I don’t see how “living beyond our means” or “not recognizing limits” has anything to do with the Gulf oil spill.
Even if we were all incredibly frugal, only ate vegetables, turned down our thermostats in the winter and wore sweaters approved by Jimmy Carter, we’d still need oil, and we’d still be drilling for it in the Gulf.

Mr. Dreher, @ 4:21 PM, writes:
“That “entitlement” mentality amounts to a kind of philosophical stance, the idea that abundance — material abundance, and abundance of liberty — is a permanent condition. Our most pressing problems, from the relatively trivial (obesity) to the more serious (personal indebtedness) to the global (sovereign indebtedness) to the epochal (climate change, vital resource depletion) all stem from the same source: the chronic inability to accept limits, and to believe that there is any such thing as enough.”
Once again, I quote the immortal Edward Nimziki: “That’s not…entirely…accurate.”
Say rather that “our most pressing problems, from the relatively trivial (obesity) to the more serious (personal indebtedness) to the global (sovereigh indebtedness) to the epochal (climate change, vital resource depletion) all stem from the same source: the chronic inability TO ACCEPT AND PAY FOR RISK, and to believe THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH THING AS PAYING FOR WHAT ONE RECEIVES.”
Your servant,
Lord Karth

I think what Rod is saying, crowhill, is that our desire for cheap, quick solutions to our desires (oil) leads to people willing to not consider the long-term ramifications of their actions (drilling for oil without following safety procedures). I really doubt he’s saying that if we lived more frugally that accidents would never happen.

Restraint.
I think there needs to be a resurgence of this word. It begins with the individual and I work diligently to transmit the idea to my two sons, but subtly, gently so they don’t feel the need to reject & rebel. Wish me luck.

LK,
I think the difference between your view and Rod’s is reflective of a fundamental difference of opinion of the nature of humanity.
The “entitlement” Rod writes about is really the ancient vice of gluttony, and the fact that a glutton can afford the costs associated with living a life where the world around him is despoiled to supply him with the latest amusement or cornucopia which is then disposed of as easily as a tissue does not make such consumption good for anyone.
It’s not about the ability “TO ACCEPT AND PAY FOR RISK” any more than it’s about “PAYING FOR WHAT ONE RECEIVES,” it’s about the”right” to consume whatever one can consume.

Actually, the Illuminati are behind all crises….
Seriously, all the way back when I was in high school and picking up the fundamentals of economics on my own (they didn’t have classes in it, though I took it later in college) I always thought that the mantra of “growth, growth, growth” had to be flawed, somehow. I mean, we have a finite planet with finite resources; ergo, growth must hit limits at some point. Simple math (math is my field)! God forbid math should get in the way of the economy, though.

…the chronic inability to accept limits, and to believe that there is any such thing as enough.
I assume the best place to start is by limiting immigration.

Turmarion – nah – it’s the Templars
oh no captcha – of elites

I mean, we have a finite planet with finite resources; ergo, growth must hit limits at some point.
True, but this is a self-correcting problem.
Economic development anywhere in the world always results in declining birthrates. This is as true for the Islamic Republic of Iran as it is for secular Europe (or Japan and China, for that matter).
Hence, the problem solves itself.
The real resource limits of Earth:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
If you are truly concerned about the limits to growth, you should want to promote anything that reduces population growth (female education, urbanization, feminism, lots of contraception and abortion, etc.). It is silly to talk about the limits to growth without discussing population growth.

Re: The “entitlement” Rod writes about is really the ancient vice of gluttony, and the fact that a glutton can afford the costs associated with living a life where the world around him is despoiled to supply him with the latest amusement or cornucopia which is then disposed of as easily as a tissue does not make such consumption good for anyone.
Chris,
I’m not sure I see a valid criticism of LK’s view here (and I’m someone who disagrees with him a lot). LK is stating here a concept that economists call Negative Externalities: there are consequences to consumption that are not priced into it. That’s pretty much what you are saying as well when you mention “despoiling” the world to satisfy one’s appetites. as fo rwhether Rod agrees with this POV, he will have to tell us.

I too see a common thread running through all of our problems and it’s this: Americans are big babies. We want government services but we don’t want to pay for them. We want our energy cheap and can’t be bothered to consider the consequences for future generations. We rage against the rationing of healthcare and complain about the national debt as if the failure to control medical costs wasn’t the reason for our looming bankruptcy. Frankly, Americans deserve what will come of this childishness.

There is nothing that is being said about peak oil that hasn’t been said by peak whale oil or peak wood. Nowadays, New England, which was once systematically stripped of its forests for heating and industry, is covered in forests. Most of the world stopped hunting whales years ago.
This doesn’t mean that we as a country shouldn’t be preparing to be leaders in whatever comes next. It just means that the inclination to see the latest in a series of historical developments as the terminal, most important link in the chain ever. The sin here isn’t gluttony, it’s vanity.

I STRONGLY disagree with this article because I think it’s patently unfair not to mention discriminatory to equate being overweight/obese with being somehow morally defunct! That is nothing more than size prejudice. There are a myriad of valid medical reasons why someone might be larger than average, and no one has the right to judge someone else.

Jon,
My point would be that Karth didn’t look deeply enough at the issue. Granting that the economic model is flawed, failing to see the driving appetite at the root of this is akin to addressing the symptom but not the cause.

. . . no one has the right to judge someone else.
Large Size Christian, I just have to ask–have you spent much time around here? The right that you feel no one has seems to be the very raison d’etre of most of the commentary. ; )

Chris, @ 7:54 PM, writes:
“didn’t look deeply enough at the issue. Granting that the economic model is flawed, failing to see the driving appetite at the root of this is akin to addressing the symptom but not the cause.
Of your charity, my friend, speak more fully.
Jon, @ 6:36 PM, writes:
“LK is stating here a concept that economists call Negative Externalities: there are consequences to consumption that are not priced into it.”
You’re close, but not entirely spot-on. You are quite right in that consumption has consequences, and that some of them are difficult to anticipate, but it’s not just that at issue here.
At issue as well is Human reaction to a given situation. Humans have a tendency to engage in what I call “crisis-think”; the often-fallacious belief that a given inconvenient situation is a true existential threat. (“Anthropogenic Global Warming” is something I would consider an example of this mode of thinking.) I think this takes place because Humans are not really good at multivalued logic—not “good vs. bad”, but “bad vs. good vs. better vs. best” By engaging in multi-valued thinking, it is possible to consider tradeoffs between different options in any given situation.
The other thing to factor into ANY analysis of a situation like this is the concept of randomness. To coin a phrase, stuff happens ! The awareness of randomness means that we have to make our thinking and planning flexible, as well as accommodating of the different possibilities inherent in each situation.
It is not possible for Humans, in their current stage of development, to anticipate and consider each and every contingency. We’re just not that good at thinking yet. In a way, it’s a good thing we aren’t. If we were, we would be able to not only see every possible contingency in a given situation, but we would be impelled by the logic of the situation to select a best option. That would lead to a maximization of the possible outcomes—but it would also rob us of choices and free will, as well as the different consequences of our choices.
Your servant,
Lord Karth

Lord Karth,
In this post you show good subtlety of thought. I hope we can see more of this, instead of just “Death to boomers!” and “#!&% retirees!”
Chris,
You are right that Greed lies at the bottom of much of our public troubles these days. Though I do believe that Greed would be necessarily tempered (note: not eliminated) if we priced in the externalities to our behavior.

In Operations Research the simplex method can be used to precisely distribute scarce or limited resources in an optimal way. This is key to a distributive economy rather than a classical liberal or socialist model.
So it boils down to us being “kept”. How can I say this? It’s like living in Babylon when our home is elsewhere. Yet so many of us have classical liberal economics tied to our life, even our religion. We think it is the best way, even when the evidence shows it may have been good in a small business age, but not so good in a corporation age.
You can blame it on our human sin- and implied is the need for faith, morals, improved people choices. And you can learn about economics and better models for the world as it is. There is nothing wrong with both approaches. However, the overall ignorance that better models even exist is staggering to me. If you would watch evening TV in the USA you would think this is a fight to the death between free markets and socialism. I think it’s a smokescreen to keep us “kept”.

Jon @ 6:13 AM writes:
“I hope we can see more of this, instead of just “Death to boomers!” and “#!&% retirees!”
When a stiletto is called for, I use a stiletto.
When a club is required, I use a club.
And when a pat on the back is called for, I use a pat on the back.
Btw, it’s not “Death to boomers” or ” ‘g’dayt’ retirees”, but “Accountability for Boomers” and “No more freebies for retirees”.
There’s a difference.
But still, thank you. One often benefits from the occasional reminder to mind one’s aim when firing.
Your servant,
Lord Karth

Awesome Patrick Deneen quote, Rod. I couldn’t agree more. Now that Louisiana, the Florida Keys, and the East Coast may sustain severe environmental damage due to the ongoing oil spill, I am constantly reminded of why I hated the vapid and infantile slogan, “Drill, baby drill!”

Can someone tell me why the open source technology movement is not the future of “crunchy con” and other decentralization movements?
http://openfarmtech.org/index.php?title=Evolve_to_Freedom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIY_Biology
This stuff seems perfectly in tune with the whole “crunchy con” Front porch republican decentralization ideas. I fail to see why decentralization much be “luddite” in nature.

Leah,
Restraint! The very word I’ve been seeking to describe what seems to be lacking in American society – and, for all I know, many others as well. Do you suppose there’s any way to persuade people to exercise some of that voluntarily, or is it too late for anything but disaster on a Biblical scale to bring us to our senses?