The Grand Illusion

This is Part 3 of So, What Should We Do? One of the things that is so pervasive in today's society is the constant flow of hype, advertising, marketing, and propaganda, and many people fail to see through it. Steve Bull came out with this article explaining the same scenario. They are led to believe that everything is a problem and that technology or some product produced from technology can solve it all. The truth is that technology and its use is actually the root source of these issues; and they are predicaments, not problems. Furthermore, more or new technology can do nothing but cause yet more damage. Technology is what supports civilization, as I pointed out in my last article (see the top picture). Agriculture is technology. Since civilization is unsustainable, we cannot fix portions of civilization and stop the damage caused by civilization, which is causing those portions to develop trouble in the first place. In other words, we cannot switch out ICE (internal combustion engine) cars for EVs or coal- or gas-produced electricity for non-renewable solar panel- and/or wind turbine-produced electricity and claim that we have solved anything. ALL the exact same mechanisms civilization uses to destroy life on this planet are still intact. So switching out or substituting different "portions" of civilization won't help. Civilization cannot be made sustainable. This is precisely why building all of this infrastructure in an effort to reduce emissions is nothing more than bargaining to maintain civilization.

One of my friends, Chery Young, pointed this out; quote: 

"Historian H. Maynard Smith contended that a person who could perceive two conflicting sides of an issue might be overwhelmed by a mentally inflexible person: 
A broad-minded man, who can see both sides of the question and is ready to hold opposed truths while confessing that he cannot reconcile them, is at a manifest disadvantage with a narrow-minded man who sees but one side, sees it clearly, and is ready to interpret the whole Bible, or, if need be, the whole universe, in accordance with his formula.

The illusion of control or agency and the attachment to it creates such suffering."

There are so many important distinctions with regard to the set of predicaments we find ourselves enmeshed in. These distinctions seriously need to be explained so that people can understand better where we truly are, where we would like to be, whether or not going to those places is actually possible; and if going to those places is possible, how to get there (a "road map" of sorts). For instance, many people often do not comprehend our lack of agency or ability to "solve" these predicaments because they think that we can do whatever we want to do (free will) or perhaps they do not understand the difference between a problem and a predicament. This seems simple enough on the surface, not much differently than "I can choose my own destiny, right"? Well, the truth is that I can choose my own destiny as long as it conforms to all the previous natural laws and preceding events leading up to said choice. Essentially, I am constrained to make choices that fit into that box. Our minds tend to go into denial of reality on this - they WISH for us to have free will, quote:

"Spinoza, in his essay on ethics, put it beautifully short and exactly to the point:

“There is no such thing as free will. The mind is induced to wish this or that by some cause and that cause is determined by another cause, and so back to infinity”."

"My only intention is to show that freedom of choice does not automatically infer free will. That is, the choices one makes are caused by past experiences. Past experiences and genetic makeup are the molding forces that created the will, which determined the action. Choices and action are determined - determined by the person you are, which was determined by your heredity and environment."

With regard to free will, we suffer from The Grand Illusion. So, in reality, we do not have free will to do anything we want, despite the illusion that we can. This seriously limits the possibilities in front of us in terms of "where we want to go" because society must operate COLLECTIVELY in order to accomplish certain goals, and people are instead going to make choices and take action based upon and limited by the people they are - determined by heredity and environment. Some people think that if certain things are mandated by law or decree by governments, this will force society into compliance. Unfortunately, as the situation with the COVID-19 pandemic has proven, despite mask mandates, social distancing mandates, and other governmental decrees, people continue violating these orders based upon ignorance, selfishness, greed, and peer pressure. Once again, this demonstrates lack of agency. Compliance can be attempted but not guaranteed. One look at the population of jails in the US is a prime example of this simple fact.

At the end of the day, this truly means that we all want to be in different places rather than the same place. For instance, I enjoy the mountains far more than a sandy beach even though I prefer both places over being in the middle of a packed, noisy city. Other people, however, prefer entirely different places and many would want nothing to do with some of the isolated and remote places I love. With regard to the predicaments we face, this also means that everyone wants to be in a different place. Most everyone wants to be in a "safe" place, but each individual will see this from a different perspective. Unfortunately, just like with the oceans (oceanic thermal inertia), civilization also has inertia. Both of them together have baked in certain scenarios which cannot just be "done away" with. There's a considerable amount of hoopla centering on global temperature rises and the 1.5C to 2C agenda. But most of this talk is just that - talk. There was an assumption by many that even if we were able to limit global temperature rises to those set by the Paris Agreement that this would be safe. Those assumptions are now beginning to fade as the reality sets in even before we hit the 1.5C mark that we are not safe. New evidence shows that we will almost assuredly pass the 1.5C mark within the next several years. 

The trouble with the predicament of climate change is that most people have little cognizance of what the RATE of change is doing. The overall change of global temperatures doesn't really tell us much, as in the fact that if these changes were over thousands of years, the natural rate of evolution would provide a way for species to adapt to conditions over time. The changes so far are making HUGE differences in so many different aspects, such as infrastructure damage, species and biodiversity decline, drought, flooding, wildfire, etc., and we haven't even hit the +1.5C mark yet. As time moves forward, the effects will continue multiplying due to the convergence of multiple self-reinforcing positive feedbacks and their effects across the spectrum of the biosphere. The extreme weather events we are now being subjected to are much stronger than just a few years ago, and in many cases weren't even possible until just recently. The recent heatwaves in western North America are evidence of this along with many other incidences across the globe.

It is these increasingly severe events that are demonstrating how many species (which provide necessary ecosystem services to us) are unable to adapt quickly enough to these changes to ensure their continuation. As those species decline, so biodiversity declines as well. Perhaps this article describes this scenario much better than I can, even though I can testify to these changes, quote:

"When I was forced to actually confront my identity, I realized that I’m no longer doing what I thought I was. My whole life has been documenting how life works, how we can conserve species that are in trouble. I was no longer cataloging life and finding ways to prevent ecosystems from reaching tipping points. I had actually hit my own tipping point. Somewhere along the way, I had gone from being an ecologist to a coroner. I am no longer documenting life. I’m describing loss, decline, death. And that is what is accounting for my kind of overwhelming sense of grief.

This is what really brought home to me that my entire job has changed. I don’t like my new job, but I can’t quit. Even if I quit being a professor and doing research, I’m always going to be a coroner now."

She is confronting her lack of agency. She is accepting the fact that what she THOUGHT she could do is no longer possible. In reality, it was never possible to begin with. But with the power of fossil fuels and civilization, we humans were convinced that we were INVINCIBLE. How many people discover that fallacy in their 20s or 30s? Sadly, we were under the illusion that we could save species based upon the sheer power of the energy from fossil fuels and the infrastructural layers of civilization, but we lacked the foresight to see that civilization is unsustainable and that we are only a PART of nature, not nature itself. We do not get to dictate which species will continue and which won't. These ideas came from the illusions and delusions provided by the hubris of wetiko (see here and here also).

Some of these articles I post are difficult for me no differently than they are for others, as I point out here, quote: 

"It's not easy; for others OR for me, because what I typically discover are things I don't like. These facts are not convenient and not only do we not like them, our minds work in a way to attempt to obfuscate these facts because of the unpleasant implications they reveal. To truly zoom out and be able to see the whole picture rather than focus on reductionist portions is to see that most all of the ways we try to "solve" these predicaments miss the larger picture and therefore [this] actually makes these so-called "solutions" self-sacrificial in nature more often than not. As long as we continue the overall system (civilization) killing us and the other life around us, attempting to "fix" smaller symptoms of the predicament completely misses the point. It's the classic inability to see the forest through the trees, which results in the deer caught in the headlights look as soon as one truly comprehends the entire system from above, in a manner of speaking. Then the "Oh, CRAP!" moment happens."

One item in particular that makes understanding these situations even more challenging is realizing that we are in the "golden age" of plants and animals:

 

This fact can be seen from a limiting standpoint, but can also be seen from the cycle of life perspective, which provides a more spiritual and grounding experience in my opinion. Opinions aside, the grounding and humility which come from understanding the scenario (completely) and fully comprehending the implications derived from said understanding provide the means for full acceptance and readiness for the next step. For anyone not fully committed to acceptance, beware of the fact that you WILL slip back into previous stages of grief. Even those of us fully committed slip once in a while when presented with hopium which actually seems realistic. Most of the time, a distraction such as this can be written off without too much effort, but occasionally, more research may be required to determine whether something is real, possible, and actually feasible. Just because something is possible does not make it feasible. Is it possible to travel to Mars technically? I would say that it is a possibility, but definitely not feasible at this point. Furthermore, it is also entirely possible that it would be a one-way trip, even if the spacecraft can return to Earth. But the real question would be what the actual goal is. The goal of traveling there and returning might be possible, but living there is unrealistic at best. Moving from a larger planet to a smaller planet without an atmosphere or biosphere like ours doesn't make much sense. The logic just isn't there because what is being sold to the public is an illusion that doesn't actually exist and most likely never will.

This and the last two articles before this are a transition into different ideas and options for spiritual awakening and ways on how we can choose to live from here on out, given the circumstances. One can choose to live in reality with the options that we know are possible and attempt to live each day as it comes with no expectations for survival long into the future - OR - one can choose to believe in fantasies, myths, and fairy tales and hope that things will get better or that we will "figure a way out" or that "science will fix it" or that "technology will save us". 

By now, I would think that everyone who reads this blog will already comprehend the latter option isn't really an option and can only lead to failure. There ARE some things that science already knows about biology and nature which might help, but dreams of a gleaming and shiny future powered by fusion (or any other type of energy provided by technological fossil fuel-derived products) fit into the "failure" option. Likewise, there ARE also some things we can look forward to along the journey, provided we don't spend our time foolishly attempting to defeat or "solve" ecological overshoot or climate change under the premise of saving civilization. We can do things to help reduce the harm we do and we are pretty much limited to that at this point. Dangerous climate change, pollution loading, ocean acidification, wildfire, flooding, drought, species and biodiversity loss, extinction, and much, much more are locked in and will only worsen as time moves forward. Reducing or even stopping emissions will most likely not change this outcome for anyone alive today.

Despite all the gloom and doom of all the preceding articles in this blog, I want to begin to bring more knowledge to the forefront to help in maintaining commitment to certain ideals I think are very important. I shall continue to point out what I see as counterintuitive "solutions" which don't actually solve anything or make the existing problems and predicaments worse. With that, I will close this article out with the reality that society is clearly running into a brick wall. We can make better choices, but if society doesn't collectively decide to make these choices TOGETHER (which is not very likely - see this book), then the only conclusion is the upcoming disaster being made even worse. See also Part One and Part Two and Part Four of this series.

Live Now!