Fri, 29 October 2010
Are you going 'Sane' in a Crazy World? Are you having difficulty relaying to your spouse the predicament that we face as a nation, or as a planet?
In this episode we examine the pysche of what it is like to unplug from the Matrix and see reality for what it is, not what we want it to be. Kathy McMahon, a certified psychotherapist who specializes in clients who suffer from anxiety, fear and depression brought on by the realization of how real our reality is. Kathy is a therapist who 'gets it', she has done the research, is brilliant enough to know that you cannot a finite resource ad infinitum, and realizes that we may be near or past Peak Oil.
This episode was at the same time a departure from our normal topics yet very necessary and relevant to what we discuss. Many of the insights Kathy said had me saying 'that happened me too'. I think this a must-listen for everyone aware of Peak Oil.
Direct download: Episode_68_-_The_Peak_OIl_Blues_with_Kathy_McMahon.mp3
Category:general -- posted at: 3:11 PM
Ms. McMahon, I'm sorry if you took my response as rude. I guess it was, because I didn't hear the humor in your words. Like many, I think I'm beginning to react defensively to those so-called environmentalists who advocate totalitarian control over the lives of others. Rush Limbaugh is a dolt in my opinion so you cut me deep by thinking that I'm of his ilk. I'm for optimism, and I'm for progressive, innovative thinking to problems such as "peak oil" and the competition for dwindling resources. Accept my apology. Best of luck to you. -A TBWS fan..... aka "Bill"
Hi Bill, I can see why you are confused if you took the talk to be about Al Gore, my hatred of corporations, rejection of modernity, the middle ages and communal living. I'm not sure you even listened if you call the work "liberal." Having dinners more often with your family, socializing with friends, being neighborly...why even Rush Limbaugh would support those ideas! I'd recommend you stop slapping labels on people like "liberal" and "conservative" because I don't think those apply to real people anymore. They're great for rhetoric, and political campaigning, but that's about it. My research is collecting stories from people coming to grips with Peak Oil. It's not "my dilemma" Bill, but the bind my contributors find themselves in as they research and come to understand these issues. It's what people tell me. If you don't like that they have these reactions, well, that's just fine, but it is nothing to attack. And if you missed the humor in my talking about "Panglossian Disorders," I think you might have lost your sense of humor, as well. "We'll innovate our way to a solution" is hardly a solution, Bill. That's my point. I'm not talking about optimism itself (which I embrace, btw) but a defensive optimism, one that refuses to engage the issues, examine the competing problems, take a closer look, and rely on platitudes and personal attacks. Wow. For an optimistic guy you sure sound angry. And if hypocrisy stopped action, we'd all be frozen, IMHO.
Well, other than the comment I left re Ms. McMahon, I'm sorry if you have ever taken any of my comments as a "rant." I think your show is generally riveting and thought provoking and I look forward to every episode. I listen because you are an intellectual by any definition, and you are interesting because you approach issues far different than I am programmed to think through them. I sometimes listen to the interviews 2 or 3 times while on walks with my dogs or at the gym. I'm used to thinking through issues in a combative debate style format -asserting a position is never intended to be a rant or rude. I re-read my comments regarding Ms. McMahon. I guess I did step over into an abrasive tone. For that, I will apologize. If you have her on again, I will crack two beers and enjoy the interview with a more relaxed mindset.
I feel compelled to comment on Bill's opinions, although they are just that... opinions. The basis of your rant, and other rants you have, is that your prediction of the future differs from that of mine or my guests. That is fine by me because you may very well be right in the end... but there also is a chance you may be wrong. Innovation may save us, but it may not be on the time schedule you were hoping for. You may very well have left this earth, and it may be that your grandchildrens grandchildren may also have left the earth. I won't get into the time-scale-cost of the solutions and the convergence of multiple crises at the same time, because I know you are very well of all of it (Collapse by Jared Diamond, The Upside of Down by Thomas Homer-Dixon). I think the take-away message from this interview is that adapting to a new reality is as much a physical realization as it is a psychological one. I've struggled with abandoning the American Dream of growth for the sake of growth, or put differently, consumption for the sake of consumption. But in the end I still live, work, and play in the same world as you, so I DO want to see progress and the problems of the world solved. But I would be a friggin' moron to not hedge the risks of the future when faced with the overwhelming evidence that we are on the precipice of a long cold winter... Steve
Steve, this conversation was such a preposterous mess I don't know where to begin. Call it conversations with a confused environmental radical. Never have I heard such circular, self-defeating reasoning. The dilemma she finds herself in is one of her own making, a product of her own confused liberal world view. The "peak oil" theory is a completely different and mutually exclusive problem than her faith-based belief in the need of every human being to reduce their carbon footprint. You see, Steve, I don't subscribe to Al Gore's faulty science and would sleep quite soundly at night if promised bountiful supplies of light sweet crude oil that would last for 5 more generations. Ms. McMahon proposes no solution, other than to revert to some sort of communal living where she where's brown underwear; and breaks bread and possibly listens to live music with local yokels who might very well be "annoying." She will be subjected to people of lesser quality because she concedes the right to harness enough of the Earth's scare resources to transport herself towards better company. What drivel! Her anti-capitalist rant was less audacious than her bizarre attempt to pitch American optimism as a form of psychosis worthy of a DSM-IV-TR designation. While the American economy is clearly faltering and the competition for the planet's scarce resources is becoming more acute, it is the American spirit that will guide us to a better future. From my father and his father before him, I am driven to believe that solutions are possible to any problem. We are to compete, to strive, to think and problem solve no matter how difficult the circumstances. This is our heritage, Steve. We are not the product of self-defeatism. While you and Ms. McMahon hasten your regression, my family, my friends, and hopefully my country will strive to compete and to thrive. If you are right and we are running out of oil, then let us innovate to problem solve new forms of energy that will fuel the modern society of tomorrow. I say "To Mars!", McMahon says "To the Middle Ages!" I couldn't help but notice the hypocrisy of her excitement concerning her invitation to speak to Microsoft and Honda. I wonder if she will pitch her brown-anti-corporate rhetoric to them. Like Al Gore, the phony liberal archetype who chews up a 1000 times his share of poor mother Earth's precious resources, I notice that your guest is plain giddy over her invitation to speak, travel the world and enjoy the mobility afforded to her by modernity. I wonder if she will wear brown underwear or dress herself in a potato sack when she addresses Microsoft?