Why Am I Still Writing?

 

Scenes from earlier times in Glen Haven, Michigan. From top, D.H. Day Farm, Glen Haven Canning Company, Outside of Glen Haven General Store, and the last two showing the inside of the Glen Haven General Store.

When I began this blog last December, my main goal at that particular point in time was to replace the files in the groups I run with an outside source so I could get away from the unreasonable rules that Facebook had instituted regarding the editing of those files; of course once they did away with personal files (the files still exist but the only way one can get to them now is if they saved the address for them), the writing was on the wall that group files would also be going away. The group files are still around for the time being, but FB has discontinued the possibility of creating new documents in groups unless the file is a PDF or other recognized file.

I had no idea that I would be writing all these articles, as that certainly wasn't what I originally had in mind. I DID have several articles that were part of the files, so I added and updated them and I figured I might as well tackle a few issues which have been important to me for the last decade or so, so I set out to add those into the mix. While I was doing this, I noticed how each article tied into all the other ones and sort of created a whole new article once I tried to logically connect the dots between them all. Some of the articles led me down a whole new rabbit hole which had uncomfortable repercussions as a result (new predicaments and/or situations I hadn't yet come upon or didn't yet fully appreciate). Just by reading these articles, one can see the knowledge I had which I wanted to impart, and the new information I came upon in the process of attempting this communication. I had seen some of these articles before and only now appreciated their true value. 

Just as so many others before me attempted to explain to others the meaning of the information they had at their behest, I entered the fray myself only to discover the same truths that they found first - that most of society is still asleep with regard to many of these predicaments. Denial of reality is so prevalent that many people have forgotten all the previous signs from history detailing that technology and colonialism never proves anything more than how unsustainable that mindset is.

So, why do I continue writing these articles? Well, it is very similar to other strategies that I have pointed out are a waste of time if one is doing it for a particular outcome. For instance, there was a story on the news the other night about a bicyclist who had ridden over 5000 miles to raise money to "fight cancer" and I chuckled and thought that it was so sad that so many people want to "fight cancer" when the real predicament is ecological overshoot. As long as ecological overshoot is allowed to continue, so too will cancer. Pollution loading is a symptom predicament of ecological overshoot, and one of the main causes of most types of cancer. The same scenario unfolds with regard to almost every other predicament; people want to solve specific predicaments but fail to realize that this is impossible as long as the predicaments focused upon are nothing but a mere symptom of the main predicament (ecological overshoot). A point in case is "fighting" climate change. We can fight all we want, but until we actually take care of ecological overshoot, fighting climate change is pointless. So, ultimately, the reason I continue writing these articles isn't necessarily so people will pay attention and work towards the correct goals (or any other particular outcome) but because this is what I'm passionate about - this is something I have a natural talent for, care very deeply about, and desire to share my findings. This is Living Now. 

Yes, understanding that most people will not be interested in reading these articles nor motivated to do any research on any of these topics does reduce my enthusiasm a bit for writing these articles, I'll admit. Still, I continue to feel compelled to write them. One thing I have noticed in particular with the constant stories about "solutions" as I pointed out in my last article about cognitive dissonance is that the constant counterintuitive mistake that most people make is that they want to "save" civilization. The trouble with attempting to save civilization (this set of living arrangements we all currently enjoy) is the underlying system we are all embedded within. Civilization itself is entirely unsustainable. The latest new twist on this theme is described in this new article based upon using virtual reality to get people to change their behavior. While something like this may help, believing in such a strategy veers right back into fantasies, myths, and fairy tales. The first thing that would need to be done is to change the goal as highlighted in the last sentence, quote: 

"We've made this world and we can transform it, but the first thing we have to do is imagine it differently."

The first thing that would need to be imagined differently is the overall goal for starters since we already know that civilization cannot be saved since it is unsustainable, and then the second thing that would need to be changed is how to arrive at that goal - it won't be utilizing technologies (since technologies are precisely what have caused these predicaments in the first place) as is implied in the second to last sentence, quote:

"I think VR is a really great way for people to envision potential alternative futures because we don't have a crisis of tools and technologies, we have a crisis of imagination."

My final criticism of this idea is the carbon footprint of using it. If the idea actually works to change people's collective behaviors as is claimed, then perhaps it might not be so bad; but the likelihood of this is far from proven. Our lack of agency concerns me here, as not everyone is interested in gaming and even those who are may not buy into the overarching messages delivered, no differently than I pointed out in my last article, quote:

"No one changes unless they want to. Not if you beg them. Not if you shame them. Not if you use reason, emotion, or tough love. There's only one thing that makes someone change: their own realization that they need to do it. And there's only one time it will happen: when they decide they're ready." 

So, while this idea may sound good, it is another one of those ideas which may or may not work. Should we try it? Sure! But let's not get ahead of ourselves and get false hopes going forward. So far, what is contained in the article doesn't lead me to believe that it is any different than all the other ideas involving technology. We already know that devices that provide no ecosystem services are ecologically dead. Cryptocurrencies and other electronic forms of money won't help. Vertical farms won't help. Haptics won't help. These are ideas which concern me, because they aren't ways to reduce energy use, but to RAISE it; no differently than other ideas focused on technology use. 

Needless to say, my goals now are to point folks in a different direction - away from trying to save civilization, away from trying to save technology, away from trying to save the electrical grid (or even off-grid electricity as well), and away from trying to save cities. These are goals which increase energetical footprints rather than reduce them. Don't get me wrong; most all of this information will become self-evident as time moves forward, but there's no need to reinvent the wheel. Indigenous cultures can teach us a considerable amount about how to live happily WITHOUT the crutch of technology, something most every other idea fails in doing. They have a way of looking into the cycle of life in a deep way. 

I realize that this isn't something most people want to hear. Several different conversations I've had over the past week or two which had to do with technology (and EVs in particular) demonstrated what at first I thought was a lack of knowledge regarding their use. After pointing out the facts, the people I was having these conversations with (these were separate conversations) finally acquiesced that they knew those facts and that they simply wanted to "remain positive" or have something "good to believe in"; and this caused me to realize that even though they knew the facts, they wished to remain in denial because the truth was too uncomfortable for them. Perhaps the proper description isn't so much "denial" as it is "compartmentalization" to keep this knowledge sequestered from everyday living. Many of these same conversations often lead into the idea that not developing technology is akin to "giving up" which I tackle in the first paragraph of The Cycle of Life, quote:

"How often do you see people accuse those of us who actually fully comprehend the predicaments society faces of "giving up"? Why do people think we have "given up" just because we understand these predicaments? NONE of us has given up on anything that is worth pursuing - it is the false "solutions" which actually take society in the wrong direction that we have given up on."

This shows that many people fear what the future will bring. While I agree that the future will bring new realities that those of us in the first world will most likely not enjoy, I also think that living in fear is not a good place to be. This can cause depression, anxiety, and many other issues; both mental and physical. This is when the need to step back and be grateful for what we DO have rather than be bitter for what we don't, and to Live Now, presents itself.