A Global Awakening
What are the problems of the world today?
Asking this is akin to asking an individual about their personal problems, and likewise there are superficial problems and deep seated problems. I'm interested in the deep seated problems.
If our global society where an individual, we'd say that its problems were suicidal -- pertaining to survival. Why? Because surely on anyone's list would be the destruction of the environment (e.g., climate change) and the possibility of nuclear war, and both are existential problems.
What will it take to solve these problems? What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? (To name only two.)
At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening -- similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale.
Will it happen? Is it happening already? Is this even what's truly needed? Why a global scale and not simply a conversion of those who hold the levers of power in the world today?
Thoughts welcome.
Asking this is akin to asking an individual about their personal problems, and likewise there are superficial problems and deep seated problems. I'm interested in the deep seated problems.
If our global society where an individual, we'd say that its problems were suicidal -- pertaining to survival. Why? Because surely on anyone's list would be the destruction of the environment (e.g., climate change) and the possibility of nuclear war, and both are existential problems.
What will it take to solve these problems? What will it take to eradicate nuclear weapons and reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero? (To name only two.)
At this point, I think what's needed is an awakening -- similar to a religious conversion in the sense of a complete change in perspective, and one that has to be reached on a global scale.
Will it happen? Is it happening already? Is this even what's truly needed? Why a global scale and not simply a conversion of those who hold the levers of power in the world today?
Thoughts welcome.
Comments (112)
Force feed a pile of magic mushrooms to the worlds leaders and elite classes. The problems will resolve. :wink:
:wink: I know you're joking, but I've actually wondered about the role of drugs. Look at the movements of the 1960s and look at what drugs were being used there versus say the 1980s. I personally think there's a lot to gain from psychedelic substances. Painkillers, cocaine, and alcohol -- not so much (but they have their place!).
I wasnt joking, not really. There is more and more research and knowledge about psychedelics and there uses. Treatment for PTSD chief among them.
We are also learning more about addiction and its relation to drugs.
I just think people generally lack perspective, and get locked into one way of thinking , a little understanding goes a long way and psychedelics or a nig bag of weed can help with that.
Good question.
I think what can be said for sure is that communism can't be the answer. Environmental pollution was appalling in the Soviet Union and continues to be a huge problem in China which is ruled by the Communist Party.
Capitalism also seems to create some problems.
So, I tend to think that either (a) we create a new culture, religion, and political-economic system, or (b) we return to an old one from the time before all these problems started.
Bah. If we only had a magic bullet. In my experience, when people are told the severity of the two examples you provide, they tend to shrug or say something to the effect of "we're doomed" (using more forceful language).
I suspect that the very real problem of social alienation is the biggest culprit here, preventing people from seeing how masses can change laws to attain a more just future.
To be sure, our leaders will react once the sea enters land or they suffer severe skin burns from being outside for a few minutes or from the shortage of water. But then we're in a Mad Max territory.
The only thing that seems to me plausible is to have people focus on one concrete project related to these issues, say, closing one pipeline or reducing the budget of the military a little in a certain project.
But aside from this, I have nothing. Pessimism is easy, I know. But if it's true for the species, then it's a given. We don't know yet and I hope I'm wrong. I would not hold my breath.
Not to get into too much detail for the answer, but I would guess it to be at least 90% of the population.
Myself included.
Back in the hippie sixties, the prophecy of a new awakening was called the Age of Aquarius : a new astrological cycle of peace & love. Thus began a long slow process of Consciousness Raising. And in the eighties, physicist Fritjof Capra wrote a book entitled The Turning Point. He called on scientists to make it happen : "to round the great turn from hard, mechanistic, reductionist science to soft, organic, systems-view science". Then in 2000, Malcom Gladwell wrote The Tipping Point, which described the viral spread of memes, hopefully, as a "social epidemic" of new thinking. Now, after years of promoting the meme of Global Warming -- which at first was misunderstood as only a matter of temperature -- the "problem" of Ecological Climate Change is widespread in the western world. But still, we look around and think : "why haven't we yet reached the promised peak of the tipping point, that heralds a New Awakening".
Practically speaking, I would guess that most Tipping Points in history were not necessarily a sudden dramatic turn of events, but a gradual evolution from an old worldview to a newer perspective. Hegel's Dialectic made the twists & turns of history sound like a neck-jerking experience of zigs & zags. But in retrospect, it often took centuries for an old epoch to be transformed into something recognizable as a new era. For example, it took three centuries for the "religious conversion" of Christianity, from a minor Jewish sect into a global imperial religion. So, if you look at the world from a broader evolutionary perspective, maybe you will see a, volatile but gradual, conversion from "dark ages" to "enlightenment", that has not yet reached perfection. But then, according to Hegel, it never does -- just Yinning & Yanging from Conservative to Liberal, and back again. Nevertheless, he was optimistic that the "spirit of history" would eventually evolve toward perfection at some future Omega Point. :cool:
http://bothandblog3.enformationism.info/page28.html
If it happens, it will absorb all existing frameworks into itself, as Christianity did. There would need to be a prophet. There would be various factions that eventually give way to one dominant outlook, backed by military power.
The alternative is that we won't hang together as a species. We could start divergently evolving as each portion of the species adapts to its own piece of the changing environment.
Some portion might retain a high level of technology and eventually leave the planet.
I came of age in 1968, 'the year the world changed'. This idea was everywhere at that time, as Gnomon says above. I was convinced a completely new way of existence was coming into being.
It's difficult to relate to those who didn't go through it exactly how different everything seemed for that period But it lives on, through the IT revolution - many of the seminal founders, like Steve Jobs, and others, were very much part of that. The environmental movement and green left politics are a consequence also. Many elements of popular culture, diffuse but identifiable - ideas of higher consciousness, pluralism, the sexual revolution.
But the countervailing forces are also extremely powerful. The so-called conservative movement in the USA is deeply rooted in unawareness and psychopathology. But Western culture is also fundamentally resistant to the kinds of changes that are needed. It's a very complex problem, but one of the things that Western consumer culture is really good at, is making life comfortable for those who are lucky enough to be part of it. That also tends to mitigate against change.
I often feel as though there will be either a catastrophic change, or a huge shakeup, in the near future, due to our colliding with resource shortages and environmental change. But then, my father, in the 1970's, thought that by year 2000 the world was bound to be gripped by Malthusian problems and there would be global famine, and he was wrong about that. So I don't know. But I think the kind of awakening that is needed, is a realignment of culture so that material acquisition is not the only aim of existence. And that will take an enormous change.
I think so too. But short of legalizing it all and then putting it in everyone's water, I don't know how long it'd take for enough people to do it, and what the results will be. I think it's one possible tool in a movement, like the 60s, but isn't necessarily a magic bullet in itself, if you take my meaning.
Quoting Apollodorus
I don't think communism is the solution either, but capitalism hasn't simply created some problems in my view -- it is the main driver of this problem. Not because we need fossil fuels for transportation and plastics and whatnot, but because it is fundamentally a system based on greed, on profit. If that's the objective of this game, then it really shouldn't be a wonder why we haven't long ago left fossil fuels behind -- given that we already have solutions. Mostly it's come down to money and the power of the fossil fuel industry to deliberately sow confusion and to lobby to prevent legislation, regulation, or budgeting to promote renewables (including nuclear).
So perhaps the answer is a "better" capitalism -- which has been tried and which has given better results than the neoliberal version -- or essentially no capitalism at all. But even if it's the latter case, it's still not a matter of capitalism vs. communism as the only choices.
Quoting Manuel
I think this is probably correct, yes. A huge factor. That social alienation, passivity, apathy, or hopelessness themselves are what I mean by an "awakening" too -- waking us all from that state of mind.
Quoting Manuel
I think this is true too. Gotta only act locally -- put your head down and get to work where you are. Talking about this with others is key -- spreading awareness. It really is the issue of our time.
Quoting Gnomon
Why is "problem" in quotation marks? And what do you mean by "promised peak of the tipping point" in this context? Because it seems to me you're confusing climate tipping points with what I'm talking, which is a change in perspective.
I'm really not sure what you're driving at with these examples.
Quoting frank
Maybe. I think what is really needed is to simply recognize what's really happening. That's easier said than done, although it's not complicated stuff once it's pointed out to you. We're heading for suicide, and we need to do something about it, and no one seems to be taking it seriously enough. In that situation, where people are existentially wrong about things, it's hard to see what else can save us besides a religious-like awakening. We all seem so stuck in business-as-usual, with our heads down in our phones, it's hard to imagine an alternative. I think the only way that happens is through what the Christians did: evangelizing. Spreading the word, living by example, etc. The way any religion or philosophy spreads. We need that -- minus the religion and philosophy labels. We simply need a new way of seeing and thinking.
Quoting Wayfarer
Very true. I think there are deeply embedded reasons for why we're heading to suicide, and they lie in Western history and culture -- and therefore in many ways in Christianity and science, which are both nihilistic (channelling Nietzsche here). We can also point to the economic system of capitalism that rose from Western soil and the technology that's arisen from Western science -- from the industrial revolution to the current information age. It's all connected, but I think Nietzsche was on to something with his analysis of European values and his warnings about nihilism.
Maybe one hope is the East, so at this point China. But even they are capitalists now, and are in fact outperforming the capitalists. That doesn't leave us much hope, short of a complete re-orientation or as Kuhn put it a "paradigm shift," in this case a spiritual one.
Quoting Wayfarer
Here's the thing that's strange: what if your father was RIGHT? He could have very well been. "Well it didn't happen" people often say if negative predictions don't come true, but we ignore the fact that these warnings changed things. To me it's like saying "The asteroid didn't hit earth -- so much for all those alarmists!"
We do know what's going to happen: we're dead. But that's *if* we don't do anything. We can't wait around and see if the scientists all have it wrong; they either do or we're toast. There's a third option: do things now to prevent it from happening.
I'm sure you take my point, but I felt it worth pointing out.
Exactly. Such an enormous shift of consciousness that one can only compare it to religion.
Maybe Heidegger was right: "Only a god can save us."
Well, yeah - my dad wasn't just any dad - he was a senior medical consultant to the WHO on population control. He worked in Geneva during the early 70's and helped run congresses on population control in India. He was ob-gyn at the time of the introduction of the Pill - he read the Club of Rome reports which were published in the 60's, and very pessimistic.
Quoting Xtrix
Sure do.
Quoting Xtrix
Well that actually drove some of the 60's counter-culture. You may not recall the Whole Earth Catalog, but it was very much about that. Another set of books that deeply influenced me back then were Theodore Roszak's books, Making of a Counter Culture and Where the Wasteland Ends. Many of the sixties idealists were deeply into those ideas, but they were always very niche in their appeal. Maybe their time will come, too. It should! (Actually, have a look at some of the essays on David Loy's site, https://www.davidloy.org/articles.html - his writings on ecological economics are really good. )
Or Kurtzweil + Brin: Only a "singularity" can "uplift" us.
Humankind has a blind-spot because you believe religious, political and economic ideology describes the world, you can't even 'see' a scientific understanding of reality.
You don't appreciate that the science is true of reality, relative to the ideology - which is all just made up. You believe ideology, because you draw your identities and purposes from it. The means to secure a prosperous sustainable future is externalised by your ideological worldviews; by your very identities, and not even the supposed philosophers here can bare to look beyond.
In scientific and technological terms, it's not difficult to secure a prosperous and sustainable future. Instead, this:
Quoting Wayfarer
I've explained why this is wrong. It leads to authoritarian government imposing poverty forever after for the sake of sustainability. It will not work; not least because poor people breed more - and as such implies ever less resources, shared between ever more people.
It's a simple matter of physics that we need massively more energy - not less! A future with less energy spent on it will be worse - in every way. Civilisation is a designed structure - constantly falling apart due to entropy, and constantly maintained through the expenditure of energy. Without the energy to spend, things will just fall apart.
The energy we need is there, beneath our feet - a huge ball of molten rock, 4000 miles deep and 26,000 miles around; a virtually limitless source of clean energy, we could harness to meet and exceed our current energy demand, capture carbon, desalinate, irrigate, produce hydrogen fuel, recycle. With magma energy, we could transcend the limits to resources equation - and make the deserts bloom if we so chose.
If you will read the post slowly, you might catch the point of putting "problem" in quotes. Here's a hint : every generation has faced the same general "problem". The attempt to raise consciousness of the dangers of Climate Change is just one more of society's challenges that requires a "change in perspective". But, don't worry, the worldview problem of previous generations tends be forgotten by the current generation, as we face the same viewpoint "problem" under a new name. :smile:
There's pretty widespread recognition of the problem. China is building nuclear power plants, which is what we all should be doing.
It's pretty normal for humans to wait until the shit hits the fan to act.
Do you have any citations for that? Are there scientists lobbying for it, or interest groups? I never read anything about it in the media, or not that I notice, so I'm wondering if it does have the transformative potential you claim it does.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/06/23/climate-change-future-impact-life-earth-united-nations/5326888001/
The idea that dosing world leaders with lsd would lead to peace was popular within the counterculture and one that lTimothy Leary fervently believed in. In fact, he thought that every major advance in human culture was associated with with use of a drug of some kind.
He found , however, that chemicals alone do not determine imagination. In his autobiography he recounted the story of trying to turn on Jack Kerouac and Arthur Koestler, only to be disappointed by their underwhelming reaction to the lsd experience.
That's interesting, thanks for sharing. But I can't say I'm suprised.
How can people really expect drugs to change people so drastically? It's quite naïve to assume that just because one has had a deep experience, others will too. I know it's a different kind of drug, but just look at how people react to alcohol. You get everything out of that: happy, depressive, violent, funny, etc.
The problem is deeper than that, I think.
Thank you, I will.
Quoting 180 Proof
I can't say I know who those people are, or what that means.
Quoting counterpunch
Sorry to hear that, but defeatism guarantees the worst.
Quoting StreetlightX
I would include class consciousness as a particularly important type of awakening. Given capitalism is basically a religion, to raise this consciousness would be on par with a religious conversion.
Quoting counterpunch
Such nonsense.
Quoting Gnomon
No, they haven't. The problems we currently face are unparalleled. With the exception of nuclear weapons, we're in uncharted territory.
Quoting frank
They're also building coal plants. Nuclear power is a good option, but not the only one. It's a favorite of Republicans because it doesn't threaten their fossil fuel interests. But there's no way around it: we stop burning fossil fuels or we die. We have a couple decades to decide, maybe less.
The energy is there; it's just a matter of tapping into it safely, at a sufficiently high temperature, and at a workable and affordable depth for drilling - which in turn will be a matter of identifying specific geological formations. I haven't read any studies on exploiting very high temperature geothermal close to volcanic features.
Geothermal energy in Iceland and New Zealand harnesses heat from volcanic springs - with a maximum temperature, even under pressure - of 150'C ish. I'm looking for 700'C minimum - and believe there's cubic miles upon cubic miles of rock heated to that temperature, it would be possible to drill through.
There are questions of materials science - because the boreholes need to be lined with pipes. These need to be super-smooth on the inside, and be able to stand heat and pressure. So, there's a lot to work out. It is to be done; but there are around 450 volcanoes in the Pacific Ring of Fire alone.
Converting heat into electricity is well established technology - as is converting electrical energy into hydrogen fuel for transport. Given a running start, I could easily foresee fleets of hydrogen powered tankers delivering clean fuel all around the world.
Quoting Wayfarer
Oddly, the fact that "no one else thinks that" - to paraphrase your meaning, has absolutely no bearing whatever on my opinion that the technology is viable, and that a massive input of clean energy, particularly now - would be transformative. I can think of nothing more hopeful than a viable plan to overcome climate change.
Yeah, I don't think it's simply a matter of taking a drug. But they've also been shown to be very beneficial in therapeutic settings -- MDMA, psilocybin, LSD, etc -- and so can be a helpful tool to break people out of their usual mental and behavioral patterns. Even marijuana can have that effect. But it all depends on the setting and the person taking it, their expectations and disposition.
As I said before, putting LSD in the water isn't the answer to anything.
Well, sure, but someone being enthusiastic about it does not constitute a viable plan, unless you're in a position do something about it.
//I've googled it. What I appear to find is that geothermal energy is indeed an energy source, has some pros, some cons, is location dependent, is expensive. Nothing that says geothermal energy is the panacea for all the world's energy problems. //
I had such experiences. They are truly mind- and eye-opening. Best to keep shtum, though - society takes a dim view. Besides, those days are long gone, for me anyway.
Talk about yet another form of authoritarianism! Mandatory drugging!
One approach would be to divorce the materialist mindset from the prevailing materialist worldview. Because, materialists are materialistic. Else have no cogent reason not to be. But, yes, this is unfair: “Greed is good!” is nowadays a staple implicit slogan for most JC fanatics as well, to name just one religious group among many. Because, like, that’s what JC was teaching, right? Meanwhile, the Flynn effect appears to have started reversing since the about the mid-1990s. But our politicians are probably unconcerned about this because unintelligent/uneducated populaces are easier to manipulate and thereby control, bringing in more profits to boot. Still, it does bum me out personally, in part because I blame this reversal on why I don’t like today’s music as much.
OK, blowing off a wee bit of steam as diplomatically as I could. Less juvenilely, I don’t believe the end of the human species is near. But I do believe that when you place fire at people’s feet they start moving. Global warming will do this. Our current economic globalization will be followed by political globalization, if for no other reason, to govern cash flows. My leading concern as regards the humanity I’m a part of (regardless of how many billions it will consist of) is whether it will result in a globalized 1984 or a globalized republic aiming toward a non-hyperbolic global democracy. The latter I know will be laughed at by many. And for me this laughter ties into my juvenilely written portion above. Hence my concern.
For me, the leading problem is one of values held and aspired toward by the majority of humans inhabiting this earth: both those in power and those who grant them their power. And aims such as those of love, peace, and understanding cannot be obtained by coercion. (Caveat: I’m by now jaded as hell myself.)
But yea, a global awakening: good stuff that I’m all for.
ps. Haven't done hallucinogens, but I have read "Naked Lunch".
In their minds, many people already seem to be firmly in Mad Max territory anyway. They have a "survival of the fittest" and "life is a struggle for survival" mentality already, even when externally they seem like relatively peaceful members of the (upper) middle class or those aspiring to be so. It's why threats of the negative consequences of global warming, pollution, depletion of natural resources have no effect on them: it's the default they live in in their minds anyway. By pointing those out to them, you're not telling them anything new. If they seem like they don't care or like they're in denial, that has to do only with how they handle that particular conversation with you, but it doesn't accurately reflect their state of mind.
Rather, the actual problem is that psychology and our official notions of normalcy have been written by closet hippies.
In that case you’re likely to know the origin of the name of my favourite band.
Actually, a few dozen nukes detonated over the main United States and Chinese cities would largely take care of the climate change problem, at least temporarily, by bringing global GHG emissions way down. So maybe the devil can save us.
The word geothermal covers a wide range of technologies, from low temperature heat difference for domestic use, right through to volcanic springs. My approach is different again; it's very high temperature geothermal - produced by drilling close to magma chambers and subduction zones in the earth's crust. I mentioned above, I'm looking for temperatures around 700'C. It's magma energy; not geothermal as we know it!
The evaporate - probably water, would be contained in pipes - and heated to 700 degrees to produce superheated steam. This is important, because it's the expansion of water superheated to 700'C - that produces the power.
This can be shown with reference to early steam engines - and the problems they had with condensation lowering the steam pressure. Ribbed boilers! What were they thinking?
So for various reasons - working examples of geothermal in the US, Philippines, Indonesia, Mexico, Italy, New Zealand, Iceland and Japan, are not wholly indicative of what I have in mind. Clearly though, there's vast amounts of energy there, and we need it to balance human welfare and environmental sustainability.
Got anything published?
Sure, it's a default position the whole survival of the fittest mind set, which puts emphasis on everyone to only care about themselves. At the same time, a lot of people really feel completely helpless. The whole Mad Max thing may be what they think the world is currently like, but it's going to get much worse.
But I don't understand the closet hippies comment.
We're probably going to die then. North America has like 200 years worth of coal to burn. Gimungous.
Well said. This is also what I mean by awakening. A paradigm shift, a revolution -- all similar: a major, far-reaching event that happens relatively quickly.
Maybe. But again, it's up to all of us. It's not like an asteroid -- this is self-inflicted, and can be stopped. It'll be difficult, but not impossible. It can be achieved by spending something like 3% of GDP a year according to Robert Pollin.
Large asset managers are shifting their AUM to ESGs, solar and wind are cheaper to build, major automobile makers are going fully EV by 2035, and increasing majorities are concerned and want something done quickly (here). To name a few glimmers of hope.
So I don't think it's inevitable at all -- we just have to wake up.
Quoting Wayfarer
Thank you for your question. No. I haven't tried to publish anything - except here, where, with all due respect to the moderators, the editorial standards are virtually non existent! The problem is that, it's such a large subject area - a quality piece of readable length, could only cover a tiny part of the whole. I'm trying to reveal a vista - and here seems the perfect place to do that. Low resolution, broad brush strokes, immediate - if somewhat indifferent audience.
Awesome
The dream of a global awakening is an age-old wish. But I think it’s wrong-headed , and comparable to wishing that all species of animals were to awaken and begin exhibiting the same behavior. But just as animal species occupy diverse niches for a reason, so do human communities identify with diverse worldviews. Not only will we never get these communities to ‘awaken’ to the same understanding on any issue , we shouldn’t consider it a desirable goal. I think we will eventually overcome our climate challenges, but it wo nt be because our interpretation of the issues involved , the validity of the science or the means of resolution. will have achieved some sort of planetary consensus.
I can't see a way we survive unless there's wide-scale awareness and prioritization of this particular problem. That doesn't mean I think it'll happen.
It'll take a lot of education, organization, conversations with one another, practical (and local) efforts, etc. All possible, many of it going on right now. It's just pure delusion to consider this anything but desirable.
One could make the same argument about World war 1, World war 2 and the Cold war. People make accommodations to alien cultures ( peace treaties) and adjustments to perceived threats from within their own way of seeing the world , not by melding into a single universal perspective.
Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.
I'll repeat: what's needed is wide-scale awareness and prioritization of the particular problem (climate change). Without it, it's business as usual and we're toast. This has nothing to do with World War 1 and 2 or the Cold War. It's pure delusion not to recognize this.
We get it right all the time, every day in fact. This is just another stupid talking point used whenever climate change is brought up. You're not fooling me or anyone else.
My point is that there will never be precise agreement , nor does there need to be, on what exactly the ‘particular problem’ is. There is already wide-scale
awareness of something called ‘climate change’ , but what exactly this means varies widely according to political affiliation , etc. More scare tactics from the left will just backfire.
What issue one considers worth prioritizing is a function of how seriously one considers the threat , which is itself a function. of how one construes the issue. You will not get right wing conservatives to see the issue in the way climate scientists do , because this is t about facts, it’s about complex worldviews within which the facts appear as what they are. Complex worldviews are extremely resistant to change. If you want to influence climate skeptics and others who are slow to act , you have to connect with their worldview and work with them from within those bounds rather than trying to get them on the same page as the climate scientists. Without your help, conservatives will eventually arrive at the realization of the necessity to act. Will it be too late?No. It would obviously be preferable from our vantage if they felt a greater sense of urgency right now , but I suspect they are going to have to be pushed to the precipice in order to act. That will be costly financially as well as in terms of lives and quality of life, but I don’t see any alternative.
The scale of the problem is almost mind boggling. Population growth in Sub-Saharan Africa across the century even for low level projections is astounding. A region that just passed a billion people five years ago will be more populous than all of Asia by 2100. More than half of all children on Earth will live in SSA (and this supposed massive out migration as well).
The obvious problem is that areas of SSA, with the exception of Bangladesh, will be the high density population areas most effected. Part of this is geography (Bangladesh for example is vulnerable due to its low elevation), and another large part is state capacity and resources. You have a situation where there is exponential population growth even as the climate deteriorates as state capacity is low, or as is the case in areas of CAR and the DRC, practically non-existent.
Just as the threat of WWI could be seen on the decades leading up to it, we now have the setting for a disaster that could dwarf both the World Wars emerging.
The effects in wealthier nations might be mitigated, although prior evidence suggests the influx of people fleeing distressed areas could easily lead to a destablization or even collapse in governance. Without strong states, mitigation will likely only occur in wealthy pockets, with investment at the local level.
So for example, the Las Vegas strip might be saved, even as the city is abandoned.
There is 97% + agreement on what the problem is -- from those in the field. That's good enough for me.
I'm not interested in the minority who have been brainwashed into denialism by the fossil fuel propaganda juggernaut, I'm interested only in those who either don't know enough about it or know but don't prioritize it.
That’s good enough for me, too, but this thread isnt talking about us, it’s talking about the large number of people who are doubtful it’s as big or immediate a problem as the scientists claim it to be. Quoting Xtrix
First of all, this is a very large minority. Secondly, believing the opposition is simply ‘brainwashed’ rather than operating from an entirely different frame of understanding than yours will keep you tied up in knots.
“Who mentioned anything about a "single universal perspective"? You're arguing against self-created phantoms.”
Assuming that those who disagree with you on this issue are brainwashed pre-supposes that facts can be separated from perspectives and values.
No, actually it isn't. If you're talking about the United States, it's fairly large -- but still a minority. Most of them are immobile, and I have no hope or interest in converting them.
Quoting Joshs
So you're going to keep arguing nonsense, I see. I should just ignore it, but I won't:
Of COURSE they are operating from a "different frame of reference." So are ISIS, so are Creationists, so were the Nazis. What good do you think you're doing pointing out truisms like this? Do you really think I've overlooked this fact -- a fact that a child could grasp?
One can "operate from a different frame of reference" and be brainwashed. That's what's happening with climate denial. No, I'm not "tied up in knots" about it -- I have very little hatred for ignorant or brainwashed people, despite the consequences of their deluded beliefs. But there's simply not enough time to try to "convince" people who are already deeply caught in propaganda. This shouldn't be hard to understand, but please continue arguing on anyway...
Quoting Joshs
No, it proves that some perspectives are WRONG. Yes, I do believe in truth. Call me crazy.
But in any case, you're just changing the subject. I never once said there needs to be a "single universal perspective." Not once. That, as I said before, is your own fantasy.
No, I think your statement below articulates what I had in mind more clearly than ‘single universal perspective’.
Quoting Xtrix
Which one of these has come true?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_predicted_for_apocalyptic_events
What we really DO NOT NEED are religious awakenings, mantras that repeated as pseudo-religious chants without much if any thought given to what actually is said. Keep religion away. These problems will not be solved by faith based strategies, on the contrary!
What we need is clear thinking and sound approaches to how to solve problems that take into considerations various points of view, factors and data. The boring complex engineering stuff, the extremely annoying political consensus building. To the idealist yearning for a new World, this all is a disappointment. But idealists shouldn't make the decisions, their role is to get others to think about the issues, not to decide what is done. And hell with the neo-religious moral babble!!!
Quoting Xtrix
Starting with those.
So what is the problem you have with volcanoes erupting or natural forest fires? Just look at what you write and consider it taken literally.
Zero emissions.
All greenhouse gas emissions.
I guess I committed a crime tonight when I warmed the water front sauna with couple pieces of wood. And in the winter, guess I cannot heat the summerplace using wood either. Better just rely on the electricity produced by a nuclear plant and buy more electric heaters.
And then the nukes. How about other WMDs? And where do you draw the line then? Can there be a thing called military deterrence or is that bad too? Is military strategy allowed? How about the possibility that we would have more wars, more conflict when there would be no WMDs? Or is that a morally wrong question to even utter in the new religious awakening?
Complex problems have to tackled without having moral blinders on.
"Humans are notoriously awful at predicting the future."
You didn't say anything about apocalypse.
True, maybe the world isn't destroyed by climate change or nuclear weapons. Which is like saying "Maybe the asteroid will miss us, despite scientists telling us there's 99% likelihood that it will". After all, Nostradamus was wrong.
Climate change not only will radically alter the world, it already has. There is also the possibility of tipping points, which are irreversible -- for anyone willing to read what the scientists are telling us. Or we can take your attitude: maybe they're all wrong. Yeah, maybe there won't be an solar eclipse on April 4th, 2024. Maybe? Who knows? The Aztecs were way off, remember.
Yes, because that's such a controversial statement.
Even Nietzsche would be laughing at you.
Yeah, perhaps you missed the "similar" part, which is crucial. No one, least of all me, is advocating for a particular religion.
Quoting ssu
How disingenuous. You got me! Well done. I again made the fatal mistake of thinking I was writing for adults.
Quoting ssu
Yeah, and don't forget exhaling. Because that's definitely what I meant too.
That is a good start.
Yet my main point is that a "religious" approach is easy, but can be very counterproductive. Our society and nature are so complex, that the short nice sounding solutions can actually be really bad. A person wanting to commit into something good, the simple easy solutions might be the ones they tug along with. Yet if you start from a moral stance, then you won't be listening to the counterpoints. All people will hear is that someone is attacking a good moral value.
--The Antichrist
He certainly was laughing at something.
“It is no more than a moral prejudice that the truth is worth more than appearance; in fact, it is the world's most poorly proven assumption.”
“The world with which we are concerned is false, i.e., is not fact but fable and approximation on the basis of a meager sum of observations; it is "in flux," as something in a state of becoming, as a falsehood always changing but never getting near the truth: for--there is no "truth" (Nietzsche 1901/1967 Will to Power)
Without taking him to be a demigod, I like much of Nietzsche. But this I think is either flat wrong or else points to deeper truths via equivocation, which Nietzsche was fond of (cf. his notion of virtue).
Either there is a ubiquitous reality we will or will not conform to, or there is no ubiquitous reality: no uni-verse, no cosmos, no reality proper.
Only in the latter case can there be no truth toward which we can approach. And this latter option wherein there is no ubiquitous reality of anything needs some explaining if it is to be taken seriously.
Exactly. Even he would be laughing at you.
Not all perspectives are right. Some further values better than others, according to him. By "truth" he means the ultimate truth of philosophers and theologians.
But again, this is changing the subject: I never once said there needs to be a universal perspective. But to take it out of the abstract bullshit you seem to want to engage in, I'll make it concrete: the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is overwhelming. For all intents and purposes, it's most certainly true that we're heading for disaster unless something is done to prevent or mitigate it.
True, we can deny it by having academic discussions about the nature of "truth", and talk of "alternative facts," etc. That seems to be the popular strategy these days. Glad to see you're helping to spread it.
We shouldn't take it seriously, except when reading Nietzsche or having academic conversations. It's like debating about whether the earth is spherical or gravity exists. Can be fun and interesting, but we'll still walk out the door and not the window (to paraphrase Hume I think).
In the real world, climate change is already happening all around us because of an excessive amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the burning of fossil fuels for human activities like electrical power, transportation, producing cement and steel, etc. Simple. We don't have time to dick around with the nature of "truth."
I do my best.
Quoting Xtrix
All ‘truths’ are mere appearances which emerge out of value systems. I agree that within a particular value system , there are normative conventions and constraints , but value systems continually change and do not become closer to any final truth. Furthermore , one might argue that conservatives are thinking from
within a different value system than liberals. Within the conservative value system, some ideas further values better than others. This is also true of the liberal value system. But what furthers conservative values is not the same as what furthers liberal values.
Will to power marks this endless relativity and flux of value systems. The only ‘truth’ for Nietzsche ( and Heidegger , Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze and others who follow Nietzsche) is this incessant , non-progressing flux of becoming.
Fantastic. Or maybe all value systems are appearances of truths! :chin: :yawn:
This could be , but it would be more consistent with Kerkegaard than Nietzsche.
Yeah, or this -ism or that -ism. (Someone's taken philosophy classes.) All well and good, and I like to classify and define and read and interpret dead thinkers too.
But that's not really this thread. So try the next assignment: try mulling things over for yourself, in particular the real world you're currently living in. Then try to identify the problems, and ask what can be done to solve them -- and where you fit in with those solutions.
That's really the crux of this thread.
I thought we were talking about existential threats and global catastrophe, like climate change and nuclear destruction. Silly me.
I do not dispute climate change and I think protecting the environment is of upmost importance. These are indeed important issues. Whether it is an existential threat I am not so confident. I only think behavior should be influenced by example rather than through religious enthusiasm and tyranny.
Yes, which is a reality — a reality you want to equate with Nostradamus and Revelation.
Quoting NOS4A2
Whether you’re confident or not is irrelevant. Talk to a few experts and survey the evidence— Google “climate tipping points,” etc. See how confident you are then. Is it guaranteed? No. But we should all be acting like it is; if we don’t act that way, and don’t treat it like the emergency it is, we’re dead. That’s obvious. I hope that isn’t the case— but I’m not confident about it.
I thought myself to be aiming for tact there. Speaking for myself, just because something was said by Mr. Nietzsche or some other great doesn’t automatically make that something worth being taken seriously, nor, I’ll say it, true - lest one succumbs to authoritarianism. The ubiquitous truth of there being no ubiquitous truth being one such. I’ll add to the examples you’ve given that of the proverbial ostrich who finds the predator disappears as soon as it places its head in the sand, and then gets gobbled up by the predator. Inaccurate predictive capacity, that. My main point being that truth, which is of itself immaterial, matters more than the material stuff that so many claim to be all there is. But, in guessing your thoughts, I agree that I’m likely digressing.
I’ve heard so called truths from people claiming that the planet is cooling, that global warming is caused by more recent occurrences in the sun making humans not culpable, and so on.
So, in regard to truth, global warming, value schemes, and such, a simple argument for human caused global warming:
P1) The greater the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the greater the planet’s greenhouse effect and the warmer the planet (T/F)
P2) Carbon dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas next to water vapor (T/F).
P3) The burning of organic matter releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (T/F)
P4) Humans require the burning of organic matter to comfortably live (minimally, to cook, to keep warm, and so forth) (T/F)
P5) In the last 200 years, human population has increased nearly eightfold, thereby increasing the burning of organic matter by, minimally, eightfold. (T/F)
Now, in keeping this simple, no mention will be here made of things such as human caused deforestation* and its effects on carbon dioxide. Simply using premises 1-5:
C) In the last 200 years, humans have singlehandedly increased the second most prevalent greenhouse gas by at least eightfold, thereby causing a respective increase in the greenhouse effect, thereby causing an increase in the planet's total heat.
For anyone iffy about human caused global warming: Which of the premises are not sound or how is the conclusion not valid?
-----
* For which quotes such as this can be found:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Recent_history_(1970_onwards)
Maybe it won't be that bad, but it certainly won't be good.
-----
As for those who think such claims are alarmist nonsense, the proverbial ostrich comes to mind. Don't know the extent to which I'm preaching to the choir, but I guess I'll find out.
Yes, I'm in agreement that something about public consciousness needs to change.
But how could that help??
If enough people lived more frugally, the economy as we know it would collapse. So how can that possibly help?
One way or another, a Mad Max scenario seems inevitable.
I don't discuss the science anymore. There's no point.
Our ideas of normalcy were formed by idealists living in times of relative stability and abundance. As such, they are misplaced, anachronistic, counterproductive.
This is excellent. I commend you.
Quoting baker
It would help in myriad ways. If people get educated about this, and awareness is raised, then it'll hopefully lead to higher prioritization. People will thus vote accordingly, and can perhaps adjust their ways of living accordingly (including business and political leaders). If you don't see or understand what the problem is, then talking solutions is moot -- it'd be like the common occurrence of trying to convince someone to stop drinking when they don't see it as a problem.
People are also more likely to come together in organizations, collectively working towards goals, if they recognize a problem. We see this with war and rallying around the flag over foreign invader/attacker.
This is already underway, as I mentioned. It's not just theoretical -- it's happening. But it's not happening quickly enough, and I don't think the fundamental dogma (the religion of neoliberal state capitalism) has been questioned as much as it should be -- although even that is changing.
Lastly, talking about risking the economy "collapsing" is ridiculous. We have an asteroid heading to Earth, and we're worried about whether the cost of blowing it up will sink the economy? It's completely insane.
Your precious economy doesn't mean shit if we're all dead.
Exactly.
People generally seem to believe there is an important difference between intentionally doing something that can result in outcome X, as opposed to going on as usual and letting outcome X happen on its own.
Intentionally becoming frugal is a deliberate attack on the economy that will likely result in its collapse, and relatively quickly at that. This is something people will feel responsible for.
Whereas doing "business as usual", even though it will probably also result in economical collapse, is not such an attack. This is something people will not feel responsible for.
People could probably adapt and become more frugal, and theoretically, this might even be possible to do gradually enough to prevent the economy from collapsing. But by then, it'll probably be too late for the planet.
Yes, but the entire premise is faulty. There's no reason to believe the economy is "collapse," in fact there most economists think it'll result in much more growth. It's a couple industries that need to especially be dismantled, and several practices we need to end or find alternatives for. All are available. But it'll take money and political will. The more we pressure them into it, the better chance we have -- since clearly they won't do it on their own.
I also don't understand this idea of being "frugal." It has almost nothing to do with individual sacrifices, as we're lead to believe. It has to do with legislation and trillions of dollars of investments. These decisions lie in the hands of our leaders, who need to be held accountable. The public didn't choose any of this directly, these are decisions made by people with "special interests," and they simply have more power to influence the world than the vast majority of us. That can change very quickly. Won't be easy.
To protect the environment, people would need to radically decrease consumption in general and establish ways to produce less harmful and longer lasting products.
Quoting Xtrix
How? By inventing new ways of producing electrical energy, inventing wrapping materials that aren't as harmful as plastics, and such?
The way I see it, the problem is in the ordinary greed and gluttony of the everyman, the end consumer. Legislation has no power over those.
I could easily see it going the other way though. You know, that knee-jerk reaction of falling back on the instinct of saving oneself in the first place, and maybe those closest, in bad times.... let's build that wall etc.
I've said this before, but I don't think awareness is the problem, there's already plenty of information available for anyone interested to inform themselves about the problem. People just don't care/ don't want to know/ don't believe we can manage the coordinated action needed to solve the problem...
I find it especially hard to believe that political and business leaders in particular wouldn't know after all this time, especially since this isn't even disputed seriously in science. They know, they just don't have the courage to sell massive and unilateral scaling back of the economy to their people... because let's be honest, one country unilaterally scaling back except for China and maybe the US won't make that big of a difference anyway. You're just running your economy into the ground for little effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
It's a coordination problem hindered by geo-political and economical struggle between world powers. China is good for almost a third of global emissions, if not more by now, and together with the US for almost half of global emissions. They are also the two most powerful countries in the world... they need to move. Problem is the US is seeing China rapidly overtaking the US in economic terms, and political and military power usually follows shortly thereafter. I can't see the US saying, sure let's just speed up that process a little bit more. So ultimately China has to take action, but they have their own problems, and far from reducing them, emissions have skyrocketed the last 20 years. I don't know enough about their particular situation, but it wouldn't surprise me that they just can't turn that around without massive economical and societal problems.
So yeah, anyway you slice it, it's going to hurt.
Production of products comes from major industries, which we use the state to regulate/subsidize/monitor, etc.
Radically decreasing consumption isn't the real issue, although we've been taught to believe it is. So we can stop eating meat, use better lightbulbs, shop at the Farmer's Market, reuse, recycle, get solar panels, etc. -- and it won't do a thing. Even if millions do so. The major emissions come from industry, what gets produced in that industry and how it gets produced. Other countries seem to do it all just fine, with little emissions per capita next to ours, and it's not because the people shut off their lights or are all less materialistic -- it's because their governments put measures in place that reduces emissions -- public transportation systems, renewable energy investments, etc.
Quoting baker
Are you really asking how legislation and trillions of dollars of investments would change carbon emissions? I gave some examples above. Take public transportation. That would be a huge investment, and would save us a lot of pollution and a lot of traffic. People are in favor of it, but aren't given that option -- because investments haven't been made in it, unlike in other countries. Ask yourself why. It's not because of the stupid, ignorant, greedy masses. Likewise with electric cars -- we could very easily subsidize these to lower the costs, and invest in EV stations all over the country. Biden is proposing measures for that as we speak. That's been delayed for decades for a simple reason: the oil, gas, and automobile industries don't want it. That wasn't a choice the people made.
We can go on and on.
Quoting baker
Yeah, this is just a mistake.
Maybe the law has no power over murderers and thieves...? Of course legalization has the power to change a country's collective behavior -- there are plenty of examples.
It's true that information is out there, but unfortunately that doesn't mean much. That's clearly not resulting in a healthier, educated, happier society. What's needed is real education and real awareness. That has to occur from person to person, preferably in the real world, but it can happen online too.
If the issue is that people understand/are aware, but don't care or feel overwhelmed, then that's another issue we have to deal with. That takes more education as well as more organizing.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
But that's complete nonsense. We're a world leader, and what we do is important for the rest of the world. We're also the second biggest CO emitter in the world, #1 per capita (of the major emitters, unless you count Canada as a major emitter at #7, but that's arguable). That's significant. There's no evidence transitioning away from pollutants to clean energy is an economy killer -- to the contrary, it will likely stimulate the economy. But don't take my word for it -- look at the trends in assess management, insurance, and even some oil companies.
But even if it were true, again I repeat: better a destroyed economy/recession than a destroyed EARTH.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
China has made stronger pledges than we have. Doesn't mean much until it happens, but they're very much aware of it. Most of their emissions right now are coming from coal.
But I really don't see why we should buy into the notion that going green will harm our economy or weaken our country. This is straight out of conservative media. This transition is inevitable -- it's not a matter of if, but when. It just happens to be the case that it needs to happen sooner than later. So we need to stop dicking around with "what ifs" and "What about China?" and "what if it's bad for the economy", etc. All worst case scenarios, and yet we HAVE to do something or we're dead. An asteroid is hurling towards Earth, and we're arguing about the worst case scenarios involved in stopping it -- just utter insanity.
I agree in principle that this is the way to go, but for that to have an effect on this particular problem, I don't think we have the time. That kind of basic cultural shift doesn't happen overnight....
Quoting Xtrix
I'm not an American, I'm viewing it from a different perspective I guess. I don't disagree that the US could have a lot more impact than most other countries, but still it can't do it on it's own, it is a global coordination problem.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Maybe I need to look into it some more (feel free to share sources that could educate me on this), but I don't think you get around the fact that green energy is just more expensive... I know, not if you would include externalised costs, but the point is that they are not included now. If energy is more expensive, products are more expensive and you loose a competitive edge... which is why I think this is ultimately a coordination problem. Everybody needs to get on board or your economy will suffer... in relation to others, which is how economies suffer.
Quoting Xtrix
The figures for emissions sure would have me fooled.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
My point is that if everybody is not on board, or at least the biggest polluters like China and the US, the earth will be destroyed anyway, even if you destroy your economy right now.
And let's be clear about this, the earth will not be destroyed if we can't solve the problem. It will be very very bad for a whole lot of biological life on earth, possibly/probably something akin to the five great mass extinctions we had in earths history. A lot of life will die off, some amount will most likely survive. This is in no way meant to diminish the problem, hard to diminish a problem by comparing it to mass extinctions anyway, it just seems better to say it like it is to pre-empt accusations of doomsaying.
Some people are aware, some are deliberately deluding themselves, some are being fooled, and some don't know.
I think the problem is ultimately one of psychology, not of education in the strict sense. All our evolved responses for dealing with a crisis situation are at best useless and at worst actively counterproductive when faced with something like climate change. Ultimately, we need to change behaviour, not beliefs. Unfortunately, the behaviour we need to change includes that of those in power. But I think at this point it's more productive to ask how we can make people act in certain ways as opposed to warning them of the consequences of inaction. People will simply keep choosing inaction, because the facts are not suited to affect human psychology in the way we need it to be affected.
Quoting Echarmion
I sympathize with this, and it's certainly true. But I see it as more about where we place the emphasis. Much like the nature/nurture dichotomy, how beliefs effect behavior and vice versa is essentially inseparable in real life, but can be abstracted and isolated in thought. Sometimes useful, but in my opinion not in this case.
What we care about is action, yes. Behavior. I personally don't care much about what people believe -- if they're Christian, or Republicans, or capitalists, or Satanists. I care about what they do. But it just so happens that propaganda, misinformation, and false beliefs account for much of the behavior we currently see around us -- from voting for a degenerate sociopath, to QAnon, to the Big Lie of a stolen election, to climate change denial, to a Flat Earther, etc. It's exacerbated by social media.
So this is why I stress awareness and education in this so-called "awakening." I don't think people would be doing the things they are doing if they weren't being duped by powerful corporate and political forces, especially the media. The media, after all, is where we get most of our information about the world -- whether from Washington or Iraq, from science to entertainment. How that's framed matters a great deal, and like the big tech companies, it's not neutral. There's an agenda behind a lot of this, almost always monetary.
The freer the country, the better the propaganda.
Quoting ChatteringMonkey
In case it wasn’t known, the IMF reports that over 6% of the global GDP is spent in providing welfare … oops, the correct term for this when concerning corporations is “subsidies” … to the fossil fuel industry. Without this corporate welfare, fossil fuels would not be as inexpensive as they are relative to renewables. And a laissez faire attitude would be taken to competition among energy producers (quite likely resulting in both greater innovation in the production of and lesser prices for renewables). But the latter is not the type of capitalism we live in.
Also worth considering:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidy#IEA_position_on_subsidies
I didn't read the whole report yet, but it seems like they also count the non-inclusion of 'externalised cost' as subsidies, which I agree should be taking in account... but the point is they aren't, and so from a competitive point of view, as the cost paid by enterprises, they are cheaper.
Also note that China is again the biggest offender here. They subsidise everything, there isn't even a real difference between private and public sector there, to the point that 'free competition' with them is not a real possibility from the beginning.
Yes, it's why I think that the solution can only be via some form of global governance, toward which we are already inching our way toward. Brings to mind the - acknowledged toothless - global 15% minimum corporate tax that was recently in the news. If laws are not universally applied, those who don't pollute (as much) will be economically destroyed by those who do. Still, the devil is in the details. For instance, given all the surveillance that we have and the economic oligarchy that is largely in charge, it could just as easily turn into a global totalitarianism. But, paraphrasing what I think by now is an adage, if we prepare ourselves with the worst in mind we may well be pleasantly surprised.
Yeah, this was long overdue... even if 15% isn't a whole lot compared to what regular people pay.
I do agree with your point, this can only work if applied globally, because the economy is global.
The big problem for global governance that I see though, is bureaucracy. If structures get that big, you get a whole new layer of logistic and administrative problems.
The only thing I can currently think of in regard to this is that for it to stand a chance of working there must first be an ideal that is aimed at; one that most folks are not opposed to. Headaches will occur one way or another. But in the absence of such ideal that serves as a common cause for most, I can't foresee the possibility of good results. And I think this is where @Xtrix's notion of a global awakening comes into play. Still, in seeing how many have had big problems with the wearing of face masks during the current pandemic, it will take considerable effort to bring such global ideal about.
This is the key premise! How does an individual deal with faer own problems? Not very intelligently as far as I can tell. Can we blame the world then, if it is an individual as you say it is?
Is there something about being an individual that keeps one from making good decisions about one's own life? Certainly yes, what it is is a mystery to me, but more to the point, the same something maybe holding back the world too, preventing it from making the right choices.
Yet, individualism is as old as the hills and the world's problems are fairly recent developments. Is it a question of creating the right environment - the modern world - for individualism to do its damage or is individualism the fall guy?
Are we on the same page here?
Not for me, though. I'm extrapolating from my own example. For instance, in terms of clothing: I buy about 5 quality clothing items per year and I intend to be able to wear them for at least three years. And once the clothes are so worn that they can't be mended and worn for dirty work around the house and in the garden anymore, I make blankets for cats out of them or use them as cleaning rags. I do this not out of frugality, nor out of concern for ecology, but out of an old-fashioned sense for making good use of things. I extrapolate that if more people would do that, the textile industry as we know it (which is a major polluter, and employer) would collapse, because people would buy only a fraction of the clothing items they do now.
It's similar with other products. For example, I expect washing machines and refrigerators should last at least 10 years. And there was a time when they did, they lasted even 20 or 30 years. But this way, too few were sold to keep the industry profitable, so the manufacturers began to decrease the quality and build in weaknesses, so that now, we're lucky if a washing machine lasts 5 years. But they get to make more money!
So how do you propose to change this?
I would think we need something more concrete at this point. An awakening, a shared ideal would help no doubt, but as I said a bit earlier, that kind of general cultural shift takes time... and a lot of time is something we don't have in this case.
I've been thinking about global governance... So the problem with a real global government is I think it gets to big as an effective ruling structure. You get lots of bureaucracy, you invariably get an even bigger democratic deficit because representation will be ten times removed from the people at that scale etc... The most straightforward solution, and the least conditional on other fundamental changes happening first, is working with what we have now, nation states. This is how we got to that agreement on the minimum tax for enterprises. Something similar could be done for fossil fuels and emission costs. According to that IMF report the fundamental problem is that the costs for the environment aren't included in the prices for fossil fuels (that is how they are 'subsidized'). If states could agree globally on effectively including all costs in the prices than that would already be one step in the right direction. Other such agreement could be made as needed...
I'm not in disagreement with this "if". And I've heard of other concrete proposals regarding improvements in general, that of a universal property/death tax to level the playing field where nothing is taxed under 1 million USD or equivalent and that of having CEO profits capped off at roughly 200% of the company's mean employer income, as two examples that come to mind. Both these ideas I'm acquainted with sound good to me. But without such laws being global, those that would subscribe to them would suffer due to global competition. And without the general agreement to so globally implement there is no political will for it. So stagnation in the form of business as usual results.
I'm questioning how an agreement could result among the powers that be in the absence of there being a common cause among them which all intend in the name of respective self-interests?
I know this is idealistic (in the common sense of the word), and I have cognizance of just how difficult it would be to bring it about, but I so far don't understand how concrete progress can be made in the absence of a goal that is agreed upon and toward which all/most relevant parties progress.
For starters, currently, not even the earnest goal of mitigating climate change is shared by most worldwide. I hope this is a warped perspective, but I so far see no evidence for it being so.
Right, which I think is the case. This is only an analogy, though. When thinking about the collective problems of a society, different concepts need to be brought into the analysis.
Nevertheless, we can learn from the parallels. I think it comes down basic aspects of human nature and how the world effects these aspects. Currently I think the people leading the world -- the wealthy -- have been blinded by greed. They're addicted to the accumulation of capital, at the expense of all else. This is simultaneously a problem of beliefs and values, and of ignorance.
Like a person who can't stop gambling, despite wanting to stop and knowing full well he's destroying his life, the individuals steering the "ship of state" are heading right for disaster.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think so.
I don't, because it's a ridiculous idea. True, we could all stop using electricity too. We could sew our own clothes. We could all live a completely sustainable life. That's a nice dream. In the real world, it's not so easy -- not everyone has the luxury to do so, in the United States or India or anywhere else. We have two choices: we can ask millions of people to drastically alter their lives, or we can use the government (the people we've elected) to pass laws and regulations and spend money to encourage more sustainable practices by the industries that are responsible for this mess.
Some want to blame the people, others put more of the blame on the leaders of the country. I'm in the latter camp. That's not to deny that we as people have to educate ourselves, organize, resist propaganda, have informed votes, and try to live more sustainable lives. But the industries responsible for emissions -- especially fossil fuels -- deliberately want to put the onus on the masses. So did tobacco before them, and the fast-food industry, and the sugar industry, etc. After all, if we just consumed less, we wouldn't get fat. We all know the risks of smoking, so it's a conscious choice. Etc. Yeah -- if you buy all that, you'll more than likely fall in the former camp when it comes to this issue. But it's a mistake, and always has been.
Sorry but there's been a mix-up. I was under the impression that you were talking about the world as a superorganism like colonies of ants and bees.
[quote=Wikipedia]A superorganism or supraorganism is a group of synergetically interacting organisms of the same species[/quote]
Is there sufficient warrant to believe humans, like bees & ants, gather together to form superorganism? Are families, communities, towns, cities, states, countries, the UN simply different levels of organization of what is at the bottom line a superorganism (humanity as a whole)?
Going by the definition of superorganism - a community of individuals with a unity of purpose - humanity is one. Thus, treating the world as an individual isn't "...only an analogy." The world, for better or worse, is an individual. You seem to have intuitivelg grasped this fact but for some reason you chose the world is like and individual over the world is an individual.
Thus, it makes sense to ask of the world what one asks of yourself, me, or any other individual.
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
What are an individual's strengths and weaknesses, the former enabling and the latter disabling? I'm sure the answer to this question will shed light on the superorganism the world is. You talked about human nature and greed and you'll notice that this character flaw in us, individuals, also manifests at the superorganism (global) level. We could say that the world is just a scaled-up version of an individual and for that reason. our individual goodness and badness are also proportionately magnified.
[quote=Mahatma Gandhi]Be the change you wish to see in the world[/quote]
Because the world is not an individual. Humanity is not an individual. That's a metaphor.
If we want to say that humanity is "one," there's plenty of ways in which to do so. We all have the capacity for thought and language, for example. That's fine, and seemingly true. But that's a matter of abstraction, definition, and classification.
True, one way is to claim that we are a superorganism, but I don't subscribe to that. I don't see anything like the behavior of bees or ants or any kind of striving for a common purpose -- although I think that's a fine goal.
As I said before, different concepts need to be employed when discussing group behavior. Take a basketball team. We don't say Lebron James is the team -- he's a member of the team. Or take a rock band -- Ringo Starr wasn't the Beatles, all of the members made up what was then labeled "the Beatles." When the team or the band plays together, something different happens. When we focus attention on an individual, something else happens. They're different levels of abstraction.
My entire point was that there are similarities which are important, and it's interesting to talk as if society were an individual, but to take that literally strikes me as completely incoherent.
Quoting TheMadFool
Let's be concrete so as not to get lost in space: I'm talking about the United States in particular, because of its power in world affairs, and the individuals who are in control of the United States government, which are the wealthy. The wealthy mostly come from the business world, and are the individuals who control the multinational corporations -- which are the current form of big business. These individuals who control the corporations, and the individuals who make up the government, are the people who essentially run the world. They're also the ones currently destroying the world. I believe the reasons for this, as I mentioned, are simultaneously an addiction to material gain (one expression of greed) and an irrational system of beliefs/values. That's not a problem with the world, really -- that's a problem with a small percentage of the world, made up of the individuals with the power to influence global affairs.
To be more specific, look at Amazon, BlackRock, and Berkshire Hathaway -- and even more specifically, the individuals who control these gigantic entities: Jeff Bezos, Larry Fink, and Warren Buffett. These are real people with real beliefs and real power. Their decisions effect millions of people (and perhaps billions). They're three people.
I think you see my point. None of this has much to do with universals and particulars. Maybe Jeff Bezos or the 1% are humanity, or whatever you'd like. But to argue about that is getting off into irrelevancies. That wasn't my aim in creating this thread.
You would be contradicting yourself. To intuit the world is like and individual implies that you see a resemblance (analogy) and according to Leibniz's controversial law of the identity of indiscernibles, the world is an indvidual (you can't tell them apart because they look very similar). Have you ever had the chance to meet twins? What happens? Do you call one by the other's name only to be told that you've misidentified the twins! Leibniz's law of the identity of indiscernibles. Controversial?...Hmmm... :chin:
Making good use of things is a ridiculous idea?
We must consume, consume, consume, until we drop dead?
It's perverse to the utmost the way so many modern humans treat natural resources.
Quoting Xtrix
There's no contradiction: I, as an individual named Mike, am not the same as the 7 billion people on earth. I'm a part of the human species, yes. That doesn't make me the human species. That's absurd, on any level, and I'm not interested in discussing this further.
:ok: :smile:
No, the notion that the way out of this is through individual, isolated actions like composting and recycling, rather than collective/political actions. The former is what the industries want us to believe, as has been well documented; the latter is what is often discouraged, but is happening more and more as this issue becomes more pressing.
In that case, you're addressing a dichotomy I never proposed. It's a false dichotomy.
I do believe things start at the individual person, and that if enough people do it, it can become governmental policy and other high-level actions or at least create a socio-economic environment in which those policies make sense and become actionable.
A conscientious use of food and clothing (where it's simply about buying carefully and using thoroughly, I'm not talking about composting and recycling), for example, would force a change in some business policies and processes, simply because of the change to the demand for products. It seems to me that this would be more effective than trying to get big business to change its ways by other means, such as through government incentives for "green" industry.
It's not a dichotomy. This isn't either-or. I never said it was, and I never said you said it was. The emphasis, however, in everything you've said so far has been on individual actions. You went through your anecdote about clothing, for example. All that's fine. No rational person is against this. What I object to is the emphasis. If we think we can get out of this with isolated actions, that's a pipe dream. That doesn't mean we don't want people to continue to live sustainably.
Here's a fair analysis, if read carefully: https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/yes-actually-individual-responsibility-essential-solving-climate-crisis
https://theconversation.com/climate-change-focusing-on-how-individuals-can-help-is-very-convenient-for-corporations-108546
You keep presenting it that way, though, such as here:
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
I think you've read something into my posts that isn't there, though. Perhaps we need to talk more.
Quoting Xtrix
Of course. Much of what goes on nowadays under "caring for the planet" is nonsense, usually intended to get us to buy the advertiser's product or service. It's also dangerous because it can create in people a false sense of accomplishment and contribution -- "Look, I have a cloth shopping bag, I'm protecting the environment!"
I do not believe that big corporations will change their ways unless they are directly economically forced to -- and this is something that only people can do, with a radical change in their consumer habits. Hence my focus on the individual.
(I'm in Europe. On national televisions here, there are many documentaries on the theme of skepticism about mainstream approaches to ecology; just last week, there was one titled "The green lie". But most of them are not in English, and not readily available online, so I can't refer to them.)
I understand that, and I'm not questioning your sincerity about it. I agree wholeheartedly that we, as individual consumers, should be doing more.
But you're also well aware that not everyone has that luxury, as in the case of India that I mentioned. They're going to continue burning coal to generate electricity, for the same reason that not everyone shops at Whole Foods. In that case it's a matter of our governments to take action and provide for their people. Since the state has always been involved in the economy, there's little reason not to push for intervention in the case of energy. Government action, as you mentioned, requires public pressure -- and that can't happen in isolation. That has to happen with organization, when large groups of people come together and push for their programs. My entire objection is that this aspect gets under-emphasized when discussing climate change, or left out entirely. But it's far more important, in my view, for reasons we can get into if we want.
I fear it's too late, that we're past the tipping point anyway.
Quoting Xtrix
Part of the ecological skepticism here is that these government interventions and incentives aren't effective. Laws are passed, funds are provided, projects are designed, but nothing really happens and the money somehow vanishes.
We have a referendum coming up. It's about a law proposed by the right-wing government which would allow building closer to bodies of water, thus further reducing areas along the bodies of water, those areas being vital for the filtration of water and the natural production of drinking water. The government is now painting the opposition as "You're against clean drinking water!" But as it is, people prefer right-wing politics.
Okay...and then what?
Is that where the story ends for you? If so, you're part of what I mean in the title of this thread. Because I'm sure a lot of others feel it's all hopeless too, and have resigned from doing anything. Oddly enough, if that attitude is prevalent enough, it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need an awakening -- including out of that defeatism.
Of course.
It seems to me, though, that an effective climate intervention would need to be more fundamental, one that only indirectly or as a consequence has to do with counteracting human-caused climate change.
From what I've seen, the usual liberal, democratic proposals in favor of ecology are politically correct in regard to what drives human consumption to begin with, they touch upon greed only superficially, if at all. That's why they can't possibly work. What would need to change is people's most fundamental beliefs about the meaning and value of life. And this cannot happen in a democratic society. The solution isn't in reducing consumption or using different products, rather, it's in changing the why for using things.
Instead of putting military weapons in Afghanistan, put technology there so the individuals can see the rest of the world and engage with it. The technology can become a tool of the radicals and that can have bad consequences, and to counter that and have more good consequences than bad ones, it is essential the spreading of technology also deals with the problems that can arise, always working for a consciousness that benefits all of humanity and the planet.
I think that some people believe that 'the new age' has passed, but, at the same time, I do believe that many people are becoming more conscious of social concerns and ideals. I think that it is about people waking up individually and the scale of this can have a real impact. It also involves people challenging older structures. But, I believe that the process does need to happen quickly, in relation to conflicts between nations and political factors, as well as ecological factors, and these are all interconnected. I am hoping that the shock of the pandemic will have some impact in helping people to wake up.
True. It’s really a question of when, and whether it’s too little too late. All the changes around us right now would have been great 25 or 30 years ago — and a lot of damage is locked in.