re-radiation to space. Of course, we have good numbers on that now, with the climate satellites, but it's not of very great historical significance. What we do have is pretty damning.

Yet we spend our time worrying about - and endlessly defending - the data generated by possibly misplaced ground sensors and similar less accurate data.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Look at it as carbon sequestratin.

Look at it as several billion rotting corpses. With insects and diseases.

You are not the first to label me a prickly sort. I do believe a part of that comes from my failure to sprinkle my text with emotocons or even to bother to read over anything I write before posting it. In that regard I am certainly among the most lazy. Prickly? I dare say that is the nicest thing I've been called recently There you even got an emoto.

Skabungus--what a pleasant surprise! I grew up with curmudgeons who were quite engaging once you got past their gruff exteriors. Glad you decided to do that with me, and I promise to return the favor.

I could wax about how I studied the cultural ecologists back in my undergraduate anthropology days, and how I agree with how Diamond certainly isn't the first and on and on, but I don't have a whole lot of time over my lunch hour so will cut to the chase, as I think you appreciate that (notice my resistance to adding an emoticon!).

The whole reason I brought up Diamond in the first place is that when I found this forum on the Fourth Turning, I noticed that it had a whole section devoted to Global Warming. I assumed that that meant that the intent of such a forum would be to explore the S&H theories as they apply to the crisis of AGW and its consequences. I really was hoping that it was not just another venue where, from my perspective, denialists were throwing out challenges to the believers and vice versa--there are plenty of forums where you can find that, convincing nobody. Unfortunately, this forum seems largely to serve that same old purpose.

Having delved pretty deeply into the records, and getting face-to-face corroboration from members of the scientific community whom I respect, I am coming from the perspective that there is a clear, empirical trail that leads to the conclusion that the scope and consequences of climate change are on a scale that is pretty unprecedented, and, due to the feedback mechanisms that our planet has, threatens to create long lasting changes in the set points that our human cultures have grown up under. These are on the order of millenial in duration and could easily undermine the foundations of our economic, transportation, food growing sectors on any number of grounds.

So it is from this perspective that I have come to the S&H materials, looking for more tools that will enable us to adapt to these steep-curved changes that I'm afraid are not going to go away for the rest of our lives and perhaps for the next several generations.

I could be wrong. I hope I am. I'm pretty sure that I'm not, though, and hence the search for these adaptive tools. So when you tell me that the S&H theories don't work well for...

"hunter-gatherer, horticultural, early agrarian, feudal peoples, and even some modern groups that remain separate such as the Amish in America and the Mennonites the world over"

...and that the issues of how to better synchronize a culture with the carrying capacity of the land is simply not within the scope or interest of the S&H material, it helps me understand that I'm barking up the wrong tree and will probably not find what I'm looking for here.

I thank you for that clarity. I would definitely be very interested in hearing more about what you brought up here:

Looking into how generational cycles influence a society can serve to better inform the brass tacks of getting said enviornmental agenda front and center.....by way of the back door.

I see from your professional interests, avocations, and station in life that you are making a difference and are striving for solutions instead of being part of the problem, and I congratulate you for that. We need more of you, and I'm glad that you are finding S&H to be a useful, flavorful ingredient on your plate. I am not convinced that the Fourth Turning conception rises above the many other reified descriptions out there, but each one can have its utility, based on local circumstances, and I congratulate your finding it thus for you.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Look at it as several billion rotting corpses. With insects and diseases.

Only if it happens all at once! But yes, a mess it would be. However, a mass population reduction spread over several decades would be an ecological adjustment that would work in favor of carrying capacity. As heartbreaking as that might be, we really aren't any more special than yeast, bats or other organisms. Peaking and crashing is a commonplace function and we should not consider ourselves as above it. That is in large part man's problem: considering himself next to god and apart from the world. We're not.

To answer the question before it comes, no, I don't want me and mine to be subject to the mass die off. It is only natural that I wouldnt, but that doesnt mean it shouldnt happen -- because I don't want to be a part of it.

If truly don't want to be a part of it, I must recognize the evidence before me and act in a manner that would work to ensure me and mine avoid the mass die off (or other calamity) if at all possible.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

The whole reason I brought up Diamond in the first place is that when I found this forum on the Fourth Turning, I noticed that it had a whole section devoted to Global Warming. I assumed that that meant that the intent of such a forum would be to explore the S&H theories as they apply to the crisis of AGW and its consequences. I really was hoping that it was not just another venue where, from my perspective, denialists were throwing out challenges to the believers and vice versa--there are plenty of forums where you can find that, convincing nobody. Unfortunately, this forum seems largely to serve that same old purpose.

I would agree that much of the chaff flying around here is the denial -vs- true believer polemics. I personally have no use for that either. It is rare that I even visit this thread. Applying S&H's theories to the problem of AGW would certainly not be a direct approach, but instead a more than sideways approach.

Having delved pretty deeply into the records, and getting face-to-face corroboration from members of the scientific community whom I respect, I am coming from the perspective that there is a clear, empirical trail that leads to the conclusion that the scope and consequences of climate change are on a scale that is pretty unprecedented, and, due to the feedback mechanisms that our planet has, threatens to create long lasting changes in the set points that our human cultures have grown up under. These are on the order of millenial in duration and could easily undermine the foundations of our economic, transportation, food growing sectors on any number of grounds.

Agreed. But that is just stating the obvious. A growing consensus is building around this conclusion yet that doesn't get us anywhere. Why is that?

So it is from this perspective that I have come to the S&H materials, looking for more tools that will enable us to adapt to these steep-curved changes that I'm afraid are not going to go away for the rest of our lives and perhaps for the next several generations.

I could be wrong. I hope I am. I'm pretty sure that I'm not, though, and hence the search for these adaptive tools. So when you tell me that the S&H theories don't work well for...

"hunter-gatherer, horticultural, early agrarian, feudal peoples, and even some modern groups that remain separate such as the Amish in America and the Mennonites the world over"

What I believe is useful in S&H's theory is understanding why it is difficult for society to get past the culture wars, the AGW denial arguments and so on, and how and when the opportunity to get past these issues is presenting itself. There is a reason right now that people prefer to argue and deny. There is also a reason why, in the very near term future, there will be clear opportunities to reshape the future of society to adapt to climate change, work effectively to prevent it and strive to reverse it. Within S&H's crisis era lies the opportunity to change directions.

...and that the issues of how to better synchronize a culture with the carrying capacity of the land is simply not within the scope or interest of the S&H material, it helps me understand that I'm barking up the wrong tree and will probably not find what I'm looking for here.

You may be in fact barking up the wrong tree but that may be because your skills, aptitudes and predisposition is to other trees. Erving Goffman wrote a neat little book (Presentation of Self In Everyday Life) that changed the shape of sociology. There where many who through it wholsale out the door claiming Goffman was wanting to believe these social control tactics and strategies existed so badly that he made believe they were real and factual, observable things. Turns out he was right and now his work is accepted as common knowledge.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

So it is from this perspective that I have come to the S&H materials, looking for more tools that will enable us to adapt to these steep-curved changes that I'm afraid are not going to go away for the rest of our lives and perhaps for the next several generations.

I could be wrong. I hope I am. I'm pretty sure that I'm not, though, and hence the search for these adaptive tools. So when you tell me that the S&H theories don't work well for...

"hunter-gatherer, horticultural, early agrarian, feudal peoples, and even some modern groups that remain separate such as the Amish in America and the Mennonites the world over"

...and that the issues of how to better synchronize a culture with the carrying capacity of the land is simply not within the scope or interest of the S&H material, it helps me understand that I'm barking up the wrong tree and will probably not find what I'm looking for here.

Well now, maybe a little clarification on the work would be appropriate for helping understand. What S&H did was recognize a pattern - a pattern specifically found in English & American culture over the last few hundred years.

For predictive value, the best use of the 4Turning model is to generalize the economic & cultural mood of a society during a given time-frame, based on which life-phase each generation is in.

As to your specific goal, the obvious utility of S&H would be for you to focus your recruiting efforts on the younger generation of civics who tend to be both scientific and oriented toward collective action concerns. Understanding Generation X's skepticism may also help bridge the gap of those "deniers" you're trying to avoid. Recognizing the Baby Boomer's mentality of entitlement may help explain why they're only ever willing to do something if it doesn't impact their material standard of living. Silents are pretty cool but they're losing influence to boomers and that is part of what makes a crisis feel so miserable.

Otherwise, it sounds to me like you're trying to put a precise date on the "final crisis" of this Anglo-American cycle: the end of our civilization itself from which the only recovery can be a new civilization adapted to environmental cataclysm....

Wait a minute... are you a baby boomer? Just kidding, just kidding...

During the crisis phase we're in, people can be brought along for radical changes if you've got a good enough argument & the issue has momentum. During a recovery, compliance can be crammed down in a forceful way. Based on the current political culture, though, it is hard to say if these social trends will do any good for the environment over the next 25 years of late crisis/recovery. One way to describe a "collapsed" civilization would be a society that completely ignores the ecological limits of its actions and continually fails to adapt during a crisis reset. Eventually, reality catches up and the system falls.

As far as predicting the timing of the final collapse, I believe that would be an issue for physicists. If a significant physical phenomenon disrupted day to day life to the point of mass crop failure, I do believe a crisis era could begin despite other cultural momentum through the cycle. Say it happened during a 1T, there might be a very heavy handed response to keeping order and maximizing remaining resources. During a 2T, there might be mass rebellion or "witch hunts" against those seen as responsible. In a 3T, everyone wants to believe that a return to normal is just around the next corner, so don't schedule your revolution[s] for this time-frame

Damned heat rash! In Michigan!

Originally Posted by independent

Wait a minute... are you a baby boomer? Just kidding, just kidding...

Actually, if DougCountry really is named "Doug" or "Douglas", chances are good he's a Boomer -- that name peaked in popularity in the mid 1950s.

In all seriousness, I have a question for DougCountry and other Doomers: Which do you think is going to get us first -- Peak oil (the Long Emergency nightmare scenario) or Catastrophic Climate Change?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Damned heat rash! In Michigan!

Sweating one's ass off turing organic compost will cure heat rash. Come on up as I could use the help! It's a little over an hour's drive and I'll feed you okra, tomatoes, goat brats and cold tea!

Doug County --- I was thinking about this on the way out to the barn just now.

~ There is ample evidence, and more mounting, that the climate is changing and impending doom confronts any culture that chooses not to adapt. AGW or not, things are changing. Folks with a bent for the scientific assume that if the evidence is there, if the science supports a conclusion of the problem, and prescribes a beneficial direction that folks will recognize said conclusions and accept said prescriptions. One would think that if emperical evidence and a rock solid predictive model were presented broadly enough that society would take action. After all that is logical.

If that were in fact the case, then there would be no smoking, drinking, driving too fast, and long ago a decision to move away from the toxic agricultural model we have adopted since the end of WWII. However, it has never worked that way.

Where S&H comes into play is in understanding what it is that motivates the actors in society. Our western society is not a monolith. The generations that move through it (and move it) are not single minded either with their worldviews and motivations changing over time. Understanding why I as a Joneser with strong xer leanings seek to work for here and now practical solutions would be easier with a sound understanding of the theory. I've been this way most of my adult life and I find myself changing society (at the micro level) in a practical, pragmatic way. My worldview is very different from my 16 year old son. His is the typical Millie perspective. What motivates him bears some similarity to what motivates me, but getting through to him takes a completely different set of language tools, symbolic imagery etc. To get both of us on the same ship for the same mission will take two different sales pitches.

Each generation has its strengths and weakensses as well. Operationalizing a societal campaign agaisnt AGW will require many skills and many perspectives. Understanding S&H will show you that you may not want a boomer to be following the leader through thick and thin, and you may not want to trust Xers with guarding the idological center.

I've said that I dont think that S&H has much application to HG, hort, early agrarian, pastoral peoples or even some outside of western culture for good reason. These societies are in general more monolithic with generations repeating cycles, but repeating roles in the cycles as well. It is when these cultures have contacted wester culture that this begins to change in a pronounced ways. The issues before us in the 21st century will certainly impact modern day HG, pastoral peoples, but it will be becuase of what western culture does in response to the issues. therefore, my pragmatic self says take S&H, understand it for what it is and apply it in that context for the maximum possible return.

Another point. Though the cycles and patterns that S&H point to as observable are "new" in the modern context (nobody has really looked at american history this way in such detail and then built from it a predictive model) the ideas are not. They are reflected in the tales of a thousand cultures past and present the world over. The archetypes, the cycles, the decisions and the trajectories are not new. What is new is getting off our asses and putting them to use in the present to change the world around us as if we feel we know what is likely coming and where we have the potential of going.

Joseph Campbell once said to someone somewhere "if you really want to help this world then teach people how to live in it!" Both Diamond and S&H give good instruction on that lesson.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

I've just attended a fairly detailed review of the Fourth Turning book and poked around the related websites, so can't say that I've read the books and know a lot of detail, but my impression is that the Howe and Strauss hypothesis is a bit thin on incorporating ecological contexts for human historical cycles.

The basic theory is outlined in their first book Generations. The data they used to formulate their ideas is biographical. Such information generally does not include anything about ecological contexts.

I have used malthusian cycles as an explanation for the early saeculum. Here's a good summary of the basic idea by a guy who goes by the handle rattlesnake. I present a more formal version here (unfortunately its missing the figures).

I am drawn to the whole concept of zeitgeist, which seems very important to the Fourth Turning framework, but it really helps to ground such formulations in the empirical world.

Here is an overview of some of the cycles work that discusses zeitgeist by political scientist Ted Goertzel. I have put in considerable effort at developing empirical formulations about such cycles and wrote a book about it. Here is a presentation by Goertzel which discusses some of these ideas.

Does this make any sense to others? The reason I bring this critique up is that I see very little attention being paid to the reality of global climate change in the Fourth Turning description of reality.

They theory has to do with how different populations respond to issues like climate change. Climate change was not an issue in any of the historical social moments from which S&H drew their data, so one wouldn't expect them to (in 1990) address this issue, which, at that time was barely on the radar of non-technical people.

Thanks Mikebert. I think that in reading Generations, one gets to a lot of the answers Doug is looking for, however I failed to recount them. You did so in a succinct manner.

Originally Posted by DougCounty

Hence the crux of the matter: if our conceptions of climate change do not match the ecological realities of climate change, things will only get worse, because those are the rules. Scientists in their modeling thought we would not see the climate changes we are currently observing (degree of ice cap melting, increased acidification of the oceans, methane releases from tundra, continental shelf, etc.) until CO2 concentrations reached 450 or 500, and we are only at 392. Irreversible triggers will occur at a much lower CO2 concentration than we imagined, and yet we have yet to develop the political will to fundamentally change the way we do things, and even if we do, it may be too late to prevent many if not most of the dramatic consequences from occurring.

In each crisis, reality collides with conceptions that are outmoded, based on habits of thought adopted by policy makers in their youth, two turnings ago. This collision causes the crisis zeitgest. This zeitgeist aids in the development of new conceptions that are adopted by the rising civic generation. When youthful holders of the new conceptions begin to match the numbers of their elders that hold the old, outdated conceptions, then policy can change to address the new reality, and the 4T comes to an end.

I believe the central problem we face in this 4T is not global warming, or economic crisis, or terrorism or any of the real-world problems that faces us. That is, none of these problems will be addresses during this 4T. if they are addressed at all, it will be in the 1T.

It's not that I don't believe these are problems, but that I strongly believe that nothing will be done about them during this 4T because nothing can be done about them politically. Since nothing can be done, the problems will get worse. Eventually it will become possible to do something about them, at which point the 4T will be over. The action that is taken will be the work of the 1T.

So when might we begin to address these problems? Here the S&H model is useful. According to their model, the problems will start to be addressed once those in power at the beginning of the 4T have aged out of their leadership role, and the next generation fully replaced them. Depending on just when this 4T began and what the currently generational length is, this will likely be sometime in the 2020's.

If that is too late, then it will be too late. To have a response any earlier you would have to do things that seem to me, at least, to be impossible. For example, is there any way you could convince Justin 77 or James Glick that AGW is real, or Bob Butler or me that it is not real? Speaking only for myself, I would say it is close to impossible to convince me. You can ask the others for their take.