A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Peak oil and the end of liberalism

Patrick Deneen writes that modern liberalism – “the philosophy premised upon a belief in individual autonomy, one that rejected the centrality of culture and tradition, that eschewed the goal or aim of cultivation toward the good established by dint of (human) nature itself, that regarded all groups and communities as arbitrarily formed and therefore alterable at will, that emphasized the primacy of economic growth as a precondition of the good society and upon that base developed a theory of progress (material as well as moral), and one that valorized the human will itself as the source of sufficient justification for the human mastery of nature, including human nature (e.g., bio-technological improvement of the species)” – rests ultimately on our ability to exploit fossil fuels. All that freedom, autonomy, and material progress is a one-shot affair since the reservoir of energy that made it possible took hundreds of millions of years to build up.

Deneen says that the view of life that underlies liberalism is profoundly anti-natural:

Oil has been the silent but world-altering source of our collective delusion that we could live in this way and get away with it. It has allowed us to contrive a civilization based upon a theoretical fantasy, and to make it functional for about a century, during which time we took the exceptional for the ordinary, the unnatural for the given, the hubristic for the norm. We have reshaped the world to accord with a self-delusive fantasy, with the only stipulation being that there continue to be unlimited quantities of this external power source that would let growth and its attendant power over nature go on forever. Most of us assume there’s no problem with this basic presupposition – except that we are about to discover that you can only defy gravity for so long, as the example of Icarus ought to have served as a reminder.

Conservatism, while a salutary reaction against the excesses of liberalism, usually fails to grasp the underlying economic realities that make those excesses possible:

Conservatives rightly decry the decline of culture, the assault on the family and the unlimited infanticide of our abortion regime, but find nothing else wrong with the basic arrangement and largely do not question whether our political and economic arrangements have contributed to what we denounce. Books will be written about how this could have happened. But, perhaps we are not long from the day when conservatives will realize the fantasy they have themselves been purveying, and will demand that we prepare ourselves now for a post-petroleum reinstatement of human culture, cultivation, and tradition.

I take peak oil and global warming catastrophists with a grain of salt if only because their predictions of what will happen post-catastrophe seem to align so neatly with the kind of society they would like to see. Still, the fossil fuel binge does seem like it will have to come to an end at some point, so it’s well worth thinking about what that implies.

3 responses to “Peak oil and the end of liberalism”

  1. Sure, the fossil fuel binge will end sometime, and probably soon, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to imagine that we’ll have figured out a technical work-around by the time the fossil fuels run out. Malthusian economics has a fantastic track record of underestimating technological solutions which predates serious oil use, but it won’t go away because the argument that there’s got to be a limit out there somewhere is so compelling and intuitive.

    I suspect that unlimited growth is impossible, but I think we can find a sustainable plateau, probably above the current American standard and certainly well above the world-wide standard of living. What’s more, I think our unlimited use of fossil fuels will be what got us to that plateau.

    I do like the values Deneen is promoting, but I think they need to be promoted on a different basis.

    Then again, I could be entirely wrong.

  2. I think he has a good (and scary) point to make, but he’s obscuring it in all this fancy window dressing. More specifically, his entire point about human nature dooming liberalism is, at best, superfluous and muddy. At worst, it weakens his main point that liberalism and oil consumption are related.

    As to the latter, I see a tension between the idea that liberalism is unnatural and (basically), therefore, not worthwhile, and his claim that liberalism has allowed us to indulge in selfish motives to the tune of massive oil depletion. Wouldn’t the autonomy and freedom provided by liberalism allow us to see MORE precisely what is natural (when nature is understood in its Hobbesian and Rousseauian context as that state in which collective/state intervention does not take place)? That is, couldn’t we say that Liberalism’s byproducts such as oil depletion are more likely to be considered natural than the byproducts of more interventionist regimes? If so, and in light of his claim that (basically) unnatural things are unworthy, it would be somewhat baffling to hold up a byproduct of liberalism as evidence that it is UNnatural and doomed to fail (when comparing it to other political approaches, the vast majority of which are more interventionist).

    Instead, I think it’s much more efficient to do argue as most others do: simply point out that the byproduct, itself, is bad.

    I raised a similar point in a comment to the entry itself. Both here and there, I’m probably oversimplifying.

  3. I don’t see any connection between liberalism and peak oil alarmists. The peak oil concern is about continuing to feed 6-9 billion people when a limited resource runs out. It is not about population control or politics. We have a very real crisis approaching and most of the worlds leading geophysicists agree we only have 30-35 years of oil left. Still, we have ignorant people who want to drive Hummer H2’s at 8 mpg with american flags and support our troops stickers on the back. They expect the government to regulate the price of oil and do not understand the “liberal” principles of the free market economy. What we have is an auction with a shortage. The government can only regualte the price through oil wars, as seen in Iraq where we spend 2 billion dollars a week to get production of 2 million barrels a day. At current pricing, that works out to a subsidy of $1.22 a gallon with taxpayer money!

Leave a comment