4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?

There's that classic notion of "grassroots organizing" in the activist community, where we build a groundswell of support through face-to-face networking that then goes on to demand certain changes of the Masters of Society. Clearly this has been largely unsuccessful.

I like to think the next wave of community organizing could take the form of "Mycelial organizing." Mycelium runs invisible under the surface, colonizing a substrate without a sound, only emerging momentarily in a mushroom when the timing's right. This is what we need, those nameless networks of people who are already talking about the next few years and energy depletion. Oftentimes you're going to find these networks only among anarchists, outlaws, and others who reject the basic value framework of Industrial Capitalism. These are the networks of mutual aid that already exist, and these are the networks we need to continue to cultivate

If I may give praise to my local people, we've got something here called the Crop Mob (http://cropmob.org/about). It's a bunch of mostly young folks who gather once a month on a farm (usually run by one of the mobbers) to work on a big project that the usual folks merely wouldn't be able to accomplish without weeks of effort. It's fun, followed by a meal, and a great place to meet new folks while pulling weeds and mulching.

The value, I believe, of this sort of project is less in the actual work we do than in the network that's forming through this. If some kind of societal breakdown occurs, who will take up the slack? Probably those very people who are already on some level working outside the value-system of Industrial Capitalism. Food Not Bombs comes to mind as well. What else could there be? What else is already emerging in embryonic form? Foodways not Freeways?

As to plans, I don't really have any? I'm not sure what kinds of plans there could be...

I don't have full structural suggestions but some suggestions for thinking about this:
at the end are 6 questions, including

"3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?"

--wow, if last Sept-Oct. in the economy wasn't such an opportunity, what else could qualify? We (the US govt/global finance capital) opted, not for major structural changes, but for applying band-aids(TM) to the problems.

the structural risks and dangers present in Sept., 2008 are several times riskier and more dangerous now, Dec. 2009. Keep current at The Automatic Earth blog to follow these.

"6. Should such plans be kept largely undisclosed and un-promoted until needed?"

-if the writer is posing this to *us* the Sustainability People, then I'd say, such plans should be kept undisclosed and un-promoted only if:

--you see your movement as an elite, a vanguard, above the ranks of the lower classes, the unwashed mob or Kunstler's "NASCAR morons".
--you believe grassroots democracy is a silly, anachronistic, idealistic notion
--you don't believe that the general public ought to be the ones driving the conversation, and initiating the shock-doctrine changes.

We had, in our history, brief moments of push-back shock doctrine attempts from the ranks below:

Grange Movement
Farmers Union, Farm Holiday Assoc.
Industrial Workers of the World
1930s CIO organizing
civil rights movt.
youth in the 1960s
WTO, G8, G20 protests

As a long-time labor activist and former organizer, I suggest perhaps these could be studied for applicability today. Such plans should involve everyone and should be arrived at through democracy. This is also consistent with System Condition #4 in the Natural Step method.

Bobby G
Central Wisc. USA
http://www.biodiversecity.com

Great questions!
The answer to #1 is no. In fact, the more well-off and educated my friends, family, aquaintences are, the less likely they are to give the subjects discussed on TOD, or the subjects currently in question, a minute of thought. My sense is that, to them, our current situation is just another normal fluctuation in the economy and that things will resolve themselves. They are bored with questions regarding sustainability, etc. On the other hand, those that are suffering through the current situation seem unable to afford the thought that things can and get worse. They have "the audacity of hope". Bring up peak oil, societal/environmental overshoot, GW, etc. and they all adopt a blank stare. So, no. Most people around me don't get it.
My feeling is that they are like the proverbial frog in the pot. It will take a shock to the systems that they take for granted, and a large one, then the typical phases of denial, anger, acceptance, before they come to any honest realization of the mess we are all in. So I quietly go about my business. I can't educate them because they think they already are. Denial is well-entrenched among the general population.

1) The prevailing topic of conversations amongst the well off ought to be "Who will have power in the new world?" - Shall it be the average working people, who may have fewer jobs and less money? Shall it be the capitalists, businessmen and investors, who will no longer be able to make huge fortunes out of dwindling natural resources, and whose hold over the people will slip away? Who will one have to pander to and emulate, in the interest of gaining power? What kind of people will become the new islanded aristocracy, if the wealthy are deposed from power? Will democracy survive?

2-6) All plans must revolve around reducing population, reducing consumption and fostering a non-materialist culture. American capitalism must be abandoned. I'm rather lost about the specifics about how the plans should be implemented, because before they are drawn up, a thousand unpleasant philosophical questions pertaining to human life have to be answered. Here are a few:
- Who gets to have children and who should be disallowed?
- How shall dwindling global resources be apportioned between nations, and what will be the philosophical basis for doing so?
- What shall be the stimulus for producing goods and making scientific and technological advances, if not the profit motive?
- What will be the necessary virtues in the leaders and the people of the new age?

Unless these questions are answered and expounded in great depth and detail, and the result used as a basis for further action, all other plans which are implemented will be haphazard expedients, and may well result in civil unrest and anarchy.

WTF????????

Man this feels like day ja voo or sumting

As my daughter would say "like duh".

I find it interesting that we have to keep going thru these different, unique, yet constant versions of the 5stages.

Denial — "I feel fine."; "This can't be happening, not to me."
Denial is usually only a temporary defense for the individual. This feeling is generally replaced with heightened awareness of situations and individuals that will be left behind after death.[1]
Anger — "Why me? It's not fair!"; "How can this happen to me?"; "Who is to blame?"
Once in the second stage, the individual recognizes that denial cannot continue. Because of anger, the person is very difficult to care for due to misplaced feelings of rage and envy. Any individual that symbolizes life or energy is subject to projected resentment and jealousy.[1]
Bargaining — "Just let me live to see my children graduate."; "I'll do anything for a few more years."; "I will give my life savings if..."
The third stage involves the hope that the individual can somehow postpone or delay death. Usually, the negotiation for an extended life is made with a higher power in exchange for a reformed lifestyle. Psychologically, the person is saying, "I understand I will die, but if I could just have more time..."[1]
Depression — "I'm so sad, why bother with anything?"; "I'm going to die . . . What's the point?"; "I miss my loved one, why go on?"
During the fourth stage, the dying person begins to understand the certainty of death. Because of this, the individual may become silent, refuse visitors and spend much of the time crying and grieving. This process allows the dying person to disconnect oneself from things of love and affection. It is not recommended to attempt to cheer up an individual who is in this stage. It is an important time for grieving that must be processed.[1]
Acceptance — "It's going to be okay."; "I can't fight it, I may as well prepare for it."
This final stage comes with peace and understanding of the death that is approaching. Generally, the person in the fifth stage will want to be left alone. Additionally, feelings and physical pain may be non-existent. This stage has also been described as the end of the dying struggle.[1]

Looks like we are back to bargaining.

I for one am getting sick and tired of the dance.

Put a fork in it.

1. Are you noticing similar conversations, where well-educated and generally well off people are worried about the security of very basic needs, such as food and water.

No - The well off are only participating in symbolic actions. Among people who are emerging into the work force that I know and others who are living in voluntary poverty it is a different story. These people are not reproducing and are taking steps to adapt to the impending crisis. Their actions taken though are based on , very often, the pseudoscience that has penetrated our society.

2. Do you think a kind of “Shock Doctrine for Sustainability” is a good idea?

Taking advantage of disasters as tipping point for new policy sounds good but what direction will we be taken and by whom? This is very scary if is in hands of wrong people but frankly I do not know who the right people are. Present company included.

3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?

Economic collapse

4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?

A social safety net organized at the national level that offers mandates to localized regions that have wide flexibility in application is fields as health care, full employment, community based food production, community based manufacturing from recycled materials or local production.

Not every region will succeed. It will be a survival of fittest future and this only way others can learn.

5. Who might be able to actually make these plans and get them adopted at the right time?

Federal, State, Local governments

6. Should such plans be kept largely undisclosed and un-promoted until needed?

No, action is needed right now. We need to stop this push - pull system we are living in now.

4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?

"Unless these questions are answered and expounded in great depth and detail, and the result used as a basis for further action, all other plans which are implemented will be haphazard expedients, and may well result in civil unrest and anarchy."

Agreed. Thats why I believe that such a plan, with the scope you suggest would neccessarily be defacto martial law. The PTB would initially have to take control of remaining communication and financial systems, food production and distribution, military and police, borders, all utilities and transportation, fuel and energy, etc. Aboard ship, in an emergency, we had a saying for damage control: "hold what you've got". The alternative will be social breakdown and anarchy because the vast majority of the population is not prepared for what you suggest in any way. Only after control is established in the new paradigm can any "shock plan" be implemented effectively. Only when the majority has accepted that life as they knew it has changed drastically and forever will it be possible to move forward.
It occurs to me that it may look like the civil defense plans of the 50s and 60s, designed for dealing with nuclear war. Strong, trustworthy leadership will have to be immediate.
Is any of this plausible? I think not.

3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?

Sudden economic collapse, nuclear war, comet/asteroid strike, plague, sudden energy collapse, very sudden climate change, massive EMP.

It occurs to me that Adolph Hitler and his henchmen had an effective "shock plan". Be careful what you ask for.

Been there, done that.
Born and raised a colonial on the frontiers of civilisation. I've experienced collapse. Ran away screaming.
Talking to friends is groundhog day. "Never in a thousand years...."
Just focus and get on, one step at a time.
It's a hard rains a'gonna fall.

One doubt though.
Have I transferred my map from the past to the present. Is my map up to date?
I challenge my map by sitting at the oppositions camp fire.
I guess my map is still good.

Did you read the same Shock Doctrine book that I did?

The take home message is that radical changes may only be possible during a crisis, and that in chaotic times the advantage goes to whoever has a response plan available.

I don't think Klein intended that as a take-home message. Her take-home message is instead that the sociopaths and powerful have discovered that to either create a crisis (Chile, etc) or to take advantage of a crisis (name a natural disaster or war) is the best way to inject some insane policy that otherwise cannot be tested in a "clean room" laboratory environment.

The disconnect is that you hope that the implemented plan will go to those with the best humanitarian intentions. Klein instead suggests that it goes to the most powerful, wealthy, and depraved.

So I guess this answers your Question #2.

4. Here's an outline of some social elements of a people's sustainability shock doctrine that responds to the real economic situation faced by a huge number of people:

a. Time for labor unions--which still have considerable sums of cash money resources--to restrict the amount of money given to the Democratic Party's candidates, down to a proportion equivalent to what labor really gets from that effort--perhaps no more than 5%-10%
Remainder of the resources goes into a dramatic wave of labor union organizing targeting those who were profiled by Barbara Ehrenreich: "Nickle-and-Dimed in America". Overwhelmingly young, part-time workers in the service industries, all levels of retail sales, farm workers, temporary workers, people working in distribution centers, call-center workers, bank tellers, customer service reps of all sorts, should be brought in under a big tent, similar to the IWW concept ca. 1910-1920. This big tent will end up housing many declassed baby boomers by the way.

b. Enormous corporate campaigns to support these labor efforts and to link them with fair trade efforts, anti-sweatshop organizing, improving the "green-ness" of giant corporations, and so forth. Think of Seattle 1999 as an everyday, ongoing, never-ending tireless organizing project and you have some idea what I mean. No splitting or division between "community organizing" and "labor organizing" in these campaigns.

c. Both young and old people recently dispossessed of their housing should be allowed by municipal code to form co-ops of unrelated people, or anarchist collective houses, or "communes," or extended family units with no restrictions other than health and safety. Zoning codes at all levels of government should be put in the shredder and re-written to reflect the real human effects of the collapsed housing bubble. There will be no reflation of the bubble. This could be especially helpful in the distant suburbs in preventing complete civil society collapse post-oil-peak.

d. Now that zoning codes have been put through the shredder, new clauses in codes need abolish the distinction between "bedroom" neighborhoods and "commercial" neighborhoods. Amish and Mennonite communities have long held to the practice of combining one's home with one's place of business, cottage industry, farm kitchen operation, and similar. The present prohibition of doing business in a "residential" zone cannot make sense in a post-peak-oil world.

e. Where considerable amounts of foreclosed and abandoned property exist, groups of poor and underemployed youth should be encouraged, in an organized way, to begin squatting and occupying such properties, and working collectively to maintain and protect these housing units from wanton destruction. These could begin as illegal occupations but be coupled with support activities from more mainstream civic groups to assure no police over-reaction, police rioting, mass arrests, or any infringement on rights of squatters and occupiers of buildings. Bank resources should be marshalled to return abandoned property to original owners or squatters.

f. A campaign of mass repudiation of student loan debt nationwide must be begun immediately. Student loan debt is the new indentured servitude, and we have brought up a generation that graduates from higher education immediately "upside down" in their lives and under water financially. This is the first generation of Americans raised in such a manner.

g. All of the above-mentioned efforts should be linked globally, since the powers that imposed the current round of shock doctrine from above are certainly linked globally, as in WTO, G20, etc. One should "think locally, but act globally" in this respect.

h. All the above-mentioned labor organizing, corporate campaigns, community re-design and similar efforts should be staffed and led by people guided by clear sets of values and principles, and these principles used in negotiating with the local, state, national and global power structures. Non-negotiable demands are useless, but power does concede nothing without some demand, as Mr. Douglas would say.

i. A thread of sustainability orientation and attention to the plight of the biosphere, the web of life, Gaia, or however you conceive the environment, should enlighten all such "sustainability shock doctrine".

Peas on earth,

Bobby G
http://www.twitter.com/biodiversecity

The only time most Americans encounter this wealth distribution is when they have to go to the emergency room or DMV. Even then, it excludes the many people in prison. Most of us live within our own little bands, and we focus on the person right above us who has a slightly newer car, better cosmetic surgery, and a more exotic vacation planned for spring break.

And after seeing the new advertising model on college football tonite (think face paint), and what was advertised, make your own projections for the fate of the larger state.

None of my liberal friends, who are all well educated in the arts,percieve any immediate threat, although virtually all of them are "I read the NY Times" environmentalist types.

I hesitate to say so in so many words but my liberal circle seems to have an abiding faith in the civil authorities-meaning the state and federal govt -that is both touching and alarming and reminds me of the faith some of my religious acquaintances have in Jesus.
Thier vision of bad times is rationed gasoline and lowered thermostats and more food stamps.It's not that they aren't smart-they just figure that it's all going to be ok because they vote the right way and as long as they are in political control there will be peace prosperity,justice and lots of bunny rabbits and wild flowers, so they don't have to be bothered.

Virtually none of them have any technical education in the sciences critical to understanding our environmental problems-physics, chemistry,geology, and biology in general, other than the one or two dreaded survey courses forgotten as soon as possible which are all that most universities require of arts students.I attribute thier complacency to this fact.

My conservative buddies are mostly worried about a socialist take over and the loss of any opportunity to live and act as they see fit in an ever more regimented society and maybe make some serious money.
A very FEW of them are seriously concerned about a SOCIAL collapse.Only one or two of them are concerned about an environmental collapse, and both of them are voracious readers of history and science fiction.Both of them lurk on this site and several others dealing with energy and the environment.One of them actually has stocked up on food and survival gear.The other is an avid life long gardener , raises chickens,cuts firewood, cans his own food, etc and figures that if TSHTF he can get his show together quick enough at that time.

2 If have posted my opinion several times before that Our only real hope for change of the magnitude required to get us to implement an emergency war effort long term sustainability program is that we are lucky enough to get clobbered with a "Pearl Harbor " wake up event.This would have to be serious enough to REALLY get everybody's totally undivided attention and serious enough that a return to bau is out of the question BUT

not so serious that we have no resources left to make the changes needed.

Obviously a doctrine of some sort is highly desirable.It is often said that no battle plan ever survives the first few minutes of battle but this is only a statistical truth.Quite a few talented generals lucky enough to find circumstances in thier favor have planned and executed successful battles, and some have succeeded in the face of unfavorable circumnstances.

Even poor battle plans are better than none.

3 Any disaster that meets the criteria briefly outlined above.

Another year without a summer in reverse-a super hot crop killing year, a war that shuts down oil imports,a killer flu that kills like the plague of the late Middle Ages,a super hurricane-a thousand year storm-

Financial collapse and civil unrest on the grand scale, but brought under control after a short period of time.

A visit by ambassadors fronm another world . ;)

A coup pulled off by a group of Oil Drummers headed up by the regulars.;):);0)

Needless to say the odds of any of these lucky breaks materializing are pretty slim.

Another possible scenario is that instead of a clean drop offv into a collapse the economy staggers along like a far gone drunk for a decade or so until everybody is so fed up with this new bau that we just collectively QUIT playing the game one day, forcing a new start under new rules, somewhat after the fashion of the peaceable collapse of the USSR.This is not a very inviting scenario but I think it is the likeliest outcome other than collapse, provided we avoid a hot war for the next couple of decades.

4 In very broad outline-strategic reserves of staple foods , fertilizers, other essential ag and industrial inputs adequate for three years at least should be in secure storage.

Provision for emergency power supplies for the water and sewer systems of all major cities should be in place.This could consist of peaking ng plants being built nearby purposely, or building some spare transmission lines fron existing nukes or coal plants located close by.

Legislative authority in place to enable the prohibition of regreational activities requiring a lot of energy, up to and including air travel for vacations, etc.This also includes banning driving to professional sports events.

Immediate outlawing of the manufacture of any truck larger than a subcompact except a post office jeep plain jane model.

The authority to close to feedlots over a period of a year os so in order to divert the grain to human consumption.

Good Samaritian laws that eliminate any liability to car owners and drivers who drive others to work or on any essential errand.

No income tax levied on any income from allowing a person to share your home.

Cosmetic surgery except for accident reconstruction , birth defects, etc , outlawed.

A moratorium on building any new second homes or spec houses.Refundable tax credits for energy efficiency upgrades for poor people.

Steep taxes on junk foods.

A jobs program to support all those out of work or thrown out of work.The make work should be such a nature that it serves the essential interests of the country long term.For example the railroads might be nationalized and operated like highways by leasing track time.Highway construction workers could lay double track on single track lines, run new lines, lay new track on old right of ways, etc.

These ideas are listed not as specific reccomendations but as ideas to be used as starting points for creating the plan.Obviously I have just pulled these ideas out of the proverbial hat withot thinking them thru closely.

5 The general staff military organitional mode is probably best suited to such a job-the staff should include engineers, public health professionals,some military officers for thier ability to organize large bodies of men and machinery to accomplish a given job quickly and efficiently,who knows???Governors, county planners city managers, a few farmers, agronomists, veternarians, a few cops,????

6 another good question .But probably , yes.If it is public and widely public it will become politicized beyon d any hope of success as various business and pressure groups fight for a place at the trough.

At T-Giving dinner there wasn't any mention or indication of any kind of concern for the future. I purposely avoid ever trying to engage anyone on the subject of overshoot, peak oil, AGW or any other topic considered negative. If you mention anything negative people don't like you, so I avoid it. Let them think what they want. But I don't hear anyone I know ever mention anything. They seem oblivious.

Here's a thought though about where Empire, the human/corporate experience is going: What if humankind squeezes every last bit of what this world has to offer? Meaning, what if there isn't some kind of collapse that drastically changes our course, but instead just a steady consumption of all available resources until there all pretty much gone. The image isn't pretty. 80% deserts on land - dead oceans - and maybe only a few dozen species left that are the most hearty, like seagulls, rats, humans (of course), our pets, farm animals, racoons, ants, wasps, cockroaches, alligators and maybe wild pigs. It would just be a rather dull, dusty planet, with the remaining people living off of farm animals and crops that grow in the ground, like potatos, onions, carrots. Nothing above ground grows because its just too noxious, too harsh a climate. Even the food grown in the ground requires a hearty last vestige of human survivors capable of metablizing (without causing disease) huge amounts of heavy metals and pcb's.

When one considers that eventuation, one must wonder if a collapse or some kind of cataclysm is preferable. At least the planet would then have something to offer future generations.

Hi Altaira, good to see you posting again. I'm under the weather today but will venture a quick post in appreciation of the questions you raise.

I've spent 30+ years creating various NGO-type groups and projects, with more success at achieving intended goals than most. The work has seldom been "mainstream" until its conclusion, and the methods a bit offbeat, so I may not be a good data point for mapping trends.

It has seemed as though those I've worked with over the years have mostly stopped the stressful life-risking, boring, frustrating stuff and gone on to have more normal lives, but I've chalked it up to the fact that it's a stressful thing, with an activist's career half-life pretty short. And even then, most of them have only been looking at very specific issues at any given time. As an activist broadens his or her scope, it's difficult for many to cope. When you reach the broad-brush view of system limits and overshoot as often discussed on TOD, it's enough to drive many into a kind of brain-overload nihilism.

Be that as it may be, the "shock doctrine" type tactics represent a subset of the principles I've used for the last couple decades, which seem to generally derive from the way "relative fitness" is achieved by competing adaptive systems, and more generally still by the nature and landscape of evolving criticality and cascade in many overlapping systems.

That's a vague way to say I've taken advantage of "shock doctrine" type strategies, and was sorry to see other entities picking up on some of those strategies for coldly pragmatic ends. I note this since it may not be appreciated that the same dynamics may be exploited for any agenda. (And no, I haven't seen other NGO's do it.)

Planning in advance for an anticipated new context can be a smart and subtle way to deploy one's energies.

So yes, I think "shock doctrine" type tactics should be used by environmentalists. Indeed, in the context of a mass extinction, I think "sustainability" might be aiming low.

Feel free to email me directly if you like. I'm still dealing with the aftermath of a head injury and am quite a bit dingy - which I'm sure shows in this post. But as I've occasionally pointedly stated in this forum, I think that those who aspire to making the future better than it might otherwise be, must deal with the world as it is and not as they wish it was.

And despite our strong human preference for egalitarian process, one absolutely needs to manage the information flow. Knowlege and timing are everything. I would strongly advise against outlining any such strategies in a public forum. That doesn't mean I'm talking about covert sneakiness per se; well-intentioned undisciplined allies are a bigger danger to success than anything else.

Best of luck.

1. Are you noticing similar conversations, where well-educated and generally well off people are worried about the security of very basic needs, such as food and water.
Different people are at different stages, but there's a clear trend. My take home: the peak oil community is a growth industry.

2. Do you think a kind of “Shock Doctrine for Sustainability” is a good idea?
Yes. But a better book would be "The Fourth Turning" by Strauss and Howe. The authors argue for periodic crises in American History, followed by longer periods of "normalcy." But the crises reshaped everything: American Revolution, Civil War, Great Depression/World War II.

3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?
Uh, peak oil, maybe?

4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?
I'd speak in U. S. terms here; not sure how to apply this to the rest of the world.
1. Steep progressive income tax, cap incomes at about $150,000 in current dollars.
2. Cap use of natural resources based on limiting factor (source or sink), as per Herman Daly.
3. National-service non-military draft for everyone, 18-65. Put the unemployed to work on the farm or in renewable energy. Guaranteed jobs or guaranteed annual income (enough to keep people from starving is the objective).
4. End factory farms and coal-powered electricity.
5. Foreign policy to match. Don't trade with countries that don't have similar policies.

5. Who might be able to actually make these plans and get them adopted at the right time?
TOD could do it.

6. Should such plans be kept largely undisclosed and un-promoted until needed?
Absolutely not. We need an advertising department. My general thought -- pitch it as a populist / environmentalist / prophetic message. "Limits to growth," Earth Day, etc.

Just a few thoughts.

Keith

Here are questions for campfire:

1. Are you noticing similar conversations, where well-educated and generally well off people are worried about the security of very basic needs, such as food and water.

Some, but not many. Others have commented here about the state of denial that many are in regarding the sitation. I'd like to add that the "civilized" cultures of the planet are imbued with a large dose of self-hate. So on the one hand there is lip service paid in the form of "How can this be happening...???" when under the surface there is that old and odd Freudian "death instinct" at work (not an instinct at all, but a facet of the culture in which Freud was immersed and practiced).

2. Do you think a kind of “Shock Doctrine for Sustainability” is a good idea?

I guess I feel it would be reaching too few people too slowly. I'm envisioning pockets of "prepared people" (psychologically and emotionally, first, then technologically) who will need to address what will constitute "defense" against desperate others. My model for this is indigenous of the world, some of whom ended up "Assimilated into the Borg", others who are hanging on by a thread to a more sustainable existence, and those who fall between these two extremes.

3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?

Opportunity?????!!! This is not a word I would have chosen. "Lack of Option" would encompass it better.

4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?

Again, use anthropological observations on optimum tribal size as a guide, then focus locally with mentoring in childcare, food/water stewardship, and storytelling: New versions of "The Emporer Wears No Clothes" comes to mind to . To the extent possible, use nature and balance indigenous social models as templates for new social interactions and structures (or lack thereof).

5. Who might be able to actually make these plans and get them adopted at the right time?

People with the demonstrated skills to do them and not just the ability to talk about them. You will find them working for peanuts trying to give some unwanted child a sense of self-love at a local daycare, or in the auto parts section of Fleet Farm because their soft approach to the farm they had to forfeit was incompatible with the demands of industrial ag, or even spooning up gravy at the local shelter because they know how to survive not only their abused childhoods, but the pickling effects of a lifetime of drug use....they can still get up in the morning and "make a day of it". Clearly these people will not be "making plans" for others, but I challenge you to find more honest or sincere mentors within the confines of our society.

6. Should such plans be kept largely undisclosed and un-promoted until needed?

These efforts are going on right now......have never stopped, but became marginalized. The influence of such people needs to spread outward. I feel the more these examples enter the public conciousness now, the better. It won't automatically mean a softer landing, but more people at the time of "fall down, go BOOM" will understand and accept....hell, embrace!..... the "other side", whatever that might look like.

I have found the Grange to be a good place to organize activities and projects focused on post peak oil/ economic collapse.

My county has nine functioning Granges. Most of the active members in my county are children of the great depression.

They are here because they grew up mastering survival skills. They if asked will willingly teach those skills to younger generations.

Prior to moving from an urban setting to this rural area, I had never heard of the Grange. I joined to become a contributing member of the community.

Through presentations at monthly meetings, a monthly email economic/peak oil news letter, I have been able to raise the awareness of many people in the community.

In the last year our active membership has doubled by attracting local people in the forty to fifty year age range who are motivated to get prepared for the coming collapse.

I am too old (76) to be the leader of our community but I work closely with several young men (ages 30 –52) who have leadership ability and have demonstrated that they are willing to sacrifice for the good of the community. These are the men who took charge when our valley flooded two years ago (eight feet of water in many houses) and led the rebuilding. All of their effort was volunteered.

Our annual Grange Christmas party will be open to the entire community. I will cook 60 pounds of turkey and 20 pounds of ham with traditional trimmings. We expect more than 150 to attend. Each participant is a prospect for enlightenment and recruiting.

http://www.gtinitiative.org/
Is a good starting place

1. Are you noticing similar conversations, where well-educated and generally well off people are worried about the security of very basic needs, such as food and water.

Yes, but too few to consider it significant enough to effect change now.

2. Do you think a kind of “Shock Doctrine for Sustainability” is a good idea?

Absolutely yes. Here in New Zealand, the shock doctrine has been used repeatedly over the last three decades in order to make significant structural changes to the economy. As I write, we have a manufactured crisis in our world leading no-fault injury compensation scheme, created solely so that the right wing government can privatise the scheme for purely ideological reasons. The difference in this case is that the environmental/economic/energy crisis will not be manufactured. That doesn't mean that we don't have a moral obligation to have a decent plan ready to act upon. If we don't, the neo-cons will, and we'll have more pain before the real changes can happen.

3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?

Pick any of the constraints outlined in Limits to Growth. It's simply a race to the bottom as to which one will trigger the big episode. My money is on energy shortages (Peak Oil)

4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?

Keep it simple stupid. Focus on significant structural changes to the monetary system, re-regulating the flow of capital and de-regulating the things that obstruct collective action at the local level. (Many of these have already been mentioned.) In other words, do much of what was done in the late 1930's, but don't count on oil/growth to rescue the economy, but shift the emphasis to sustainable infrastructure. There is no need whatsoever to get the generals involved or anything like that. They will have their hands full keeping the peace at home and abroad with little or no material support. The whole point of a shock change is that it is structural and then the community makes the changes organically around the structural change(s). There is no need for any heavy handed enforcement. If there is, then it's not a shock reform, it's a coup d'etat!

5. Who might be able to actually make these plans and get them adopted at the right time?

It's always an organised, smallish elite that builds these plans, whether we like to admit it or not. The Progressive anxiety over such things is why we do so little of it compared to our conservative counterparts! It will require true leadership in the right place at the right time to make such changes and choose a significant departure from the status quo. these folk are rare. Got any ideas? (Such folk do tend to rise to the top in a true crisis, as opposed the manufactured variety.)

6. Should such plans be kept largely undisclosed and un-promoted until needed?

If you've disclosed it widely and loudly, it's already a dead idea. These are the people that tend to end up in the foundations of stadiums in Latin America. Build resilience at the community level through transition town movements - these are the skills that are needed en masse by the masses. Otherwise, build your plans in relatively low-profile communities such as this one. Being secretive is as bad as being loud mouthed. Unless you are screaming very loudly, no one will take the plans seriously until the crisis in any case.

1. My observation is that people I speak with tend to be aware of peak oil and AGW but are not very well informed so they are easily soothed by things like the George Will column etc. They are anxious - especially about economic issues - but really don't want to deal with that anxiety in practical ways. People I see who are really into collapse are very conservative and well educated- right wing even - and perceive collapse not as a function of peak oil or global warming - but collapse as a function of increased size of government and moral decay. They tend to reject peak oil and AGW. They are preparing for the prospect of populist revolt by preparing a political platform- and emphasize things like local communities etc but are awash in romantic visions of a mythical agrarian past and tend to despise diversity.

2. Depends on who controls the results - I would tend to say no - because generally I have not seen positive responses to "shocks". 9/11 was clearly a shock - and the result was two wars, huge deficits and who knows how many resources wasted.

3. Energy and food scarcity will ultimately get to a point where people will pay attention - but don't count on most people making the effort to educate themselves as to the complex and inter-related causes. But remember that while people resist change - they get used to it pretty fast - the change gets normal. Consider buying water - this would have seemed incomprehensible to people 30 years ago - to buy jugs of water - but it is completely normal now.

4/5 I am attracted to work that has begun in Europe especially Spain, on co-ops. Workers who own the business. Look up the Mondragon Coops in Spain. Look at the Cleveland Laundry coop and other such things planned by I believe Evergreen. A distributist approach. Too complex to get into here but something well worth the attention of TOD. I am also impressed by small local groups in Ireland working on a small scale to create resilence and to prepare.
FADA is one, FEASTA another. These people have already created approaches and have the demonstrated expertise - they could be valuable resources. I fear though that the usual will happen - the predators will seize the opportunity.

6. People mistrust the secretive. I suspect the best approach is to join with like minded souls and do your thing. When your expertise is needed, people will come to you.

Altaira openly admits that many of the people with whom she has interacted have expressed dismay at what they believe is a species (homo sapiens) way into overshoot. Yet then, in the next breath, she talks about a "shock doctrine" intended to force existing societies into accepting sustainable change. Does anyone else smell the disconnect there that I do?

A species in overshoot this far is not going to have time to rationally bring down its excess numbers. All the feel-good talk from people that human population will level off near 2050 around 10 billion is the talk of the clinically insane, people born inside an overshoot event who think the overshoot event itself is normal.

Given the resource issues rearing their ugly heads in the first decade of the 21st century, I don't hold out any hope that we'll reach 10 billion people anyway. My own belief is that we're facing catastrophic collapse and any "shock doctrine" is a waste of time. Trying to change society is a waste of time. What you should be doing is preparing for the collapse of that society. You don't need a shock doctrine for that.

> 1. Are you noticing similar conversations, where well-educated and generally well off people are worried about the security of very basic needs, such as food and water.

No, it is a slow gradual change that mostly relate to climate change.

> 2. Do you think a kind of “Shock Doctrine for Sustainability” is a good idea?

It is allways good to have constructive plans for handling severe problems.
The most important part is to not loose your head and destroy freedoms that
are needed for societies adaptability and the enjoyment of life.

> 3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?

Large scale negative examples. Formerly well off societies failing due to bad
politics that fumble the changes needed whern resorces start to get scarce.

> 4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?

It would be based on quickening the pace of government, corporate and personal
adaptatios to resource scarcity. Dozens of small refinements to what already is
being done would add upp to enourmous change withing an generaton and significant
change withing a few years. I am sre this can be done withouth destroying any
culture and it would give almost everybody a place in the changing society.

> 5. Who might be able to actually make these plans and get them adopted at the right time?

Its a job divided between the governmnet, its institutions, politicans and other people doing heavy thinking and socializing.

> 6. Should such plans be kept largely undisclosed and un-promoted until needed?

Abolutely not, good ideas need to be out in the open to be refined and get an opportunity to be usefull.

Since it is about building new structurs wich is a harder problem then tearing down old
structures you realy need to start the work before the crisis.

Alan Drake immediately comes to mind. He has for years tried to have viable plans for rapid transit available for such times as gasoline shortages bring on a transportation emergency. He has always said something like "I want to have straws available when they start grasping for straws."

Interesting discussion is this.

One thing I would strongly suggest is not getting involved in a regular political party. It is often said by the Powers That Be that if you feel strongly enough about something then you should find a political party which best fits your view and then get involved to try to influence the policy makers. In my opinion this is a big mistake and will only result in a total waste of time. I followed the recent US presidential race closely from this side of the pond and even as a 'neutral' I was hard pressed to find anything different about any of the party candidates and even less between Mssrs Obama and Mcain.

Unfortunately it is even worse here in Britain. In less than six months' time we will be going to the polls in the general election. All three of the main parties are pro growth, pro 'the economy', pro fiat currency, pro debt-based money. All of the politicians are from the 'political class' - you know the type: out of university into law/banking/PR for a couple of years so they can say they have 'experience' then they weedle their way into an internship in their chosen party, find an unwinnable seat to fight, loose, find a winnable seat, win, grease their way up the ranks whilst betraying what little principles they might have had, land a junior ministerial position and then eventual land the job of Secretary of State for Health (or other) with out any qualifications for the post at all.

While our political systems offer just bland carbon copies of each other's policies we would do best to stay well clear of giving the system any credence whatsoever. Perhaps an interesting idea would be to set up a shadow parliament/congress. We could 'elect' worthy representatives and pass 'laws' as to how we would wish the country to be run. If it got to a critical mass then the TV cameras would tune in. Not much flesh on the idea at the moment but it has been something I have been thinking about for sometime. If nothing else it would show the 'real' politicians how little we respect them.

Sounds like a strange idea to have. After all, you

- know that the extreme right understand and have familiarity with employing the shock doctrine to achieve objectives

- know that they know about peak oil, the implications, and how its likely to play out.

- know that they are keeping quiet on it, ignoring the problem

- know that they are close to the levers of power, and have familiarity with pulling them.

Thus its a good bet that they have a plan to employ their chosen tool, at the opportune moment, to their own ends.

And you are thinking about using THEIR tool, without access to power, to achieve your ends? Do you really think that would ever work?

Some early steps in the process of coming to a deeper understanding:

Step 1: If you were a member of the extreme right elite, with their know predilections, what would your plan be?

Step 2: Knowing that, how compatible are your aims with their aims?

Step 3: If they are, can you embrace and extend to usurp their planning?

Step 4: If they are not, do you really think you can run two competing plans, using the same approach, without access to power or familiarity, and win out?

I'd suggest that the plan would be a power grab, and an attempt to secure military control of the necessary overseas resources to continue the US substantially as is. Certain groups would be demonised and the economy would be put on a centralised 'war footing' to ensure a command and control economy servicing nominally 'free market' business ends; but in reality those of the ruling elite - centralising control of finance/resources.

As such, I doubt if they are too compatible with your aims. Not much case for localisation and sustainability there. All that would be likely to happen if you stood up in a time of 'shock' and said the way forward was sacrifice, retreating back to much less of everything, would be for you to be a smear on the pavement.

The shock doctrine and its approach to usurping control via action at the centre is not for you. You want 'positive' change, you need a different tool - one that's never really been found in such circumstances in the totality of human history.

Even with this excellent discussion we are late to the party. Paul Hawken in his book Blessed Unrest describes how the mycelia have been spreading for years, are expanding at around 40% a year right now, and even most of us don't know that the process of "colonizing the substrate" is already well underway.

"We" don't actually need to do anything -- tens of millions of people world-wide are already active, doing whatever is needed in their locale. The cool thing is that to TPTB they just look like local irritants. The fact that it's totally distributed and there is no overarching, centralized agenda is the one thing that gives me hope that the shift may give birth to something besides Big Government Lite. I would fight any effort to bring the change under centralized direction.

1. Nope, no conversations like this even among my engineering and environmental colleagues. No one but me has a clue about Peak Oil. Perhaps it's because most of them are younger and weren't driving and waiting in gas lines in 1974.

2. I tend to agree with the earlier commenter who described Shock Doctrine as an authoritarian tactic. Weimar Germany comes to mind. The authoritarian right was certainly ready to jump in after the deflation/hyperinflation whipsaw.

3. Wait two decades and take your pick.

4. No freaking clue what a plan would look like.

5. Regarding localized emergency planning / sustainability efforts, I like the idea of Volunteer Fire Departments. You have an organization connected to the government and power structure, you have a group of volunteers interested in helping others ... I haven't approached ours yet, although it's on my to-do list.

6. I don't think this matters. There are no secrets from TPTB. Even so, these types of plans are so far away from anyone's conception of the future (see #1) that it's unlikely they will be resisted even if they are promoted.

I am surprised by how quickly an inkling of a changing future is spreading in my part of Shropshire, UK. Folk seem to be making spontaneous intuitive changes without any detailed knowledge of resource depletion etc. Here are some examples:
Two local estate agents have suddenly started breeding their own pigs, and an obscure and hitherto marginal small-holders group is now attracting packed audiences keen to learn about woodland management, growing food , keeping chickens , pigs, sheep and bees. A neighbour is coppicing willow. My local doctor's son has learnt how to catch rabbits. Another local doctor has invested in wood-burning stoves, chain saw, log splitter and a small garden tractor with which he forages for timber on the riverbank. He already has a pile the size of a garage. In a nearby village someone is trying to set up a forest garden /permaculture enterprise.
From being neglected , allotments are now highly sought after resources with a waiting list. Growing fruit and vegetables is becoming popular and dinner party conversations often include swapping gardening tips.
Bicycles are selling well and more and more are appearing on the roads, albeit more for leisure than utilitarian transport.
Some young people are highly aware and are deliberately opting for a life of low consumption and voluntary simplicity.

However, and this is a big however, I think it is still a minority and an eccentric one at that who are making any serious preparations for radical change. There is vigorous opposition to the permaculture farm and its "weirdos". Opinion may polarise between fundamentalist BAU types and doomers. But the pioneers are there in the community showing the way and constructive solutions are being attempted.

1. People feel shaken and have lost confidence in the capitalist system to deliver.
2. No
3. Blackouts, oil shortages, climate related problems like heat waves and droughts and other system failures. (Bank failure is a good start).
4. First you need to explain where you want to end up. If India and China
are any judge they want to end up where the OECD is. Maybe the OECD wants to end up with 'sustainability' as a goal in and of itself. If so a social contract will exist to guarrantee food, shelter, health, employment, etc. in exchange for managed expectations.
5. Ultimately politicians will have to legislate them.
6. No. They should be openly discussed.

Change comes from the bottom up.
The elite resists change, sometimes by corrupting/co-opting it.

Shock doctrine is fascism or at least sounds like it.

I don't think a 'shock doctrine' will be allowed by our current leaders/owners, nor is it necessary. Sustainable technologies are naturally disruptive, and over time will result in structural changes.

As an example, consider an investor contemplating a commitment to a large, capital intensive energy project like a new nuclear, sequestered coal, or oil shale recovery plant. The project may be amortized over 30 years, and once the money is invested it can't be recovered. To be viable the project requires a predictable market.

Now what happens if, after 5 years, someone starts selling cheap solar roofing panels. Building owners can now unplug from the utility, or worse, sell power to the grid. The big project investors lose. Even the possiblility of cheap solar, wind, Mr. Fusion, or something similar will disuade them from making the big investment.

Beside PV solar and wind, one can think of other technologies that are potentially disruptive to 'big finance'. Sodium storage batteries, small scale electro-metallurgy, cheap CNC machines like shopbot, all favour distributed, networked, small scale, personally owned deployment.

Big finance has been trying for decades to steer the future away from this eventuality. The 'hydrogen economy' is really just an attempt to keep nuclear and liquid hydrocarbons in business, and it isn't working. Likewise suburban development.

The sun and wind are free, and eventually people will be too. If you want to do something to help bring this on, support a renewables startup.

No plan or independent organization of individuals preparing for the inevitable severe contraction coming could go public, particularly if it included notable public figures. When the media gets wind of billionaires or groups of 100 or more people building multiple shelters 100 miles from anything in the wilderness, the panic will start to spread... they (the BAU crowd) would still tell us everything is alright even if flesh eating zombies were running down the street... I hate to say it but only a catastrophe will provoke change...

1. Are you noticing similar conversations, where well-educated and generally well off people are worried about the security of very basic needs, such as food and water.

Some, mainly continuing BAU, even if they believe rhetoric. Small segment, particularly younger (30's to 40's) buying land and making attempts at sustainability. I live in academic, agricultural MW USA.

2. Do you think a kind of “Shock Doctrine for Sustainability” is a good idea?

No, electrons eventually dissolve...

3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?

my feeling is the whole catastrophic hand has been overplayed. i see a continuing slide into a depauperate society - with notable exceptions. Too many unacknowledged and some unrecognized holes have been punched in our ecological webs. where is the discussion about how the disruptions in our biogeochemical cycles are going to play out - it is scary ecosystem level effects.

4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?

i'm clueless. i see the social support net slowly eroding (e.g. government support, not familial/clan), eventually people will have a difficult time realizing so many were able to live in such a profligate manner - it may be 150 years, but i think it will occur.

5. Who might be able to actually make these plans and get them adopted at the right time?

Local, local, local. Don't see much hope, nor likelihood of national plans.

6. Should such plans be kept largely undisclosed and un-promoted until needed?

They may just end up being undisclosed as communication slowly becomes more and more local and it gets less useful to expend large amounts of precious energy to travel.

Btw, my first time spending any time here. Thoughtful stuff, I see myself returning frequently.

Peace.

2. The shock doctrine approach has been employed successfully by highly top-down groups with power and single-minded focus. A more bottom-up, grassroots movement would be unlikely to succeed, and it could even back fire.

It seems perhaps better to think about the opposite to the shock doctrine, both to limit its effectiveness after the next shock (real or manufactured) and to nudge society in a positive (or at least less negative) direction. This would imply
- distributed planning (not small elite group, easy to focus on and discredit or worse)
- open and transparent - no secrets
- building resilience and understanding that lead to proaction and ability to withstand shocks, not reactions due to weakness and ignorance

How to achieve any of the above? One small step at a time. Prepare yourself to withstand shock, then your family, then your community. Make links with other communities. I like the idea of developing straws for when people or decisions makers grasp (and these will be needed at multiple scales). Will there be time? Probably not, but that's no reason to not try.

Very interesting discussion Altaira,

1. Colleagues working in sustainability, renewable energy, business, or NGOs for third world development are starting to talk about it, but I haven't seen anyone acknowledge the magnitude of the problem as it is done on TOD. My scientist friends in academia can't be bothered to check the details and shrug their shoulders thinking it doesn't affect them personally. However as said above, I agree that it's a growing industry. recently I talked to the CEO of a large renewable energy company and his code version was: There is a crisis coming much greater than this small financial crisis... he then went on to cite some IEA phrases from the 2008 introduction.

2. shock a good idea? -- I think it would have to depart from the Chicago school version not to fall in the traps of authoritarianism. As mentioned before it must have a grass roots component, maybe the image is more that of self organization. The shock comes because the catalyst or seed is there for a rapid growth of the movement at the precise time.

3. What scenarios? -- I would suggest that poverty, high unemployment, food riots in western countries could be a triggering event (if they occur)

4. elements of such a plan? -- I would add something to the grassroots, mushrooms and elites. Imagine a significant part of the population out of work (35%?), hungry and disillusioned. Now they are offered a "job" in the informal economy, in a welcoming community, in a matrix where things have been going on quietly for a while but where lots has happened. Agriculture, appropriate technology (Schumacher style), small and barely sufficient energy, rescuing of old trades, etc.

The key of the "undercover plan" would be that the structure is ready to grow if people want to join in. (grow, of course means the overall consumption scales down).
Leadership could encourage something like civil disobedience (maybe we could call it commercial disobedience) slowly sucking people out of the formal economy towards sustainability. People too scared to step out of BAU would have success stories to be inspired with.

I suggest that the Internet could help crystallize the process adding to its disruptive effect. Something with the growth of Facebook, with the power of crowd-sourcing, and with a web of niches and skills matched with smart algorithms. We have TOD and linked-in where skills and future expectations have suddenly met(and even as a minority I'm sure we are all surprised by the impacts TOD has had so far). With some appropriate tools to match desperate people, interests, expertise, communities, faiths, ... and sharing... it could (hopefully) get out of control =)

5. Who to make these plans? -- local initiatives glued with internet communities?

6. undisclosed and un-promoted ? -- I think the minority, marginal effect will take care of leaving it undisclosed. people won't take it seriously until it matters. I don't think the Chicago school needed to keep their theoretical papers undisclosed ... simply no-one took them seriously. It's like reading the old "Planned obsolescence" papers which would shock consumers today.

1. Are you noticing similar conversations, where well-educated and generally well off people are worried about the security of very basic needs, such as food and water.

For engineers, this is a small step. Most of the "good" engineers I know grew up in farm towns, and those living in-town desire acreage and usually end with at least a few acres and a farm. Most live conservatively anyway, but took new notice after their 401Ks took a bit hit last year. All understand the basics of overpopulation, resource limits, and frail system dynamics. Worried? Yes. Worried more than usual? Not so much.

2. Do you think a kind of “Shock Doctrine for Sustainability” is a good idea?

Equally as pointless as striving for climate change control Just because it's necessary doesn't mean it's possible. Better to act individually, and do what you can. "God grant me the energy to change what I can, the peace to accept what I cannot change, and the wisdom to know the difference." As for me? I'm offering to help anybody I know who wants to improve their house do so. Many such projects are held-up by the daunting effort more than money, and a helping hand makes the project more enjoyable. I gain goodwill and learn a thing or two to boot.

3. What real-world scenarios might lead to the opportunity to make major structural changes in society?

Mostly time is required. We've already had major changes ongoing (assembly line production, women working, integration, energy shifts, personal credit growth, service economy shift, etc.), and the next ratchet down on energy and debt will do it again. Failing that, a major war or epidemic might speed things along.

4. Can you outline what the elements of such a plan would look like?
Reduce scale and improve localization in everything, especially gov't, energy production, food production, and property ownership.

5. Who might be able to actually make these plans and get them adopted at the right time? Nobody -- they'll all be "too late", but that'll be the best we can do. Except for actions you take yourself -- why wait?

6. Should such plans be kept largely undisclosed and un-promoted until needed? Only if it fits into the local power structure and aids re-localization. Big power plays by outsiders and gov't types will end up with people pushing up daisies if order breaks down. The good ole' boy network has things covered in my hometown already -- many who are quite poor are still quite influential, and nobody is going to change that basic structure. I haven't lived there in 20 years and I'd still be fine if I go back though I'm only marginally attached...you could live there for 10 and still wonder why things never quite go your way. Ever wonder about the gun-store fire a block from the firehouse that burned nothing but all the ownership records in the office? Yeah, me neither.

i would love to, if you haven't yet come across it, draw your attention to the Zeitgeist Movement and the Venus Project. if only the future could be this way!!!