Hipster? Dinosaur?

[Mister Imperceptible]

It was never about maximizing social utility.

I do not have any confidence that were Putin and Xi handed a copy of Ostrom’s work, that they would heed it, and I must account for Putin and Xi and the others like them, not Ostrom. I only have the luxury of collaborating with others after the external threats have been accounted for.

There is a great guest star appearance by Ian McShane in one Game of Thrones episode that sums up how conventionally understood altruism/pacifism gets treated, as I see it, unfortunately:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Med_pNazwEY

Sorry for the abyss-gazing, but I don’t know what else to say. I want to live, and no one can concern himself with assuring that I live, better than me.

[7Wannabe5]

@MI:

Gotcha, but I would note that Olstrom's work had to do with cooperation, or collaboration (as you noted), as opposed to pacifism or altruism. In fact, strong boundaries is one of the conditions she lists as necessary for situation that transcends "Tragedy of the Commons." From a review of her work on Library Thing:

It is written in an accurate and scientific style that never falls into the jargon trap. This gives a vivid impression of the author as someone open minded and keeping her thinking clear and focused on the facts.

After an introduction on her intentions and method, she presents the so called “tragedy of the commons” (and its close kin, the “prisoner’s dilemna”) as a situation where theoretical thinking sees central intervention as the only way to break the (self)destructive behaviour predicted and often observed: everyone tries to appropriate as much as they can get away from common resources until those resources collapse and everyone becomes worse off. She then calls attention to several field situations where individuals have been able to organize themselves to avoid falling into this trap without external intervention. The situations described are as diverse as mountain terrain in Switzerland, irrigation land in Spain and the Philippines or even fisheries in Turkey. Ostrom provides a detailed description of the salient features of these institutions before highlighting the common ground and the differences. She points out that these examples have institutions that have been stable for a long time and that we’re therefore unsure about the process through which the institutions themselves were created.

She then turns to more recent examples of successful institutions managing CPR where information is available regarding the institutional development that led to the current situation. The key examples are water management institutions in California and a project to improve local irrigation communities in Sri Lanka. She finally contrasts successful institutions with failing ones, with a view to identify whether factors that may have been thought of as being factors of success may not actually be irrelevant.

The overall message of the book is that it is possible for local communities to take care of themselves and to efficiently manage CPR. It is not easy though and certain type of government intervention actually makes the matter worse. Likewise privatization is also not a one size fits all solution. So she’s basically highlighting the need to consider each situation on its own, without ideological glasses. She provides a framework to analyze each specific case, but certainly avoids over-generalization.

The world needs more people like Ostrom, (i.e. lucid thinkers genuinely interested to understand what goes on). Too bad the typical social “scientist” seems to be more interested to bend the facts to fit to his theories and ideologies.

I am one of the two people on the planet who has not yet binge-watched "Game of Thrones", but my reaction to the scene you linked was that it was remarkably unrealistic in its depiction of humans attempting subsistence or temporary nomadic lifestyle ,even when compared to highly theatrical production of Debbie Reynolds in "The Unsinkable Molly Brown" which I watched last night. Molly Brown was christened "unsinkable", because her rough and ready childhood spent in frontier Colorado left her well-prepared to deal courageously with finding herself literally in a Lifeboat situation as the Titanic was sinking. This emotional resilience and confidence in her own skills gave her the ability to calmly help others before fully assuring her own survival.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKFRekX-LrU

[GandK]

I haven't either. Couldn't make it through the novels, so not about to watch the flicks.

[TopHatFox]

It was quite good

[theanimal]

Count me as #4. I have more pride in not watching it now..

[Mister Imperceptible]

Not either/or

I agree that a community acting cohesively is going to be much greater than sum of its parts. Earth Steward and Lifeboat are not mutually exclusive(see upthread re:nested scenarios). The volatility of Lifeboat would likely be a shorter major or minor discontinuity event and Earth Steward would be a longer period of re-stabilization in between those events. If this is Brown Tech, we have a centralized authority that is masking latent risks that will be revealed in a major discontinuity.

As previously mentioned, energy descent may not be a continuous gradual process. Instead it could be characterised by an initial crisis that sets the conditions for a new order that is stable for some time before another crisis leads to further descent. The growth of energy and resultant technological complexity over the last two hundred years has involved varying rates of change, plateaus and even regressions during wars and depressions, but energy descent is likely to be much more variable than energy ascent. This is consistent with our common sense understanding that growth is a more consistent process than decline.

Natural ecosystems tend to maintain homeostasis under stress through the allocation of stored resources. If the conditions continue to deteriorate, then further stress can fracture the homeostasis. If the stress involves a reduction in energy availability, the system may collapse. But total collapse and system disintegration is rare, at least in the short term. More typically a re-stabilisation at a lower level of energy processing and organisational complexity occurs. The new homeostasis will typically be stable for some time before declining energy availability precipitates another crisis. This may also be a model for how human societies respond to the crisis of resource and energy decline. It also makes sense that natural disasters, or a crisis such as war, rarely continue for very long but they shape the new state that emerges in their aftermath. If crisis does persist at an intense level for years then psychosocial systems reorganise around the crisis as the new normality.

The following conceptual graph shows these two pathways from Hubbert’s Peak of Oil (and net energy production). The discontinuities are periods of extreme crisis, conflict and/or breakdown. Each scenario represents a homeostasis that tends to be self-maintaining until further stress precipitates a further unravelling.

I imagine that permaculture – by principle and model, if not in name – will become the dominant paradigm in the Earth Steward scenario. Those with a long track record of achievement will become the natural leaders within new emergent power structures, primarily at the local level, that will be more effective than higher levels of governance and organization. The ethical and design challenges will be those associated with leadership and power. Because “power”at this (and all levels) will be very weak, it will be more characterised by inspiration and wise council than the capacity to make binding decisions. Transparent and collaborative leadership that draws from the whole community and accepts slow evolutionary change and avoids the imposition of ideology is likely to be most effective in conserving resources and continuing to build a nature based culture.

In Lifeboats the focus of permaculturists is on provision of basic needs first and maintenance of seed and skills.Permaculture is also highly relevant to survival in the Lifeboat scenario. The focus on provision of basic needs first and maintenance of seed and other genetic resources and skills to salvage and ‘make do’ will all be essential. Those with considerable knowledge, skills and ability to provide for others, as well as having good communication and organization skills in difficult conditions, are likely to become natural leaders of lifeboat households and communities. The ethical and design challenges are less those of broader and collaborative leadership and more those represented by having to decide who to let into the lifeboat without threatening the survival of those already on board. The ability to integrate and defend the group without sentimentality while providing for the community and maintaining knowledge critical to long-term cultural survival, is the task of those able to think beyond everyday survival.

2000 was a minor discontinuity. 2008 was a minor discontinuity. The underlying causes of those discontinuities have only amplified, so a greater discontinuity is on the way. We are discounting major discontinuity because the minor discontinuities always seem to get worked out.

The danger is when top-down enforcement of boundaries is lifted and boundaries get redrawn at the ground level. A wise community also has its defenses prepared. An Earth Steward managing community affairs at the village square still has to account for external threats.

“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.”

Vladimir Lenin





Add: I do think GoT went way downhill after Season 4 but I figured the above clip would convey the point, albeit crudely.

The point being: People aren’t nice, account for that.

Double-Add: The progression of GoT is a nice example. People disagreed with me that the show, which was excellent in Seasons 1-4, was no longer of the same quality from season 5 on, until the show had gone from Excellent (seasons 1-4) to not so good (seasons 5-7) to downright terrible (season 8). Then the descent was clear to them in hindsight.

[enigmaT120]

I've neither seen the show nor read the books. I was waiting to binge watch it with 7wannabe5.

[7Wannabe5]

I've neither seen the show nor read the books. I was waiting to binge watch it with 7wannabe5.

That sounds like fun, but who are we going to get to pay for the streaming subscription?

The point being: People aren’t nice, account for that.

Gotcha. My point would be "It is certainly true that people aren't always nice, but they can exhibit unexpectedly kind and generous behavior, and many or most have at least the capacity to plan forward towards modestly ensuring the reproductive success of their own children (sometimes even grandchildren) in cooperation with those who exhibit behavior which is also conductive towards that goal."

Also, studies have shown that those who study neoclassical economic theory are more likely to behave in uncooperative manner in prisoner's dilemma situations. IOW, self-aware self-interest that errs on the side of selfish/ reductionist may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Humans are very intuitive and impressionable, so if you vibe in alignment with belief that "people aren't nice", you will actually be creating a vacuum that will attract that sort of thing.

IOW, you might have a better opinion of humanity if you spent more time in a room full of poor multi-cultural 4 year old children, helping an older African-American woman and a younger Muslim woman hush all the babies to sleep, so we can sit down for a minute and chat a bit while enjoying some coffee and cookies.

More specifically, another note I might offer is that although I do agree that CO2 is piling up relatively faster than expected compared to depletion of fossil fuel reserves, IMO the economic costs of this reality are not yet high enough to preclude possibility of quick flip to Green Tech. Of course, I am in favor of something like mix of Green Tech and Earth Steward because I am in favor of feminine energy flavor of feminism.

[Mister Imperceptible]

My opinion of humans is not derived from reading economic theory, my economic theory preferences are confirmation biases for opinions shaped by experienced betrayal trauma. I am also not sure I could be categorized as belonging to a particular school.

My experience with mothers in this post-agrarian world is that they are in constant need of money, time, and energy, and that I am only worthy of their attention insofar as I can provide resources to the children they had with other men. I remember Quinn writing that if we feed the billion hungry people on the margin that will only lead to another billion and a half or two billion of hungry people on the margin. It’s a paradox of humanity.

[enigmaT120]

That sounds like fun, but who are we going to get to pay for the streaming subscription?

And we're both saying "Not me!"

[7Wannabe5]

And we're both saying "Not me!"

Yup. reepicheep might be amused to learn that one of the reasons I broke up with an overt Dom I was in relationship with a number of years ago was that on one occasion he demanded that I bring him a present/tribute. So, I was like "Hmmm...how can I continue this game without spending any money?" and I ended up buying him 4 pieces of Turkish Delight for approximately 82 cents However, just the error of making such a request of me (at the time I was squeaking by on running my own business and still solo semi-supporting two kids in college) was enough to start me thinking along the lines of "worse than useless." OTOH, since he did help me break out of a bit of a depressive slump and lose about 30 unwanted lbs., it wasn't like I ended up getting nothing but hawt sex (minus cost of candy offering) out of the deal. Luckily for me, I had already had experience of dating a somewhat older, conservative man who grew up very street-wise in African-American culture and he told me "If a man ever offers you a 50/50 deal, then he is trying to cheat you."

My experience with mothers in this post-agrarian world is that they are in constant need of money, time, and energy, and that I am only worthy of their attention insofar as I can provide resources to the children they had with other men. I remember Quinn writing that if we feed the billion hungry people on the margin that will only lead to another billion and a half or two billion of hungry people on the margin. It’s a paradox of humanity.

As I noted elsewhere, I very much like Quinn, but like a lot of other very intelligent, thoughtful 1970s era environmentalists, he was working with a yet-too-simple model. Even the Advanced Placement Environmental Science textbook assigned to some suburban high school students I taught last week takes this model two steps forward to include the reality of huge drop in human reproductive rate given enough affluence in culture that promotes equality of economic opportunity for adult females (in one district in India where this policy was straight-forwardly attempted, the real world results were overwhelmingly supportive of this addition to model) AND also the fact that in some VERY affluent cultures ( could be called the "can afford a very good nanny" effect) reproductive rate will tick back up just a bit (like maybe from 1.7 to 1.9 which is still not replacement rate.)

Anyways, I am kind of confused by your note that, as I would expect, you find yourself attracted to women who are concerned with providing long term care for their children, as opposed to the sort who would maybe leave infant in gas station bathroom in order to run off with new boyfriend. If you are not proud of the fact that you have the abilities to provide them with some assistance in this endeavor, then what other factor(s) would you prefer to be appreciated for in relationship? I would note that I have been in relationship with a good many men who actually either prefer or don't mind being "used" for their financial resources and others who really don't like being "used" for sex.

[reepicheep]

7W5, not amused.

I celebrate your boundaries.

Detest "demands" even in D/s.

Sometimes I bring dom/sadist chocolate. Organized recent group purchase of snake whip for birthday, evenly divided costs among harem.

Reep bolts like real wool when demands/covert contracts pop up.

[7Wannabe5]

@reepicheep:

I looked up the etymology of demand. It is like command except more formal and less intensive. Command actually is formed from same root concepts as commend. I think this rather neatly reflects something of the embodied relationship between authority, trust, responsibility and care. I don’t mind demands or commands in a Dom/sub S&M context because essential to safety. Not much different than, for instance, submitting to experienced scuba instructor.

I thought my anecdote was amusing because I am so frugal I immediately begin to dismiss sex as a luxury good if it costs me even 82 cents. On another occasion I broke up with a man because I had to drive to his house in order to get laid and he didn’t immediately offer to help me with a car problem. It’s almost as automatic as passing on bananas at 82 cents/lb.

[reepicheep]

Well.

Safety?

Depends on the command. Come here. Turn around. Bend over.

I will follow all those instructions.

Bring me chocolate vs. an understanding that he has a pay it forward situation happening with his chocolate stock (what I bring is eventually eaten in part by some other freshly beaten poor soul)?

Or

"I want chocolate." And I want to be an astronaut. Some desires more fulfillable than others. I want to make him happy. Probably he'll get chocolate. But he could ask for the $.82 equivalent of something I don't wanna get him, I suppose, instead of telling me NOT to (buy him a power drill). At which point I would say "No (Sir)."

[7Wannabe5]

Safety?

Rope, sharp objects, etc. I can't remember if it was directly through my correspondence with Dom (which was mostly intellectual and mutually respectful) and/or something else I was reading at the time (Deida, Schnarch?), but simple two-step practice I developed as submissive (Not limited to overt role in S&M type setting. Can even be in response to the Universe) was:

1) ONLY follow literal instructions.
2) Relax and freely/openly reveal sensual/emotional state.

Very simple example I remember from some book was if you are in the follow on a hike, you should communicate the fact that you are developing a painful blister to the leader rather than just persevering (and thereby necessarily semi-consciously "planning" on your own.) Obviously, exhibiting "bratty" behavior will make the task of the leader more difficult, and also perhaps jeopardize safety depending on risk inherent in context, but even this independent tendency to "not reveal" can be an obstacle.

Within the context of garden variety couples therapy, the purpose of the trust-drop (exercise where you trust partner to catch you in blind drop) can be to force this kind of revelation. One of the not-widely-advertised benefits of some experience with BDSM is that it can help you learn to calm and trust yourself. IOW, in order to be strong in the role of submissive, you have to develop your own core strengths. Obviously, learning how to be strong in the Dominant role will also develop overall personal potential, but since I have yet to raise my functioning at that end of the dial beyond the level of something like "fun top" , I can't speak from experience.

[reepicheep]

Domming seems hard. Lotta work.

I do like to hit people. That's about my limit at present. I had a fellow millennial partner (briefly) who couldn't keep his engagements straight and we had a thing where he had to send me a screenshot of his google calendar (filled out with his appointments!) each day at 3. This helped him use google calendar more regularly and improved his scheduling, but did nothing for his alcoholism, which prompted me to cut him loose shortly thereafter after egregious boundary violation.

Some things cannot be fixed with kink.

RE your hiking analogy: I guess where I might differ is that, at present, I would be less likely to say something like, "Sir, I have a blister," and more likely to go with, "Hey, hold up a sec, I need to fuck with some moleskin."

Which is for sure communicating the problem, but also demonstrates my desire to take ownership of the situation and fix it myself without permission. I think the theory would be that the D in this situation wants me to feel fully empowered to fix my shit and doesn't want to waste his time on the minutiae of self care that I am more than qualified to engage in, or the dance of permission around engaging in said self-care.

[7Wannabe5]

Domming seems hard. Lotta work.

True, but that's why people with those skills are always in demand. OTOH, it has been my experience that because we live in a very "adult masculine" energy validating competitive culture, the development of strong self-aware submissive skills can be just as valuable.

RE your hiking analogy: I guess where I might differ is that, at present, I would be less likely to say something like, "Sir, I have a blister," and more likely to go with, "Hey, hold up a sec, I need to fuck with some moleskin."

Which is for sure communicating the problem, but also demonstrates my desire to take ownership of the situation and fix it myself without permission. I think the theory would be that the D in this situation wants me to feel fully empowered to fix my shit and doesn't want to waste his time on the minutiae of self care that I am more than qualified to engage in, or the dance of permission around engaging in said self-care.

Yes/No/Depends. It can be kind of subtle, but examine what you literally said in your example above. You didn't just take independent responsibility, you actually gave your Dom an instruction/command; you told him to "Hold up a sec." Most couples in more conventional relationships are not fully self-aware about their dynamic, but if you pay attention as objective 3rd party, you can quickly note power plays. The unconscious thing women very typically do is they phrase their instructions/demands/commands in the form of very polite request, as in "Sweetheart, could you possibly pick up some milk on your way home from work, please?" So, an interesting challenge is to try to figure out how to accomplish the "independent moleskin behavior" without having to speak a literal command structure phrase.

I would also say that whether or not a Dom wants to "waste time on minutiae of care of other" can vary pretty much all the way up and down the dial, depending on personality type, the particular relationship, and obviously context. For instance, and this reflects another level of subtlety that many have great difficulty grokking, it can be highly amusing, given appropriate context/relationship, if a man bounds right out of bed and says something like "Now, I am done with you. Go clean yourself up, you little slut." but conversely, it can be even more indicative of strong dominance if he makes an intricate tender ritual out of "after-care." This same sort of continuum can apply to any interaction, including many that are not inherently sexual, such as hiking together.

That said, I strongly believe that there are no "shoulds" about this sort of thing. If you want to delve into strong erotic dichotomy, this is what works, but very small minority would prefer (or have the energy to maintain (lol))full-time high-dichotomy relationship.

IOW, it's not about trying to figure out whether the tango or tap-dancing is a better dance; it's about fully recognizing that they are different.

[reepicheep]

Maybe I'm secretly a top.

Actually, dom/sadist spent a lot of time convincing me that bratty behavior wasn't serving me. Having now seen me top (and co-top with him), he's convinced that all brats are secretly tops.

I am a hella bratty top.

I am a mostly good submissive. At least in the sense that we define it. Tap-dancing on Monday. Tango on Tuesday.

[7Wannabe5]

Oh, I'm sure you are very good at anything you put your energies into. Don't mind me. I am just in my old-lady-reflecting-upon-the-olden-days-of-her-youth in slow motion solo interpretive dance mode. In a month or three, I might be back to tapping or tangoing again

[Stahlmann]

don't go too far, boys.