Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different from the Energy Crisis of 2005

Back in 2005, the world economy was “humming along.” World growth in energy consumption per capita was rising at 2.3% per year in the 2001 to 2005 period. China had been added to the World Trade Organization in December 2001, ramping up its demand for all kinds of fossil fuels. There was also a bubble in the US housing market, brought on by low interest rates and loose underwriting standards.

Figure 1. World primary energy consumption per capita based on BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy.

The problem in 2005, as now, was inflation in energy costs that was feeding through to inflation in general. Inflation in food prices was especially a problem. The Federal Reserve chose to fix the problem by raising the Federal Funds interest rate from 1.00% to 5.25% between June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2006.

Now, the world is facing a very different problem. High energy prices are again feeding over to food prices and to inflation in general. But the underlying trend in energy consumption is very different. The growth rate in world energy consumption per capita was 2.3% per year in the 2001 to 2005 period, but energy consumption per capita for the period 2017 to 2021 seems to be slightly shrinking at minus 0.4% per year. The world seems to already be on the edge of recession.

The Federal Reserve seems to be using a similar interest rate approach now, in very different circumstances. In this post, I will try to explain why I don’t think that this approach will produce the desired outcome.

[1] The 2004 to 2006 interest rate hikes didn’t lead to lower oil prices until after July 2008.

It is easiest to see the impact (or lack thereof) of rising interest rates by looking at average monthly world oil prices.

Figure 2. Average monthly Brent spot oil prices based on data of the US Energy Information Administration. Latest month shown is July 2022.

The US Federal Reserve began raising target interest rates in June 2004 when the average Brent oil price was only $38.22 per barrel. These interest rates stopped rising at the end of June 2006, when oil prices averaged $68.56 per barrel. Oil prices on this basis eventually reached $132.72 per barrel in July 2008. (All of these amounts are in dollars of the day, rather than being adjusted for inflation.) Thus, the highest price was over three times the price in June 2004, when the US Federal Reserve made the decision to start raising target interest rates.

Based on Figure 2 (including my notes regarding the timing of the interest rate rise), I would conclude that raising interest rates didn’t work very well at bringing down the price of oil when it was tried in the 2004 to 2006 period. Of course, the economy was growing rapidly, then. The rapid growth of the economy likely led to the very high oil price shown in mid-2008.

I expect that the result of the US Federal Reserve raising interest rates now, in a low-growth world economy, might be quite different. The world’s debt bubble might pop, leading to a worse situation than the financial crisis of 2008. Indirectly, both asset prices and commodity prices, including oil prices, would tend to fall very low.

Analysts looking at the situation from strictly an energy perspective tend to miss the interconnected nature of the economy. Factors which energy analysts overlook (particularly debt becoming impossible to repay, as interest rates rise) may lead to an outcome that is pretty much the opposite result of the standard belief. The typical belief of energy analysts is that low oil supply will lead to very high prices and more oil production. In the current situation, I expect that the result might be closer to the opposite: Oil prices will fall because of financial problems brought on by the higher interest rates, and these lower oil prices will lead to even lower oil production.

[2] The purpose of the US Federal reserve raising target interest rates was to flatten the growth rate of the world economy. Looking back at Figure 1, the growth in energy consumption per capita was much lower after the Great Recession. I doubt that now in 2022, we want even lower growth (really, more shrinkage) in energy consumption per capita for future years.*

Looking at Figure 1, growth in energy consumption per capita has been very slow since the Great Recession. A person wonders: What is the point of governments and their central banks pushing the world economy down, now in 2022, when the world economy is already barely able to maintain international supply lines and provide enough diesel for all of the world’s trucks and agricultural equipment?

If the world economy is pushed downward now, what would the result be? Would some countries find themselves unable to afford fossil fuel energy products in the future? This might lead to problems both in growing and transporting food, at least for these countries. Would the whole world suffer a major crisis of some sort, such as a financial crisis? The world economy is a self-organizing system. It is difficult to forecast precisely how the situation would work out.

[3] While the growth rate in energy consumption per capita was much lower after 2008, the price of crude oil quickly bounced back to over $120 per barrel in inflation-adjusted prices in the 2011-2013 time frame.

Figure 3 shows that oil prices immediately bounced back up after the Great Recession of 2008-2009. Quantitative Easing (QE), which the US Federal Reserve began in late 2008, helped energy prices to shoot back up again. QE helped keep the cost of borrowing by governments low, allowing governments to run larger deficits than might otherwise have been possible without interest rates rising. These higher deficits added to the demand for commodities of all types, including oil, thus raising prices.

Figure 3. Average annual oil prices inflation-adjusted oil prices based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy. Amounts shown are Brent equivalent spot prices.

The chart above shows average annual Brent oil prices through 2021. The above chart does not show 2022 prices. The current Brent oil price is about $91 per barrel. So, oil prices today are a little higher than they have been recently, but they are nowhere nearly as high as they were in the 2011 to 2013 period or in the late 1970s. The extreme reaction we are seeing is very strange. The problem seems to be much more than oil prices, by themselves.

[4] High prices in the 2006 to 2013 period allowed the rise of unconventional oil production. These high oil prices also helped keep conventional oil production from falling after 2005.

It is difficult to find detail on the precise amount of unconventional oil, but some countries are known for their unconventional oil production. For example, the US has become a leader in the extraction of tight oil from shale formations. Canada also produces a little tight oil, but it also produces quite a bit of very heavy oil from the oil sands. Venezuela produces a different type of very heavy oil. Brazil produces crude oil from under the salt layer of the ocean, sometimes called pre-salt crude oil. These unconventional types of extraction tend to be expensive.

Figure 4 shows world oil production for various combinations of countries. The top line is total world crude oil production. The bottom gray line approximates world total conventional oil production. Unconventional oil production has been rising since, say, 2010, so this approximation is better for years 2010 and subsequent years on the chart, than it is for earlier years.

Figure 4. Crude and condensate oil production based on international data of the US Energy Information Administration. The lower lines subtract the full amount of crude and condensate production for the countries listed. These countries have substantial amounts of unconventional oil production, but they may also have some conventional production.

From this chart, it appears that world conventional oil production leveled off after 2005. Some people (often referred to as “Peak Oilers”) were concerned that conventional oil production would reach a peak and begin to decline, starting shortly after 2005.

The thing that seems to have kept production from falling after 2005 is the steep rise in oil prices in the 2004 to 2008 period. Figure 3 shows that oil prices were quite low between 1986 and 2003. Once oil prices began to rise in 2004 and 2005, oil companies found that they had enough revenue that they could start adopting more intensive (and expensive) extraction techniques. This allowed more oil to be extracted from existing conventional oil fields. Of course, diminishing returns still set in, even with these more intensive techniques.

These diminishing returns are probably a major reason that conventional oil production started to fall in 2019. Indirectly, diminishing returns likely contributed to the decline in 2020, and the failure of the oil supply to bounce back up to its 2018 (or 2019) level in 2021.

[5] A better way of looking at world crude oil production is on a per capita basis because the world’s crude oil needs depend on world population.

Everyone in the world needs the benefit of crude oil, since it is used both in farming and in transporting goods of all kinds. Thus, the need for crude oil rises with population growth. I prefer analyzing crude oil production on a per capita basis.

Figure 5. Per capita crude oil production based on international data by country from the US Energy Information Administration.

Figure 5 shows that on a per capita basis, conventional crude oil production (gray bottom line) started declining after 2005. It was only with the addition of unconventional oil that crude oil production per capita could remain fairly level between 2005 and 2018 or 2019.

[6] Unconventional oil, if analyzed by itself, seems to be quite price sensitive. If politicians everywhere want to hold oil prices down, the world cannot count on extracting very much of the huge amount of unconventional oil resources that seem to be available.

Figure 6. Crude oil production based on international data for the US Energy Information Administration for each of the countries shown.

On Figure 6, crude oil production dips in 2016 – 2017 and also in 2020 – 2021. Both the 2016 and the 2020 dips are related to low prices. The continued low prices in 2017 and 2021 may reflect start-up problems after a low price, or they may reflect skepticism that prices can stay high enough to make continued extraction profitable. Canada seems to show similar dips in its oil production.

Venezuela shows a fairly different pattern. Information from the US Energy Information Administration mentions that the country started having major problems once the world oil price started falling in 2014. I am aware that the US has had sanctions against Venezuela in recent years, but it seems to me that these sanctions are closely related to Venezuela’s oil price problems. If Venezuela’s very heavy oil could really be extracted profitably, and the producers of this oil could be taxed to provide services for the people of Venezuela, the country would not have the many problems that it has today. The country likely needs a price between $200 and $300 per barrel to allow for sufficient funds for extraction plus adequate tax revenue.

Brazil’s oil production seems to be relatively more stable, but its growth has been slow. It has taken many years to get its production up to 2.9 million barrels per day. There is also some pre-salt oil production just now getting started in Angola and other countries of West Africa. This type of oil requires a high level of technical expertise and imported resources from around the world. If world trade falters, this type of oil production is likely to falter, as well.

A large share of the world’s oil reserves are unconventional oil reserves, of one type or another. The fact that rising oil prices are a real problem for citizens means that these unconventional reserves are unlikely to be tapped. Instead, we may be dealing with seriously short supplies of products we need for operating our economies, including diesel oil and jet fuel.

[7] Figure 1 at the beginning of this post indicated falling energy consumption per capita. This problem extends to more than oil. On a per capita basis, both coal and nuclear energy consumption are falling.

Practically no one pays any attention to coal consumption, but this is the fuel that allowed the Industrial Revolution to start. It is reasonable to expect that since the world economy started using coal first, it might be the first to deplete. Figure 7 shows that world coal consumption per capita hit a peak in 2011 and has declined since then.

Figure 7. World coal consumption per capita, based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Many of us have heard about Aesop’s Fable, The Fox and the Grapes. According to Wikipedia, “The story concerns a fox that tries to eat grapes from a vine but cannot reach them. Rather than admit defeat, he states they are undesirable. The expression ‘sour grapes’ originated from this fable.”

In the case of coal, we are told that coal is undesirable because it is very polluting and raises CO2 levels. While these things are true, coal has historically been very inexpensive, and this is important for people buying coal. Coal is also easy to transport. It could be used for fuel instead of cutting down trees, thus helping local ecosystems. The negative things that we are being told about coal are true, but it is hard to find an adequate inexpensive substitute.

Figure 8 shows that world nuclear energy per capita is also falling. To some extent, its fall has stabilized since 2012 because China and a few other “developing nations” have been adding nuclear capacity, while developed nations in Europe have tended to remove their existing nuclear power plants.

Figure 8. World nuclear electricity consumption per capita, based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy. Amounts are based on the amount of fossil fuels that this electricity would theoretically replace.

Nuclear energy is confusing because experts seem to disagree on how dangerous nuclear power plants are, over the long term. One concern relates to proper disposal of spent fuel after its use.

[8] The world seems to be at a difficult time now because we don’t have any good options for fixing our falling energy consumption per capita problem, without greatly reducing world population. The two choices that seem to be available both seem to be far higher-priced than is feasible.

There are two choices that seem to be available:

[A] Encourage large amounts of fossil fuel production by encouraging very high fossil fuel prices. With such high prices, say $300 per barrel for oil, unconventional crude oil in many parts of the world would be available. Unconventional coal, such as that under the North Sea, would also be available. With sufficiently high prices, natural gas production could be raised. This natural gas could be shipped as liquefied natural gas (LNG) around the world at great cost. Additionally, many processing plants could be built, both for supercooling the natural gas to allow it to be shipped around the world and for re-gasification, when it arrives at its destination.

With this approach, food costs would be very high. Much of the world’s population would need to work in the food industry and in fossil fuel production and shipping. With these priorities, citizens would not have time or money for most things we buy today. They likely could not afford a vehicle or a nice home. Governments would need to shrivel in size, with the usual outcome being government by a local dictator. Governments wouldn’t have sufficient funds for roads or schools. CO2 emissions would be very high, but this likely would not be our most serious problem.

[B] Try to electrify everything, including agriculture. Greatly ramp up wind and solar. Wind and solar are very intermittent, and their intermittency does not match up well with human needs. In particular, one of the world’s primary needs is for heat in winter, but solar energy comes in summer. It cannot be saved until winter with today’s technology. Spend enormous amounts and resources on electricity transmission lines and batteries to try to somewhat work around these problems. Try to find substitutes for the many things that fossil fuels provide today, including paved roads and chemicals used in agriculture and in medicine.

Hydroelectricity is also a renewable form of electricity generation. It cannot be expected to ramp up much because it has mostly been built out already.

Figure 9. World consumption of hydroelectricity per capita, based on data from BP’s 2022 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Even if greatly ramped up, wind and solar electricity production would likely be grossly inadequate by themselves to try to operate any kind of economy. In addition, at a minimum, natural gas, shipped at very high cost as LNG around the world, would likely be needed. Also, huge quantity of batteries would be needed, leading to a short supply of materials. Huge quantities of steel would be needed to make new electrical machines to try to replace current oil-power machines. A minimum 50-year transition would likely be needed.

I am doubtful that this second approach would be feasible in any reasonable timeframe.

[9] Conclusion. Figure 1 seems to imply that the world economy is headed for troubled times ahead.

The world economy is a self-organizing system, so we cannot know precisely what form changes in the next few years will take. The economy can be expected to shrink back in an uneven pattern, with some parts of the world and some classes of citizens, such as workers versus the elderly, doing better than others.

Leaders will never tell us that the world has an energy shortage. Instead, leaders will tell us how awful fossil fuels are, so that we will be happy that the economy is losing their usage. They will never tell us how worthless intermittent wind and solar are for solving today’s energy problems. Instead, they will lead us to believe that a transition to vehicles powered by electricity and batteries is just around the corner. They will tell us that the world’s worst problem is climate change, and that by working together, we can move away from fossil fuels.

Again, the whole situation reminds me of Aesop’s Fables. The system puts a “good spin” on whatever frightening changes are happening. This way, leaders can convince their citizens that everything is fine when, in fact, it is not.


*If the US Federal Reserve raises its target interest rate, central banks of other countries around the world are forced to take a similar action if they do not want their currencies to fall relative to the US dollar. Countries that do not raise their target interest rates tend to be penalized by the market: With a falling currency, the local prices of oil and other commodities tend to rise because commodities are priced in US dollars. As a result, citizens of these countries tend to face a worse inflation problem than they would otherwise face.

The country with the greatest increase in its target interest rate can, in theory, win, in what is more or less a competition to move inflation elsewhere. This competition cannot go on indefinitely, however, because every country depends, to some extent, on imports from other countries. If countries with weaker economies (i. e. those that cannot afford to raise interest rates) stop producing essential goods for world trade, it will tend to bring the world economy down.

Raising interest rates also raises the likelihood of debt defaults, and these debt defaults can be a huge problem, especially for banks and other financial institutions. With higher interest rates, pension funding becomes less adequate. Businesses of all kinds find new investment more expensive. Many businesses are likely to shrink or fail completely. These indirect impacts are yet another way for the world economy to fail.

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Energy policy, Financial Implications and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3,147 Responses to Today’s Energy Crisis Is Very Different from the Energy Crisis of 2005

  1. davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

    after falling through early November, the European natural gas price has now been shooting higher.

    two weeks until winter, huh.

    European “storage” should be very depleted by February.

    any guesses on the future price movement?

    149 in TTF pricing is about equivalent to $45 in US pricing.

    the US price is now under $6.

    • I would guess that the price pattern will be up and down. Governments will make a major effort to suppress the price. But, if the price is suppressed, there will not be enough to go around to everyone. Rolling blackouts will need to be used ration what is available.

  2. Fast Eddy says:

    Hey what will happen if I leave some thread replies open before the 3 week limit hits and keep posting… let’s try that

    • You need worthwhile things to say. All threads stop at the same time, as far as I know.

      I can put up posts that are in moderation at the time of the shutdown.

  3. Mirror on the wall says:

    It turns out that it was not a smart move for the Tories and Labour to tell Scots that they are not allowed to vote for independence. Anyone could have told them that. YES has opened up a 12 point lead!

    “SNP depute leader Keith Brown said the poll shows momentum for Yes is ‘rocketing’.”

    > Scottish independence support at 56%, Ipsos Mori poll finds

    SUPPORT for Scotland leaving the Union has risen to a whopping 56 per cent, according to the latest polling from Ipsos Mori.

    The survey, commissioned by STV News as part of the Scottish Political Monitor project, put Yes support up six points since its last poll was carried out in May.

    Over the last 18 months, Yes and No have generally been neck and neck in the polls. The first poll carried out after the Supreme Court result, which said Scotland requires Westminster’s consent to hold indyref2, found 52% support for independence with “don’t knows” removed.

    Now, with “don’t knows” removed, Ipsos has recorded 56% for Yes and 44% for No. If such a result were replicated in a referendum, it would mark a near reversal of the 2014 vote.

    As well as increased support for leaving the Union, the pollster found that the SNP would win a record 58 seats in the next General Election – which the party hopes to use as a de facto referendum on independence.

    When respondents were asked how they would vote in such a de facto referendum, 53% said they’d back the SNP. A further 2% would vote Green, taking the pro-independence vote share to 55%.

    In such an election Scottish Labour would win a single seat, while the LibDems and Tories would be completely wiped out north of the Border.

    SNP depute leader Keith Brown said the poll shows momentum for Yes is “rocketing”.

    “For too long, Tories and Labour have claimed now is not the time for the people of Scotland to choose their own future,” he said. “This poll shows clearly the people think now is the time – the Westminster parties need to recognise and respect that.”

    He went on: “No Westminster politician can stand in the way of the Scottish people. To escape the damage of Brexit that both Labour and the Tories back, and to protect Scotland from Westminster governments Scotland doesn’t vote for, we need to choose an independent future.”

    • Ed says:

      It is time to throw off the yoke of Norman oppression! The Scots will have the North Sea oil and fish. The invaders will have nothing.

  4. Student says:


    What everyone calls “anti-Covid vaccines” are actually drugs (which has precise pharmacological, clinical, legal and regulatory implications). Interview with Marco Cosentino, MD and professor of Pharmacology at the University of Insubria and director of the Center for Research in Medical Pharmacology at the same university.’

    Related scientific study, here:

    Thus it is more correct to say that people took experimental drugs injected directly in the blood.
    That sounds more precise.

    • Thanks! You are right. The abstract says:


      Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) mRNA vaccines are the mainstays of mass vaccination campaigns in most Western countries. However, the emergency conditions in which their development took place made it impossible to fully characterize their effects and mechanism of action. Here, we summarize and discuss available evidence indicating that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines better reflect pharmaceutical drugs than conventional vaccines, as they do not contain antigens but an active SARS-CoV-2 S protein mRNA, representing at the same time an active principle and a prodrug, which upon intracellular translation results in the endogenous production of the SARS-CoV-2 S protein. Both vaccine-derived SARS-CoV-2 S protein mRNA and the resulting S protein exhibit a complex pharmacology and undergo systemic disposition. Defining COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as pharmaceutical drugs has straightforward implications for their pharmacodynamic, pharmacokinetic, clinical and post-marketing safety assessment. Only an accurate characterization of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines as pharmaceutical drugs will guarantee a safe, rational and individualized use of these products.

  5. Jackson says:

    All three kids. Evil. And she’s begging for money.

    • “I can confirm this is all true, all 3 of our kids were in the Pfizer Covid Vaccine trial for 12-15yo. My daughter was severely injured and hidden. There was no way to report serious adverse events through the trialsite app, the only thing monitored after 2wks is covid infection.”

  6. MM says:

    Here is some info on the price cap for Russian crude:

    It seems for the moment it works, somewhat….

    • Withnail says:

      Really? Are there any examples of a European buyer insisting they pay $60 a barrel and Russia agreeing to that?

      That’s what I would define as the price cap working.

      • The cap seems to apply to a certain net price. Sometimes quoted prices include shipping costs and insurance costs. It is hard to tell from a quoted price whether it is directly comparable to the cap.

    • The one-day impact:

      “Yet while the price of Brent rose slighly on the first day of the price cap, the price for the Russian benchmark Urals crude actually fell, from $63.85 per barrel on December 2 to $61.94 at the close of trading on December 5.

      At a minimum, the price cap has apparently already succeeded in depriving Russia of $2 per barrel in oil revenue.

      However, the immediate effect of the cap appears to bite deeper than just that minor reduction in the spot price of Urals crude. Presumably because of the cap, the cost of shipping Russian oil has doubled thus far in December.”

      Russia can partly avoid this higher shipping cost by using its own fleet.

      We don’t yet know the longer term impact.

      • Student says:

        My impression is that more than a problem about price (about which Russia can do what it wants in relation to what agreed with China, India, Turkey or Arab Countries), the problem is more about how that oil can arrive without problems to its buyers, including its insurance protection.
        Russia depends on mutual agreements with those Countries.
        At the same if those Countries really want to be free by financial US+EU power, they need to collaborate with Russia in order to create another safe system.
        Otherwise they will be always submissive and they should not complain if they want to be independet in the future.
        So at the moment it is more a problem about if there will be collaboration or not among them.
        My concern is that, as Russia is very determined about not being submissive, if it will be put in a corner, it will become dangerous, like when one is aggressive towards a cat and one doesn’t leave any way out free to it.

    • reante says:

      If, as according to Norm’s worldview, all is as it appears to be, then if I was Russia I would be super pissed if China and India take advantage of the price cap in order to maximize their discount. And if I were the West that would be the main point of the price cap. As Russia, China and India taking advantage of me would cause me distance myself from them and make a beeline for autarky while raising the nuclear stakes with the West.

      According to the HTOE, though, if China and India are taking advantage of the price cap then that’s just part of the Horsetrading. There’s no i in team.

      • Reante, you make a good point: “As Russia, China and India taking advantage of me would cause me distance myself from them and make a beeline for autarky while raising the nuclear stakes with the West.”

  7. Fast Eddy says:

    Something Is Not Right at Musk’s Twitter, Is it Good or Bad? Who is Alexander Macgillivray?

    Evidence shows the Twitter files aren’t what we’re told they are

    In the latest of a string of travesties, Duke University surgeons are now refusing a 14-year-old girl a kidney transplant because she has not received the Covid jab!

    • MM says:

      I heard the message well: “Go die!”

    • davidinamonthorayearoradecade says:

      Jim Baker was formerly a top FBI lawyer who then became the top Twitter lawyer.

      last week when Musk released the internal Twitter Laptop-from-hell files/emails to journalist Matt Taibbi, it turned out that Musk didn’t realize that Baker basically intercepted the files and was deleting everything in them that had to do with the FBI.

      after discovering this, Musk terminated Baker on Tuesday.

      there are many layers to the cooperation between Dems/DNC/MSM/FBI/gov in their covert corrruption.

      at least Musk is exposing some of it.

  8. Fast Eddy says:

    Hahaha.. Man of the Year!

    Guess who… come on guess…

    Actually – he deserves this — between lines of blow he’s doing a great job convincing the mob that their sky high energy bills are caused by Poo-tin. And that is keeping despair from burning down BAU prematurely

  9. Rodster says:

    When Fast talks about the moreons and the stoopidity of well the moreons, this is what he probably means. 🤓

    “I tattooed my eyeballs purple and blue—now I’m going blind”

  10. Fast Eddy says:

    Oh and the menstrual thing… I don’t think many women will be showing up and revealing they are bleeding out … so that’s one vax injury that stays hidden

  11. Fast Eddy says:

    Utopia – Season 3

    If you recall in Season 2 it was revealed that a select group had been chosen who would not be sterilized and thus could continue to breed. In S3 this group is identified and referred to as the Pure Bloods. Also in S3 it is revealed that the Pure Bloods were chosen using the vaccine as a test of intelligence. The MOREONS are those who failed and they are exterminated by various means including vax death and VAIDS.

    Stay tuned for S4 – BAU Lite – 30 Years

    swedish birthrate data: september update
    extreme low fertility persists and mRNA vaccines look more and more like the culprit,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/

  12. Late to the Party says:

    I think some social and psychological factors are really going to speed our descent.
    In particular by the sort of people that enjoy chaos for it’s own sake. Like those during the BLM riots, (sorry, peaceful protests), that smashed windows of ANY building just for the thrill of it. And all the fires that got set! I wondered if these people were the discontented that Freud wrote about.
    It talks about the fundamental antagonism and difficulty of the individual to fit into the demands of a civilization. At 15:50 Freud’s death drive is the foremost barrier to civilization, and a portion of the drive is diverted to the real world and comes to light as aggressiveness and destructiveness.
    I think this death drive could rise and fall in civilizations as conditions change. The BLM riots took place in times of relative plenty. I think in times of hardship they will be worse.
    Will the elite be able to restrain that drive? I don’t think so. It would be hard to control people who feel they have nothing left to lose. I expect them to try.

    • reante says:

      I expect them to try, too, and that attempt will be the national socialisms.

      I know that death drive well. It is inside me. I chose Life instead, but it still burns, as fed by the ties that bind.

Comments are closed.