03 November 2007

Canada abstains on UN vote on STUDY of effects of du weapons!! NATO or civilization its agenda??

Is Canada still "No Nukes!" ? - Part II

Politics 'n Poetry noticed that Canada abstained on a UN vote on depleted uranium two days ago.

UN : "The Assembly, taking into consideration the potential harmful effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment, would request the Secretary-General to seek the views of Member States and relevant international organizations on the subject and to submit a report to the Assembly at its next session."

Not a ban on the use of DU, mind you - just a resolution asking for further study.
It passed 122 in favour, with 6 against and 35 abstentions. Canada was one of those abstentions.

WTF? What could we possibly have against studying the 'potential' dangers of DU...

UN : "The representative of the United States said that she would vote “no” on draft resolution “L.18/Rev.1”. That draft called for action by the Secretary-General, based on the harmful environmental and health effects of depleted uranium. The draft ignored scientific information on that subject. That subject had been investigated by the Defence Department, NATO and UNEP, among others, and none of those studies had documented environmental or health effects of those munitions."

So. The US Defense Dept investigated DU, didn't find any health or environmental problems, and so the rest of us should just shut up about it. DU is apparently the new AGW.
In all, there were 13 resolutions on nukes and the US voted against all of them.

Canada also abstained on a resolution to "recognize that the maintenance of nuclear weapons systems at a high level of readiness increased the risk of the use of such weapons, including the unintentional or accidental use" ~ 124 in favour to 3 against with 34 abstentions; and a "Vote on Indian Ocean as a Zone of Peace" ~ 120 in favour to 3 against with 45 abstentions

Is Canada still "No nukes!" Six weeks ago, UBC Prof. Michael Byers noted that the message on Canada's Foreign Affairs and Int Trade website calling for "the complete elimination of nuclear weapons...through steadily advocating national, bilateral and multilateral steps" had been amended to say that Canada's nuclear weapons policy is now "consistent with our membership in NATO and NORAD, and in a manner sensitive to the broader international security context."

Uh - oh.

Suspect:: depleted uranium

After serving in Vietnam nearly 40 years ago — and receiving the Bronze Star for it — the Tucson soldier was called back to active duty in Iraq.

While there, he awoke one morning with a sore throat. Eighteen months later, Army Sgt. James Lauderdale was dead, of a bizarrely aggressive cancer rarely seen by the doctors who tried to treat it.

As a result, his stunned and heartbroken family has joined growing ranks of sickened and dying Iraq war vets and their families who believe exposures to toxic poisons in the war zone are behind their illnesses — mostly cancers, striking the young, taking them down with alarming speed. The number of these cancers remains undisclosed, with military officials citing patient privacy issues, as well as lack of evidence the cases are linked to conditions in the war zone. The U.S. Congress has ordered a probe of suspect toxins and may soon begin widespread testing of our armed forces.

"He got so sick, so fast"

Jim Lauderdale was 58 when his National Guard unit was deployed to the Iraq-Kuwait border, where he helped transport arriving soldiers and Marines into combat areas.

He was a strong man, say relatives, who can't remember him ever missing a day of work for illness. And he developed a cancer of the mouth, which overwhelmingly strikes smokers, drinkers and tobacco chewers. He was none of those.

"Jim's doctors didn't know why he would get this kind of cancer — they had no answers for us," said his wife, Dixie.

"He got so sick, so fast. We really think it had to be something he was exposed to over there. So many of the soldiers we met with cancer at Walter Reed (Army Medical Center) complained about the polluted air they lived in, the brown water they had to use, the dust they breathed from exploded munitions. It was very toxic."

As a mining engineer, Lauderdale knew exactly what it meant when he saw the thick black smoke pouring nonstop out of the smokestacks that line the Iraq/Kuwait border area where he was stationed for three months in 2005.

"He wrote to me that everyone was complaining about their stinging eyes and sore throats and headaches," Dixie said. "For Jim to say something like that, to complain, was very unusual.

"One of the mothers on the cancer ward had pictures of her son bathing in the brown water," she said. "He died of kidney cancer."

Stationed in roughly the same area as Lauderdale, yet another soldier — now fighting terminal colon cancer — described the scene there, of oil refineries, a cement factory, a chlorine factory and a sulfuric acid factory, all spewing unfiltered and uncontrolled substances into the air.

"One day, we were walking toward the port and they had sulfuric acid exploding out of the stacks. We were covered with it, everything was burning on us, and we had to turn around and get to the medics," said Army Staff Sgt. Frank Valentin, 35.

Not long after, he developed intense rectal pain, which doctors told him for months was hemorrhoids. Finally diagnosed with aggressive colorectal cancer — requiring extensive surgery, resulting in a colostomy bag — he was given fewer than two years to live by his Walter Reed physicians. He is now a couple of months past that death sentence, but his chemo drugs are starting to fail, and the cancer is eating into his liver and lungs. He spends his days with his wife and three children at their Florida home.

"I don't know how much time I have," he said.

Suspect: depleted uranium

None of these soldiers know for sure what's killing them. But they suspect it's a cascade of multiple toxic exposures, coupled with the intense stress of daily life in a war zone weakening their immune systems.

"There's so much pollution from so many sources, your body can't fight what's coming at it," Valentin said. "And you don't eat well or sleep well, ever. That weakens you, too. There's no chance to gather your strength. These are kids 19, 20 and 21 getting all kinds of cancers. The Walter Reed cancer ward is packed full with them."

The prime suspect in all this, in the minds of many victims — and some scientists — is what's known as depleted uranium — the radioactive chemical prized by the military for its ability to penetrate armored vehicles. When munitions explode, the substance hits the air as fine dust, easily inhaled. Last month, the Iraqi environment minister blamed the tons of the chemical dropped during the war's "shock and awe" campaign for a surge of cancer cases across the country.

However, the Pentagon and U.S. State Department strongly deny this, citing four studies, including one by the World Health Organization, that found levels in war zones not harmful to civilians or soldiers. A U.N. Environmental Program study concurs, but only if spent munitions are cleared away. Returning solders have said that isn't happening.

"When tanks exploded, I would handle those tanks, and there was DU everywhere," said Valentin. "This is a big issue."

The fierce Iraq winds carry desert sand and dust for miles, said Dixie Lauderdale, who suspects her husband was exposed to at least some depleted uranium. Many vets from the Gulf War blame the chemical used in that conflict for their Gulf War syndrome illnesses.

Congress orders study

As the controversy rages, Congress has ordered a comprehensive independent study, due in October, of the health effects of depleted uranium exposure on U.S. soldiers and their children. And a "DU bill" — ordering all members of the U.S. military exposed to it be identified and tested — is working its way through Congress.

"Basically, we want to get ahead of this curve, and not go through the years of painful denial we went through with Agent Orange that was the legacy of Vietnam,"
said Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., a co-sponsor of the bill.

"We want an independent agency to do independent testing of our soldiers, and find out what's really going on. These incidents of cancer and illness that all of us are hearing about back in our districts are not just anecdotal — there is a pattern here. And yes, I do suspect DU may be at the bottom of it."
What's happening today — growing numbers of sickened soldiers who say they were exposed to it amid firm denials of harm from military brass — almost mirrors the early stages of the Agent Orange aftermath. It took the U.S. military almost two decades to admit the powerful chemical defoliant killed and disabled U.S. troops in the jungles of Vietnam, and to begin compensating them for it.

Doctors flabbergasted

Whatever it was that struck Jim Lauderdale did a terrifying job of it.

Sent to Walter Reed with oral cancer in April 2005, he underwent his first extensive and disfiguring surgery, removing half his tongue to get to tumors in the mouth and throat. A second surgery followed a month later to clear out more of those areas.

Five months later, another surgery removed a new neck tumor. Then came heavy chemotherapy and radiation.

Shortly after, he had a massive heart attack, undergoing another surgery to place stents in his arteries. Two weeks later, the cancer was back and growing rapidly, forcing a fourth surgery in January 2006.

By this time, much of his neck and shoulder tissue was gone, and doctors tried to reconstruct a tongue, using tissue from his wrist. He couldn't swallow, so was fed through a tube into his stomach.

Just weeks later, four external tumors appeared on his neck — "literally overnight," his wife said.

Suffering severe complications from the chemo drugs, Lauderdale endured 39 radiation treatments, waking up one night bleeding profusely through his burned skin. The day after his radiation ended, new external tumors erupted at the edge of the radiation field, flabbergasting his doctors.

"As this aggressive disease grew though chemoradiation, it was determined at this point there was no chance for cure," his oncologist wrote then. By then, the cancer had spread to his lungs and spine and, most frightening of all, "hundreds and thousands" of tumors were erupting all over his upper body, his wife said.

"The doctors said they'd never seen anything like it — that this happens in only 1 percent of cases," she said.

Efforts to contact his doctors at Walter Reed were unsuccessful, but a leading head-and-neck cancer specialist at the Arizona Cancer Center reviewed the course of Lauderdale's disease.

"This a a very wrenching case," said Dr. Harinder Garewal. "This is unusually aggressive behavior for an oral cancer. I would agree it happens in only 1 percent of cases."

When oral cancer occurs in nonsmokers and non-drinkers, it tends to be more aggressive, he said.

"My feeling is the immune system for some reason can't handle the cancer," he said.

Jim Lauderdale died on July 14, 2006, and was buried in Arlington National Cemetery.

Dixie and their two grown children still feel the raw grief of loss, but not anger, she said.

"But I am convinced something very wrong is happening over there. Is anyone paying attention to this? Is the cancer ward still full?" she asked. "I would hate to see another whole generation affected like this, but I'm very afraid it will be."

The Air Force Report on the Minot-Barksdale Nuclear Missile Flight

The Air Force Report on the Minot-Barksdale Nuclear Missile Flight

"It makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."
--Pentagon official
There is something deeply disturbing about the Air Force's official report on the Aug-29-30 "bent spear" incident that saw six nuclear warheads get mounted on six Advanced Cruise Missiles and improperly removed from a nuclear weapons storage bunker at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota, then get improperly loaded on a B-52, and then get improperly flown to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana-a report that attributed the whole thing to a "mistake."

According to the Air Force report, some Air Force personnel mounted the warheads on the missiles (which are obsolete and slated for destruction), and another ground crew, allegedly not aware that the missiles were armed with nukes, moved them out and mounted them on a launch pylon on the B-52's wing for a flight to Barksdale and eventual dismantling. Only on the ground at Barksdale did ground crew personnel spot the nukes according to the report. (Six other missiles with dummy warheads were mounted on a pylon on the other wing of the plane.)

The problem with this explanation for the first reported case of nukes being removed from a weapons bunker without authorization in 50 years of nuclear weapons, is that those warheads, and all nuclear warheads in the US stockpile, are supposedly protected against unauthorized transport or removal from bunkers by electronic antitheft systems-automated alarms similar to those used by department stores to prevent theft, and even anti-motion sensors that go off if a weapon is touched or approached without authorization.

While the Air Force report doesn't mention any of this, what it means is that if weapons in a storage bunker are protected against unauthorized removal, someone-and actually at least two people, since it's long been a basic part of nuclear security that every action involving a nuclear weapon has to be done by two people working in tandem-had to deliberately and consciously disable those alarms.

Since the Air Force report does not explain how this hurdle to unauthorized removal of the six nukes could have been surmounted by "mistake," the report has to be considered a whitewash, at best, or a cover-up.

That leaves us speculating about what actually happened, and about who might have authorized the removal of those nukes from storage, and why the Defense Department would be covering up the true story. We know that the loading of nuclear-armed missiles or bombs onto an American bomber has been barred since 1991, even for practice and training purposes. We know also that the carrying of nuclear weapons by bombers flying over US airspace has been banned for 40 years. So if the evidence suggests strongly that the removal of the nukes from the bunker was done intentionally and with some kind of authorization from higher authorities, then the loading of nukes onto the plane, and the flight of those nukes to Barksdale have to also be assumed to have been authorized.

This possibility has been dismissed out of hand by the Air Force and Defense Department. The very idea is, in fact, not even discussed in the Air force report released in mid-October.

Yet we are left with the unresolved question of how the weapons could have been moved out of the bunker accidentally.

The Air Force has not been forthcoming about the automated alarm protections on American nuclear weapons, refusing to confirm or deny that they even exist. But we can know that they are in place for several reasons. One is that since writing about this incident in the current edition of ("The Mystery of Minot," Oct. 24, 2007 ed.) and in several online venues, I have been contacted by several active-duty and retired military people who have assured me that such electronic protections are in place. A second is that an article in the Oct. 31 issue of the New York Times, reporting on the early completion of a project by the National Nuclear Security Administration, to secure Russian nuclear weapons, said that the measures implemented at 25 classified sites on 12 Russian nuclear bases included "measures that have long been part of American efforts" to secure nuclear weapons, and that these included "alarm and motion detection systems," as well as "modern gates, guard houses and fighting positions, " and also "detectors for explosives, radiation and metal."

Ask yourselves, would American nuclear weapons be equipped with lesser security systems than those that the NNSA is providing for Russian weapons?

Of course not!

And yet we're asked to believe that some low-ranking ground crew personnel at Minot AFB simply walked out of a nuclear weapons bunker with six nuclear armed Advanced Cruise Missiles, not knowing what they were carrying, and labored for eight hours to mount those missiles and their launch pylon on the wing of a B-52 strategic bomber without ever noticing that they were armed with nuclear weapons. We're asked to believe that none of those electronic alarms and motion sensors built into the system went off during that whole process.

When I mentioned the automated alarm and motion sensors to Lt. Col. Jennifer Cassidy, a public affairs person at the Department of the Air Force, and asked her how the movement of the six nukes could have occurred without those alarms being disabled, she said, "It's an intriguing question, and it makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck."

As it should.

So why isn't it making the hair stand up on the back of the necks of members of Congress?

Incredibly, to date, there has been no demand for public hearings into this frightening incident.

Congress appears ready and willing to accept the Air Force whitewash at face value: It was an accident. It won't happen again.

That is not good enough!

We need honest answers to some hard questions. Among them:
* Who disabled the alarm systems on those weapons and on the bunker itself?
* Who mounted six nuclear weapons on the noses of six cruise missiles and put those missiles onto a B-52 launch platform?
* Who authorized them to perform this operation?
* Who moved the armed weapons out of the Bunker at Minot AFB and mounted them on the wing of a B-52 bound for Barksdale AFB? (Barksdale, it should be noted, bills itself as the main staging base for B-52s being flown to the Middle East Theater.)
Were the six missiles flyable? Were they fueled up and ready to fire, or were they not fueled at the time of the Minot-Barksdale flight?
* Was there targeting information in the missile's guidance computers and if so, what were those targets?
* What happened to the three military whistleblowers who blew the whistle on this incident and reported it to a journalist at the newspaper Military Times?
Why hasn't the Air Force or the FBI investigated the 6-8 untimely deaths including three alleged suicides, one of a Minot weapons guard, one of an assistant defense secretary, and one of a captain in the super-secret Air Force Special Commando Group, as well as alleged fatal vehicle "accidents" involving four ground crew and B-52 pilots and crewmembers at Minot and Barksdale? Could any of this strange cluster of deaths have been related to the incident? The Air Force "investigation" didn't even mention these incidents, and my investigation, reported in the Oct. 24 issue of the magazine American Conservative, found that none of the police investigators or medical examiners in those incidents had even been contacted by Air Force or other federal investigators
The Secretary of Defense appears to have been upset about this incident. Secretary Robert Gates ordered an unprecedented stand-down of all air bases in mid-September to check out and account for the entire nuclear inventory, and a general was dispatched immediately to Minot after the discovery of the wayward nukes on August 30 to investigate what had happened. Following a subsequent Air Force investigation, 70 people at Minot and Barksdale AFBs were removed from their posts and decertified from handling nuclear weapons, including five officers, one of them the Minot base commander.
* But a base commander does not have the authority to order nuclear weapons to be loaded on a plane and flown. So who issued that order and why has no one at a senior level in Washington been sacked?
There is speculation that the order may have come via an alternate chain of command.

Vice President Dick Cheney is known to be pressing within the administration for a war with Iran, to be launched before the end President Bush's second term of office. According to some reports, Cheney has even, on his own authority (or lack thereof), urged Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, in hopes that Iran might retaliate, thus drawing the US into a war.

Could the nation's war-mongering VP have used his neo-con contacts in the Defense Department or some of the Armageddon-believers in the Air Force to bypass the official chain of command and spring those nukes from their bunker?

Was there a plan to use one or more of those nukes-W80-1 warheads that can be calibrated to detonate with an explosive power ranging anywhere from 150 kilotons down to just 5 kilotons-against Iran? The Advanced Cruise Missile, a stealth weapon almost impossible to spot on radar, is designed to be launched from a remote location by a B-52, and then to fly close to the ground to its target, using terrain maps and GPS guidance. It is also designed to penetrate hardened sites, such as Iran's nuclear processing and research facilities.

Or was there a plan for a so-called "false-flag incident, "where a small nuke-made to resemble a primitive weapon of the type a fledgling nuclear power might construct-might be detonated at a US target abroad, or even within the US?

These are terrible and terrifying questions to have to ask, but when you have six nuclear weapons go missing, when the military investigation into the incident is so clearly a whitewash or cover-up, and when you have a vice president who is openly pressing for an illegal war of aggression against a nation that poses no threat to the US, and who, in fact, appears to be conducting his own treacherous foreign policy behind the back of the president and the State Department, they are questions that must be asked, and that demand answers.

In a couple of weeks, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, is planning on calling for a Privilege of the House vote in Congress on moving his Cheney impeachment bill (H Res. 333) to a hearing in the House Judiciary Committee, where it has been stalled by House Democratic leaders since being filed last April 24. Such a hearing should demand answers from the vice president and his staff about his treasonous efforts to push the country into yet another war in the Middle East. It should also grill Air Force personnel about the true nature of the Minot nuclear incident.

Every member of the House of Representatives should have to take a stand on this issue.

The Democratic House leadership, under Speaker Nancy Pelosi, can be expected to try to table Kucinich's privilege motion, which would prevent such a vote.

Americans should demand that Pelosi and other Democratic leaders let Kucinich's privilege motion go forward, and should insist that every member of Congress put their position on the line. Every American should demand that their representative to Congress support the start of impeachment hearings on Vice President Cheney.

We need to know if the Vice President's office was behind the flight of those six warheads.

We need to know in what other treasonous, conspiratorial actions the Vice President has been engaged in his unremitting effort to expand the war from Iraq and Afghanistan into Iran.

Dave Lindorff is the author of Killing Time: an Investigation into the Death Row Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. His book of CounterPunch columns titled "This Can't be Happening!" is published by Common Courage Press. Lindorff's newest book is "The Case for Impeachment", co-authored by Barbara Olshansky.

He can be reached at: dlindorff@yahoo.com

Why an article on PEAK OIL here? CUZ it IS relevant.

We simply MUST rethink our position on the use of FUEL, all fuel. We (wink. wink.) KNOW nuclear power is NOT power . . it's harnassing energy made from POISONOUS items. Not cool at ALL. So what is to hinder the human mind from using such specious arguments and wasting out potential to come up with good, creative solutions? Well, this oil drum article surely will put the catz among some of those pidgeons! Have a read ....

-<<:>>- -<<:>>- -<<:>>-


Nate Hagens has written a most informative, and cogent paper on the sociobiology of peak oil. It explains, in well-referenced snippets, how man comes to "believe" certain tenets, and how science can, and should alter those as we approach the potential end of humanity.

This is one of the most valuable papers I've posted in the past year. There are numerous references linked in the original, and they are also well worth your time.




[In accord with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this article is distributed without profit to those who have an interest in receiving such material for educational purposes. Any other use requires contacting the author.]

Peak Oil - Believe it or Not?

Posted by Nate Hagens on November 3, 2007 - 10:30am
Topic: Sociology/Psychology
Tags: cognitive bias, optimism bias, psychology, recency effect, relative fitness, sociology

Peak Oil is a very scary concept to get one's mind around. If there are arguments around the water cooler about finite resources, large depletion rates, Peak everything, etc., there very well be cognitive biases underlying these polarized opinions. In the first two parts of this series, we looked at some of the factual reasons why people disagree on the timing and importance of Peak Oil: gross versus net oil production, better technology vs depletion, productive capacity vs flow rates, differing definitions of "Peak", etc. This post will address some social and psychological reasons why the urgency of our energy situation may not be being addressed on an individual level and only at a snails pace on the governmental level. Among the phenomena we will explore are a) why we have beliefs and how they are changed, b) our propensity to believe in authority figures, c) our penchant for optimism, d) cognitive load theory, e) relative fitness, f) the recency effect, and several others.

The fact is, even if the world's energy data was transparent and freely available to everyone, it would be an open question whether people would agree on any near term action to mitigate future oil scarcity. This post is a first stab at examining our cognitive belief biases. It's long, but I believe it will be well worth your time to read. (Note - This is an updated version of a post that first ran in May.)

"Lovvy, there's plenty of oil, and if theres not we can just buy some more!"

Our societal infrastructure was built with and expected to continue on cheap liquid fuels. This fixed infrastructure coupled with a pretty much insatiable human demand drive for energy services may result in a once-in-a-species crisis if our planetary resource and ecosystems can no longer keep pace. But Peak Oil ultimately is not about geology or technology. At its core it is a human problem. Our collective cognitive belief systems and the resulting behaviours they engender will play pivotal roles in our failure or success in mitigating and adapting to the vast challenges of both Peak Oil and Climate Change.

This post will outline many of the behavioral tendencies we can expect to encounter as we attempt timely and logical solutions to declines in per capita energy availability. It will explore how we process new information and culminate in an examination of our belief systems themselves. As in my recent posts, I preface this one with a discussion I recently had with my Wall St. friend Thomas, (who fittingly has still 'not had time' to read the oildrum story on steep discount rates):

N: Thomas - I'm writing another story for theoildrum.com and would like your comments since you seem to represent the 'non-believer camp'.

T: It's not that I don't believe that oil will peak someday - it's just that the doom and gloom people are always wrong - somehow something will come along and in 5 years you'll say "well, how could I have known about 'XXX'? No one knows the future - including you Nate.

N: I've never said when Peak Oil would be, only that it would eventually mean the end of economic growth as we know it - and that technology and capital can't 'create' energy. The market will be too late to react to the signals once they come. The asset allocators on Wall St have used a formula for the 70 years of stock market history based on cheap oil and high energy gain. That era is over - new rules or maybe a new game.

T: No offense buddy - I know you're very intelligent. But there are thousands of smart people on Wall St and elsewhere analyzing data - don't you think it's a little odd that YOUR opinion is the right one over all those people whose full time jobs it is to pore over oil demand and supply figures?

N: Well, when put like that it always shakes my confidence, but I do believe the street is missing the main tenets of Peak oil - that environmental limits and declining net energy will overtake conventional market and technology solutions. And by the way - there ARE a lot of analysts talking about Peak and its implications - the new GAO report on Peak Oil came out last week and pointed out how unprepared we are..

T: Now you trust what the Government is saying? You used to say the government energy forecasts were terrible and we shouldn't believe in them -now they write something that fits your position and you use it for support?

N: Were you always this argumentative? Wait -don't answer that -I've known you since grad school. Can you honestly say that you've read things on theoildrum and other sources for objective information on this topic?

T: I have 3 kids and work 60 hour weeks so I choose how to spend my reading time. Can you say YOU'VE read all the research saying we have plenty of oil until at least 2040 after which there will be plenty of substitutes? You should talk to some of my biofuel entrepreneur friends - they are telling my 10:1 energy return on cellulosic within 3 years.

N: I've started from scratch 3 or 4 times on the core Peak Oil tenets, thinking I might have something very wrong, but I've been over it enough to unfortunately feel pretty confident I'm right, though less certain on the timing of rationing, etc.

T: Nate, I shouldn't tell you this but our asset management arm is in the top 10 in the world in terms of assets and do you know what our number one position is?

N: Starbucks?

T: No. We're short oil futures. We think its going back to $40 well before it goes to $100. (ED NOTE: This piece originally ran in May, when oil was $65.)

N: Thomas this is all besides the point. I'm not predicting what will happen in the next 3 months or next 3 years - what I'm saying is that very soon, in our lifetimes, energy is going to be scarce and cause ripple effects we cant even imagine. The bullish supply forecasts either siphon that 'energy gain' from other economic sectors via inflation or by robbing it from the environment via water and ecosystem depletion and increased GHGs.

T: Whatever. And even if you're right. We're here to live life. I'm not going to sit around waiting for 'the next big change' when I can enjoy life with my kids and live large. I work hard you know.

N: Actually you're a grifter. But you're still my friend, even though you're closed minded at times. Later.

The above discussion is in many respects a synopsis of this post - that despite facts, we exhibit certain cognitive biases that prevent us from acting on complex or frightening subjects outside of our day to day realities. What follows below is a brief overview of 10 cognitive phenomenon that may inhibit wider understanding and action on oil depletion. (Caveat - Neuroscience is a complex and growing field that has many valuable contributions to offer. In discussing human tendencies for various behaviours, I am of course generalizing, as are most of the scientific studies - when I say 'people value the present more than the future', I make that claim in the same vein that 'men are taller than women (on average)' )


"Chocolate Cake?"

"or Fruit Salad?"

Cognitive load theory suggests humans have a maximum capacity of working memory. At around 7 'chunks' of information, our working memory maxes out and we can't accept anything else without losing some of the previous 'chunks'. Try remembering the following numbers 1-9-1-4-7-6-7-5-9-5-9. Its quite hard to do. But if they are rearranged in chunks 1-914-767-5959, it becomes much more manageable. Numerous studies have measured this phenomenon - a notable study by Shiv and Fedhorkhin(1) asked a group of people to memorize a two digit number, walk down a corridor and at the end choose a dessert - either chocolate cake or fruit salad. A different sample of people were then asked to memorize a 7 digit number and walk down the corridor (while internally reciting this 7 digit number) and also choose a dessert. When required to memorize the 7 digit number, almost twice as many people chose the chocolate cake as in the sample only memorizing the 2 digit number - the implication being -
'my short term memory is full - I cant access my rational, long term decision-making hardware - just give me the damn cake'.

Of course, in a society with cell phones, taxi-cabs, internet, coffee, soccer practice, Grays Anatomy, corporate ladders and a plethora of other chocolate cake-like stimuli, meaningful contemplation and education about oil depletion and the environment usually represents the fruit salad. Many people are just too cognitively taxed to take on much more.


Cognitive psychologists have recognized that people tend to overweight the most recent data and stimuli they receive in their decision-making processes. A possible reason for the recency effect is that these items still linger in working memory when recall is solicited. This recency effect has two important relationships to the peak oil and global warming issues. First, we collectively assume that today will be much like yesterday and tomorrow will be like today - grocery stores chock full of oil-subsidized tasty treats, gas stations with cheap and easy fill-ups, and a plethora of novel entertainment and diversion options preclude our mind from thinking tomorrow will be any different. Second, in the various campaigns to educate and inform the public and policymakers on the dangers of oil depletion, any 'recent' optimistic piece in the mainstream media that dismisses Peak Oil has a tendency to mentally 'overwrite' some of the prior Peak Oil education one might have achieved.

Part of the reason I looked into research on the recency effect is that I noticed myself yo-yo-ing on peak oil and climate change depending on who I talked to or what I'd seen. I started to notice a pattern that my 'belief' was highly correlated to whatever I'd read or whoever I'd spoken to most recently. Since there are so many unknowns on both topics, to hear demonstrative language from confident sources does a lot to sway one's opinion, until and if one has time to methodically explore the arguments during subsequent individual research.

I am not a climate expert but do know enough to believe global warming is being anthropogenically influenced and is of at least moderate concern. As a graduate student under Robert Costanza, a scientist very concerned about climate change, I felt almost embarrassed after viewing The Great Global Warming Swindle. Even though I recognized a few factual mistakes, the rhetoric and confident tone in the movie pulled me in - the general tenor made me feel that climate change is relatively benign and concerns about it are overblown. That is, until the next morning when I got a series of emails from my professors about its content after which my opinion completely flip-flopped again. I expect this is a common experience. The central issues of climate change and oil decline are so broad and complex that both science and advocacy fall victim to the recency effect. Advertisers however, must be aware that the recency effect is both valid and powerful, otherwise we would have long ago
decided on which product is superior between Miller and Budweiser on the facts alone.


"The rational vs emotional discount rate"

As discussed in a recent oildrum post, we have evolved neural mechanisms to steeply favor the present over the future (measured by what economists call 'discount rates'), and modern OECD culture exacerbates this trait. The higher the rate, the more one is 'addicted' to the present moment. Lower discount rates suggest more control of the neocortex in subverting mammalian impulses of 'living for the moment'. Different products are discounted at differing rates. Different subsets of people (drug addicts, young people, gamblers, men, risk-takers, low math scorers, alcohol drinkers, etc) have steeper discount rates - are less able to act for the future and are easier pulled in by short term desires.(2) Steep discount rates work backwards as well - the oil crises and gas lines in the 1970s are like stories in the history books - nothing that carries too much emotional weight in the present - its almost as if our action and motivation triggers are like one of those maps that show the areas of daylight, only caring about the areas that are lit up - the dark areas are too far beyond our ken.

We have evolved to have instant access to our emotional minds in times of stress or danger - a million years ago too much rational thought would have essentially been suicidal. Oil depletion, climate change and loss of planetary ecosystems are long lead time problems. As such, information leading us to believe a peak in global oil production is either a) no big deal or b) beyond 2030 is essentially not 'received' by our emotional minds. The average person and politician will process such information as a free pass to continue the business as usual path. This is especially true if the assessment comes from a confident, respected, mainstream source (such as CERA), because it trickles down through corporate hierarchical society. Collectively it will be difficult to act until these issues become 'in the moment' too.


"I have it from high authority that there is plenty of Oil Resource"

theoildrum.com contributor says "Net energy to fall - society needs to change 'metrics of success' quickly"

Think about your initial reaction to the above two assertions. Depending on your walk of life, your gut reaction and thought process might differ. However, science (and history) has shown that humans have a propensity to be externally validated - we believe in and follow instructions from confident authority figures. Though theoildrum.com contributor is clearly confident, he certainly is not an authority figure, at least outside pike fishing circles. The Pope however, influences billions. With few exceptions, most voices advocating immediate steps for mitigating peak oil are not what society would perceive as 'authority figures'.

But what if the tables were reversed?


Imagine if that headline ran through the media around the country. Corporate leaders would hold emergency meetings on how to lock in prices or even supplies. (Some might liquidate their 401ks and not even show up)Š. Politicians would be on television urging people to wear sweaters or even winter coatsŠ. A gasoline tax would be quickly implementedŠ. Purchases of wind turbines and solar panels would soarŠ Tuna and chocolate hoarding...Cats living with dogs - real Old Testament stuff.

However, the situation is precisely opposite that. Astute, reasoned analysis by concerned individuals gets easily drowned out by rhetorical op-ed pieces in respected newspapers. Portrayal of concern for peak oil as a 'chicken little', 'Cassandra' and 'boy who cried wolf' phenomenon by a credible news source effectively erases what nagging concern or belief about oil depletion someone had started to foment.

Sociology recognizes that we have a propensity to believe in authority figures. Though the why of this is yet to be sussed out, Richard Dawkins believes it is an adaptive byproduct of children who unquestioningly followed adult instructions during the thousands of generations of our ancestral environment.(3) Presumably, the penchant for adults to easily believe things that are confidently told to them is a carryover from the children who did NOT eat the berries, touch the snake, or swim over a waterfall - these children survived to have children of their own. Social psychologist Robert Cialdini has written a book related to this phenomenon, on how certain people can have outsized influence on others using certain authoritative tactics. (I wonder aloud if Messrs. Jackson and Yergin own copies)

Irrespective of its origins and as uncomfortable as it sounds, we DO inherently believe in authority figures, as the famous and controversial Milgram experiments evidenced. 65% of volunteers delivered what they thought were fatal doses of 450 volt electric shocks to human subjects while being calmly assured to continue by the experiment 'administrators' (doctors in lab coats). The other 35% of participants still delivered high voltage shocks to the point of unconsciousness but refused to administer the 'highest level' shocks. Interestingly, none of these 35% insisted that the experiment itself be terminated, nor left the room to check that the victim was O.K. without first asking for permission. So much for independent thinking. In interviews prior to the experiment respondents predicted that only the most 'sadistic' 1.2% of participants would be willing to hurt another participant with electric shocks, yet 100% of the participants DID administer the shocks. The power of
authority figures is indeed strong.

To be honest, when preparing this post, I read and reread CERAs analyses and interviews - the recency effect combined with the utter confident tone they were written in made me (again) question that maybe I have this all wrong - that we have smooth sailing until 2030. But, after some malted milk balls and a quick review of my colleagues work, which at a minimum shows CERA does not incorporate net energy, understand Hubbert Linearization or include environmental externalities, Peak Oil again had me very worried.


Risk aversion is a financial and psychological concept that posits consumers (people) prefer a certain but possibly lower payoff than an uncertain but possibly higher payoff. With respect to Peak Oil, there is such a societal Sunk Cost that even if the average person or politician is on board with the understanding of fossil fuel depletion, the risk of stepping outside the warm cocoon of modern grid-connected energy intensive society can be emotionally daunting. Too, there aren't too many blazed paths as of yet illustrating exactly what one person or family can and should do to adapt. Our society is SO dependent on oil that most alternatives are too risky for the average family to pursue. Or at least that may be the perception.


My Dad is stronger than your Dad. And Peak Oil is not a 'theory' buddy

As evidenced by the size difference between males and females (sexual dimorphism), our species is midway between a tournament species and a pair bond species. This is suggestive that in our evolutionary past, selection pressures for male/male competition at least partially contributed to higher mating success (though not as much as in sea lions). The advent of language in tribal living expanded the scope of reputation and its influence on mating competition. An individuals comments, actions and opinions thus contributed to increasing or decreasing his status within the tribe. One could argue that a good part of human communication is concerned with getting other people to think, behave and believe as we do. At the same time, those others are trying to get us to behave and believe like they do - it's the culmination of our biological and political (social) heritage.

This concept has many demand side implications for Peak Oil not the least of which will be some variant of resource grab when per capita liquid fuel availability declines. But it also plays a large role in peoples differing and sometime entrenched viewpoints on the topic of Peak Oil, irrespective of their future actions. My friend Thomas has a career in finance - his income is dependent on his clients buying stocks, which are in turn dependent on the economy growing. He has 3 children and a huge house full of gadgets and requires alot of fuel to continue his planned trajectory (though he admits he could be happier on much less). A Peak Oil world as I've painted it could be perceived as a threat to him, his family and his lifestyle. For him to accept my worldview is in some ways admitting that his own life is built around the wrong premises. Similarly, if our current Disneyland culture continues to extract resources and environmental costs and the day of reckoning comes well
beyond my lifetime, perhaps I have wasted some of my time on this planet unnecessarily calling attention to what I view as urgent risks associated with net energy decline and human social traps.

Oh, How sweet it is to hear ones own convictions from another's lips. - Goethe (1749-1832)

Some who are very vocal about the urgency of Peak Oil will take a 'perceived fitness hit' if information comes to light that delays or moderates the impact of a peak and decline in world oil supply. Similarly, those who think we have plenty of oil production and flow capacity for the next 20-30 years will look foolish (e.g damage their reputation leading to a 'perceived' drop in fitness status), if it turns out we never see 90 million bpd and have 5% annual depletion rates beginning in a few years. In truth, for many the facts are mostly irrelevant - their belief systems are relatively immutable and new facts coming to light that support their convictions are viewed as 'victories' even if they add pain to the world as a whole. Similarly, new facts contrary to their beliefs are perceived as 'failures' and are responded to defensively. Curiously, it puts certain people, myself included, in a position of cognitive dissonance - I sincerely hope society manages to amass an armory of silver BBs and reduces consumption enough so that Peak Oil is a seamless transition to a sustainable future, but if that happens, most everything Ive written about in the past few years will have been incorrect. (But maybe I impacted the experiment...;)

Those oildrum.com readers who've participated in these forums for some time now are especially aware that certain people seem to be 'rooting' for peak oil and an end to the current capitalist consumptive system. I believe at least part of this is even though post peak oil they will have less 'absolute fitness', their 'relative fitness', compared to Joe-Mortgage-Trader-Millionaire

-Next-Door, will increase. In the end, we are wired to respond to relative fitness.


People vocal about the risks of Peak Oil are often viewed as pessimists, though I suppose they prefer the word 'realists'. We are taught from an early age to 'look at the bright side' and 'every cloud has a silver lining'. Humans do in fact have a penchant for optimism, and this sets up for an immediate bout of cognitive dissonance when discussions of peak oil nasties are undertaken.

Individuals have a tendency to be overly optimistic, and therefore naturally discount 'pessimistic' viewpoints and worldviews. Adults are particularly vulnerable to self-deception when comparing their own intelligence and attractiveness to others.(5) Research has shown that we systematically exaggerate our chances of success, believing that we are more competent and more in control than we really are. 88% of people think they are better drivers than average. 94% of professors believe they are better at their jobs than the average professor, etc. (By definition, almost half of those surveyed are 'overly optimistic'.)

There are good neural explanations for being optimistic. Even if the pessimistic view may be the more accurate, the stress of incorporating the particular negativity into ones worldview releases a cascade of stress-activated hormones that can seriously compromise a persons health.(6) In addition, pessimism can lead to depression, which suppresses the normal functioning of important neurotransmitters such as serotonin, which in turn can lead to reduced physical activity, mood swings, and a number of other physical symptoms and diseases. Optimistic attitudes also reduce secretion of cortisol, a stress hormone that inhibits the immune system, as well as produce more helper T-cells (4). The placebo effect is a well known but little understood medical phenomenon that improves patients physical response with no actual medication. In depression patients, placebos increase wellbeing by an average of 30-50%. Apparently, when we 'think' positively that something is helping us
medically - even if its a sugar pill, it 'works'. We are now seeing that the brain is helping this healing to occur through a different neurotransmitter mix.

There are good neural explanations for being optimistic. Even if the pessimistic view may be the more accurate, the stress of incorporating the particular negativity into ones worldview releases a cascade of stress-activated hormones that can seriously compromise a persons health.(6) In addition, pessimism can lead to depression, which suppresses the normal functioning of important neurotransmitters such as serotonin, which in turn can lead to reduced physical activity, mood swings, and a number of other physical symptoms and diseases. Optimistic attitudes also reduce secretion of cortisol, a stress hormone that inhibits the immune system, as well as produce more helper T-cells (4). The placebo effect is a well known but little understood medical phenomenon that improves patients physical response with no actual medication. In depression patients, placebos increase wellbeing by an average of 30-50%. Apparently, when we 'think' positively that something is helping us medically - even if its a sugar pill, it 'works'. We are now seeing that the brain is helping this healing to occur through a different neurotransmitter mix.

"Peak Oil - Glass Half Full or Half-Empty?"

An optimistic outlook actually is neurochemically self-fulfilling. Optimism leads to increased frontal cortical activity which itself is a strong predictor of idea generation, positive emotion and overall liveliness of thought. Similarly, sadness is marked by decreased activity in the frontal cortex, which has the negative side affect of reducing the number of overall thoughts and ideas produced. Cognitive neuroscientist Antonio Damasio points out that our brain exaggerates reality - when the glass is half full - the brain adds a little more for zest - when the glass is half empty, the brain subtracts some and things seem worse than they really are.

Being introduced to peak oil can be quite a shock. Its tough to be cheerful about the facts and implications about oil depletion, though ultimately we definitely could (and should) be happier with less energy. But initiation to the concept of upcoming shrinkage of the lifeblood of society can easily cause internal conflict in a species obviously wired to gravitate towards optimism.


We originated in tribal settings where consensus was important. Consensus building and group projects are taught and experienced in our culture from an early age - though in an era facing true scientific problems, the warm fuzzy group decisions can backfire. One famous example of 'Groupthink' was the Bay of Pigs invasion, where President Kennedys key advisors had serious misgivings about the strategy, but in group strategy sessions refused to speak up for fear of disrupting the seemingly overwhelming consensus. The invasion went so badly that the President specifically ordered his staff to speak up and offer dissenting opinions in future discussions, an order that may have averted a war during the Cuban missile crisis. As most media is quick to dismiss Peak Oil, our nation could use another such warning against 'groupthink'.

"Monkey-see-activate mirror neuron Monkey-do"

There is comfort in the herd. The recent discovery of mirror neurons helps explain why our brains are prone to absorb the beliefs and behaviours of others. Neurobiologically, when we see someone performing an action, whether it is a yawn, a smile or eating an ice cream cone, unique parts of our brains respond in the same way as if we were performing the action ourselves.(4)

Homo Sapiens See - Homo Sapiens Do.

Interestingly, USC neuroscientists (Arbib and Rizzolatti) are suggesting that the origin of language began as facial expressions and hand gestures - these communication tools, along with actual speech, are regulated by Brocas area, a small knob found in the left hemisphere of the cortex. As we will see below this has important implications.



Knowledge is a disposition to behave that is constantly subject to corrective modification and updating by experience, while belief is a disposition to behave that is resistant to correction by experience. Eichenbaum, Howard - Boston University (5)

The previous nine points were tenderizer for the meat of the article to follow. If you've read this far you're either unemployed, retired, a psychologist, a blood relative, my girlfriend or someone on the edge of a paradigm shift. Thank you in any case.

The difficult transition to a lower energy gain society by definition has a 'best path'. Also by definition we won't ever know what that path is, or at least until well into the future. How we collectively assimilate beliefs, attitudes, science and policy will be the key determinant in how we sink or swim with the Peak Oil tide. Unfortunately, we have baggage.

So far we've looked at our propensity to believe in authority, optimism, recent events, group behaviour, etc. Taken together, these leanings might suggest that we have some sort of pre-packaged neural software for abstract systems of 'belief'. In truth, we actually have no choice BUT to believe. From the moment of birth we depend on others to instruct us about the world. While young, we are given a specific language, a specific religion, a smattering of science and history and all the while we implicitly assume we are learning facts about the world. But we are not. We are simply being told what to believe. Though this is of course practical, it has resulted in 6.5 billion different (but overlapping) belief systems, somewhat modifiable as we grow up but increasingly less malleable as we get older.

What is a belief?

As defined by the Oxford English Dictionary, 'belief' is:

1. A feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
2. A firmly held opinion
3. Trust or confidence in.
4. Religious faith.

The English word 'belief' originated in the twelfth century, as an adaptation of the German word gilouben, which means 'to love' or 'to hold dear'. It was first used in association with religious doctrines referring to one's trust and faith in God - faith rather than fact being the operative word, as this particular type of belief cannot be tested by the rigorous proofs developed by science.

What is the Scientific Method?

a. Observe some aspect of the universe.
b. Invent a theory that is consistent with what you have observed.
c. Use the theory to make predictions.
d. Test (attempt to falsify) those predictions by experiments or further observations.
e. Modify the theory in the light of your results.
f. loop back to "c" above for another test. (8)

Famed scientist Richard Feynman offers an excellent description of 'good science' vs. 'cargo cult science' here.

At the cottage where I write this, there is the unmistakable sound of sandhill cranes calling for mates - when I first heard it I had no idea what it was. The fourth time I heard it I was with my father who identified it as a mating pair of sandhill cranes. The 10th time I heard it I witnessed the actual cranes by a pond. Mentally, my brain created a hypothesis and eventually 'tested' it to be 'true'. A certain sound represents sand hill cranes mating. Our ancestors discovered all they needed to know about the natural world in a process something like this one.

However, many stimuli in our society are much less clear cut. If I see a blue BMW sedan with an attractive blonde in the passenger side 2 or 3 times in a week, my mind will naturally extrapolate the 'ownership of a blue BMW' as a signal of successful male competition, when there could be myriad other explanations for the womans presence (the mans personality, his looks, his intelligence, his sister etc) The fact that he owned that particular car could have been completely random - yet my brain observed this pattern and extrapolated it forward.

"An early hominid couple, forming beliefs.."

During the 2 million+ years of hominid brain growth and development, the environment was roughly constant - in most cases for at least for thousands of years at a time. Here we developed 'pattern-recognition' systems of beliefs, the precursors of what economists today call 'correlation'. The human brain was exquisitely designed to favor correlation over causation. We did not evolve mechanisms to follow regimens like the scientific method because our species would have been systematically snuffed out by predators on the african savannah and a different species might be facing oil depletion. Our neural architecture was being built to adhere to correlations we observed in everyday life, because in these stable environmental timeframes, most correlations DID lead to causations. The periods of largest brain size increase in hominids were probably when some tribal leaders got good at noticing patterns and successfully made tools, or repeated routines that added fitness - these genes and thought processes then multiplied.

"The human mind evolved to believe in gods... Acceptance of the supernatural conveyed a great advantage throughout prehistory, when the brain was evolving. Thus it is in sharp contrast to [science] which was developed as a product of the modern age and is not underwritten by genetic algorithms." The Biological Basis of Morality, E.O. Wilson

Our stimuli laden modern world presents us with millions of small sample size events that offer our built-in pattern recognition systems plenty of fodder for creating 'beliefs' in situations where the scientific method never comes into play. Our pattern recognition system is essentially misfiring in a world of too many patterns - "NFC wins Superbowl and stock market goes up" (I had clients investing on that one) - "I can't date guys who are Virgos" - 'Walk under a ladder with a black cat and get really bad luck' -'Your second Chakra looks a little weak today' 'The market will solve it' etc. We unknowingly conflate correlation with causation, a danger that is learned to be avoided early on in the career of a scientist. And overriding it all is the theme of relative fitness where we attempt to justify, through social persuasion, that our 'patterns' are the correct ones. The upshot of this tendency is that charisma, rhetoric, advocacy, and politics can all too easily trump the scientific method, just when our species will need it most to tackle climate change and the attempted transition to renewables. (Note: Scientists are humans too, and are not immune to these neural processes - clearly when they write and publish they are accessing the rational neocortex gray matter and take their time to get facts and figures right - but in everyday communication - once emotion gets involved, the built-in genetic priorities fall back on belief systems.)

Our individual constructs of reality are based on beliefs - some beliefs are changed by new information, reflection, and analysis - others are virtually immutable. (Though my friend Thomas has a decent 'factual' understanding of Peak Oil - he may never incorporate it in the larger sense into his belief system.) From recent results of research into brain injury along with those from experiments on animals, we have begun to chart the neural processes active in distinguishing emotions, fantasies and facts. With fMRI and PET scans we can watch as a priest prays or a monk meditates or even when a person encounters new information that is discrepant with a prior held belief. On brain scans, meditative and transcendent states are in many ways similar to when a person experiences pleasures from sex, music or a good meal.(4) The very concept of the peaking and subsequent decline of oil - a vital resource to our lives that may become less and less available is a very difficult one to understand let alone accept. The 'knowledge' we obtain from scientific research on energy largely depends on how our brains interpret the evidence. These interpretations are subject to the same rules that govern our perceptions of reality - they are replete with generalizations, assumptions, misunderstandings and mistakes. By the time newly acquired knowledge reaches consciousness, each of us transforms it into something that fits with our own unique worldview. This process of reconstructing reality is the foundation from which we build all of our beliefs about our world.(4)

But sometimes, reality is not reality, even to ourselves.

Our time bomb is mysticism. It's delivery system is language. And it's hiding place? The unfathomable coils of our DNA. Reg Morrison The Spirit in the Gene(9)

And finally we come to what (for me) is the most fascinating piece of the human neural puzzle. In the discount rate post last month, I pointed out that we have developed a 'triune brain', with the 3 layers representing the 3 main periods of our organismal development (reptilian, mammalian, neocortex regions largely corresponding to primitive, emotional and rational thought). However, the neocortex itself is split into two hemispheres, the left and right, separated by a thin straplike connector called the corpus callosum. Neurobiologist Roger Sperry states that patients who have the corpus callosum removed (split-brain patients) behave as if they have
'two separate minds, two separate spheres of consciousnessŠin regards to cognition, volition, learning and memory.'

Only our left brain hemisphere has a 'voice' for communicating with others - emanating from 'Brocas area', the speech control center of our brains. Any findings and opinions analyzed by the perceptive and intuitive right hemisphere must first travel through the left hemisphere before leaving our mouths as communication. If you've been following along, you might see how this might relate to Peak oil or climate change.

There are fascinating experiments done on split brain patients - one of note was a brain experiment by Michael Gazzaniga at Dartmouth, a patient with his corpus callosum removed, was shown two large pictures - in front of the left eye - some snow - in front of the right eye, a picture of a bird's foot. Beneath each image were a series of smaller images, only one of which was related to the image above. When asked to point to the picture below that was linked to the birds foot, the right hand (left brain) correctly pointed to an image of a chicken. Similarly, the left hand (right brain) correctly chose an image of a shovel to relate to the larger snow image. When asked to explain the decisions, the verbally controlling left hemisphere offered the obvious explanation linking its own choice of a chicken to a bird's foot. HOWEVER, when asked why the left hand (right brain) had chosen the shovel (for the snow scene), the left brain replied that the shovel had been selected for cleaning out the chicken shed! Though our brains are not privy to their own internal workings, the left brain should have admitted it did not know why the right brain chose the shovel because it had never seen the snow scene -but instead it fabricated an answer to fit its own part of the story.(10)

Though most of us fortunately still have our corpus calllosums intact, new research is suggestive that the socially conforming and editing power of our left brains is powerful when dealing with pre-existing or strongly held beliefs, such as 'we have plenty of oil', or 'the market will find a solution'. Thus, in addition to being marketed during the waking hours by Madison Avenue, we are being marketed '24-7', by ourselves.

Reg Morrison succinctly concludes the following:

"It seems our loquacious left brain cannot abide a vacuum. As it ghostwrites our right-brain narrative, it obsessively fills in any gaps and injects snippets of its own propaganda wherever it can. Here then is the source of the so called 'false-memory syndrome', and no doubt the origin of most of our mystic visions and spiritual fantasies...By endowing the human brain with its language facility, evolution has ensured that human genes will continue to bypass the cerebral cortex at will, disguising fact with significance and imagination into perceived fact" Reg Morrison - The Spirit In The Gene(9)


As humans, we have tendencies towards certain behaviours that increasingly can be scientifically measured. While the neurosciences are still expanding and are now asking more questions than they have answered, it is clear that our minds are not entirely rational, or at least not rational all the time. Thus providing us with 'facts' does not automatically guarantee we will use them to solve problems. Competing voices, both from within and without, can easily morph those facts into something different than the pure scientific form they originated in.

Our modern education system, from which arises the standard for our culture and the education of our children, is anchored by an archaic and incorrect premise: that knowledge can come from the human mind based on assertions that require no proof or verification. The origins of this error go back to ancient philosophers who were quite likely geniuses but did not have access to the real scientific data and physical methodologies available to us today. Many modern philosophers and social scientists still adhere to the fallacy that knowledge comes from thought. New evidence from the cognitive neurosciences is demonstrating that pure thought cannot spontaneously come from a brain designed for correlation, emotion and relative fitness. Special steps need to be taken to teach, understand and adhere to the scientific method, which in turn builds knowledge.

In the calm before the storm, we need to take stock in what our assets and liabilities really are. We have energy assets and liabilities and we have mental ones as well. As energy events conspire, and the average person becomes more stressed, we may distance ourselves even further from the rational aspects of our collective behaviour. Plans should be made ahead of time to address local, regional and national energy (and environmental) problems with hope but careful skepticism, for its unlikely we will get too many second chances. Robert Rapier and I share some viewpoints and disagree on others, but one thing I have always respected about him is his immediate skepticism of high claims. Whether he is an expert on a topic or a novice, he approaches a problem from a scientific, provable, verifiable foundation. If more of our countries civic leaders followed the scientific principles of

1)observe something in nature

2) make a hypothesis

3) test the hypothesis using physical
methods and

4) repeat until statistically satisfied,

we would find ourselves better served and better prepared for an era of energy declines. We must marry facts about geology and the environment with facts about our neural tendencies.


1) Peak Oil is a geologic fact. Global warming is atmospheric climate science. But the words that define them both also represent belief systems. Certain people will 'believe' they are real and others will not, largely irrespective of what future facts come to light.

2) Facts are important and we need to continue to analyze and accumulate them about the natural world. But knowing how our brain will respond to these facts is equally important.

3) Homo Sapiens has been the most successful species on the planet. On a planet now full of humans, our neural tendencies to look for magic solutions will be a blindspot that needs to be acknowledged. Seeking causative forces through scientific methods as opposed to offering correlation as proof is one important step.

4) The stigma of determinism and fear of sociobiology needs to be discarded. The answers to the large scale human problems cannot be solved by facts and science of the outside world alone - we need to incorporate facts about who we are into the equation. The nature and nurture debate has raged for too long without meaningful synergy - there is no nurture without nature. But nurture is how we are going to get through this energy bottleneck.

5) The mere recognition of our tendencies to react positively to authority figures, optimism, recent information, etc, gives our brain a neutralizing agent against these real human phenomena.

6)The motion picture "Homo Sapiens Sapiens" could be nearing a climax. Lets collectively write a happy ending.

References and Further Reading

(1) Shiv and Fedorikhin, "Heart and Mind in Conflict: Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Human Decision-making", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol 26 1999

(2) "Intertemporal Choice" (pdf) Chablis et Al, The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics 2007 (to be published)

(3) Dawkins, R. The God Delusion 2006

(4) Newberg, Andrew, Why We Believe What We Believe Free Press, 2007

(5) Gilovich, T. How We Know What Isn't So - The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life 1991 Free Press

(6) Sapolsky, Robert Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers

(7) Eichenbaum, H. "Belief and Knowledge as Forms of Memory in Schacter and Scarry (eds) Memory, Brain and Belief Harvard University Press 2000

(8) Jay Hansons easy to understand laymans description of the scientific method.

(9) Morrison, Reg The Spirit in the Gene (Thanks to Jay Hanson who introduced me to this concept and to Reg)

(10) Gazzaniga, Michael The Minds Past

Further Reading:

Cosmides and Tooby, The Adapted Mind
Taleb, Nissem, Fooled By Randomness (Thanks to Kurt Cobb who gifted me this book)
Pinker, Steven, How the Mind Works
Pinker, Steven, The Blank Slate
Konner, Melvin, The Tangled Wing
Boyer, Pascal, Religion Explained
Cialdini, Bob, Influence