External Change Can Only Come About From Internal Change
Recently, I saw a comment from John Robin Strohl that really struck home, quote:
"We are here for conversation, not conversion."
Here's the thing...changing behavior isn't really as difficult as it may seem, but it does require a desire to change and the commitment to follow through. Most people really just don't want to convert (change), thinking that, "Why should I do it if I don't have to?" Most of my regular readers will understand that in reality, it isn't optional. If society doesn't change our collective behavior, then nature will force behavior change upon us and those who don't comply will perish. Of course, people are going to perish regardless of what we do; the real question is whether there will still be anyone left after the perishing.
I'm actually often surprised at the number of people who still buy into the hype; the marketing and advertising of climate change "solutions" and the greenwashing of "clean," "renewable," "sustainable" growth (or energy, or mining, or name anything else that is actually UNsustainable and slap one of these convenient labels on it). I realize that few people look for a complex and/or complicated answer to any type of situation, but they also tend to ignore the difference between a problem and a predicament and see both types of situations as problems. Science also has this issue endemically associated with it (as I pointed out in my article here), as even scientists continue to write studies and articles using the word "problem" for both terms.
Population growth (the topic of the above article) is really no different than ecological overshoot in the fact that both require technology use to be reduced in order to reduce the effects of each. The reason it is a predicament rather than a problem is that most people are not interested in giving up the convenience and comforts technology provides. Humans tend to be loss averse, even when such loss isn't really all that severe. One look at road rage incidents prove this. The exact same thing would happen if some form of technology was attempted to be taken away from society - just take a look at gun control. Technology use reduction falls outside the Overton window; meaning that not only would it not be politically acceptable, it isn't even likely to be discussed. So, while reducing technology use in an effort to reduce overshoot or population growth would be considered unacceptable by the public, this would also reduce energy and material throughput thereby reducing economic growth, making it entirely unthinkable politically.
The inevitable outcome of this means that most of civilization will likely continue using technology until nature removes our ability to do so. I've explained this in my articles detailing collapse, especially this one.
As I continue studying this broad range of topics revolving around overshoot and its symptom predicaments, I continue finding areas in my articles needing further refinement and/or clarifications in descriptions to enhance comprehension of these areas. These refinements don't really change the essence of anything, I just feel that when new evidence informs me of certain changes in definitions that I add those changes to my writing (or at least include them while I still remember).
When I mention the word civilization, I am describing a society based upon technology use with people living in permanent locations. Think of this being as small as a town or a village (with populations under 100) or as large as a mega-city such as Tokyo, Japan (37.7 million people); Delhi, India (32.2 million people); or Mexico City, Mexico (21.8 million people). Here in the United States, New York City didn't even make the top 10 list at number 11 with 21.5 million people. This technology use can be limited to subsistence agriculture, a local water supply of some sort, and nearby wood for heating and cooking or as complex as living in a city with all of today's modern conveniences. I have always used the word society to describe people living in today's world - rural, urban, or suburban. I have spoken of Indigenous or hunter/gatherer tribes (before the dawn of agriculture) and sometimes used society in conjunction with them, which was incorrect. These were actually communities rather than societies, according to this information.
One of the primary reasons that civilization is unsustainable is because it is supported by technology use, and to dial in a bit further, one of the technologies is that of agriculture. Throughout this blog I have focused on the difference between problems (with solutions) and predicaments (with outcomes). Time and time again, I have come across individuals who assign their opinions to the reality of the facts that I bring to the table. In essence, many of them claim that these facts are "just too negative" and so they refuse to look at them. It is understood that these facts aren't very pretty to look at, but how is not looking at them (and comprehending them) helpful? Essentially, whether one refuses to look at the facts or not, the facts don't change. If I claim that the world population is currently around 8.082 billion (Worldometer), and you refuse to look at that fact, does the fact change any? Nope. So, this is really just another defense mechanism designed to deny reality.
In other words, one's opinions, emotions, and judgments have no effect on the facts at hand. When I post a comment about civilization being inherently unsustainable, I often attach my article about it in hopes that the reader will look at it and (hopefully) read it. Of course, this will likely only happen if the person is interested in learning more about this topic. I've spent the last decade of my life soaking up all kinds of interesting facts along with a cornucopia of accompanying opinions. Most of the time, the accompanying opinions account for selling - marketing and advertising - the public on a concept which will generate an income for investors but does little if anything to address the predicaments we face. In fact, most of these schemes actually take us in the wrong direction or at the very minimum do absolutely nothing to address the unsustainable systems we are all embedded within.
I spend a considerable amount of time frequently explaining how technology use reduces or removes negative feedbacks which once used to keep our species' numbers in balance with the rest of nature, how this creates population growth, and how this then produces more humans who use more technology, creating a self-reinforcing positive feedback loop which then causes ecological overshoot. I also frequently explain how we arrived at this point in time which is a lengthy process in and of itself. Comprehending all of that includes the technology of agriculture mentioned above and the fact that all of the infrastructure, equipment, and machinery of today's world is built upon unsustainable systems (platforms). Most people don't take these unsustainable platforms (also see this article) into consideration when they devise their different strategies to "solve" any of the predicaments we face. These platforms are consistently assumed to remain in place as the simplification of society continues; and while those systems may remain in place for quite some time yet, being unsustainable means that they cannot be sustained indefinitely. The entire human-built world will slowly disappear as the energy and material throughput required to keep those systems in place disappears. This seems to be an extremely difficult set of facts for most people to comprehend, even those who understand most of the topics I discuss here. I saw the term "sustainable agriculture" yesterday despite the fact that no such thing exists. Sustainable agriculture would be throwing seeds around along one's path and hoping they take root and returning at a later date to see if there is anything to harvest. It's basically hunting and gathering and living a nomadic lifestyle. Agriculture that goes beyond this (where a permanent settlement sprouts up to cultivate the soil, remove weeds, provide water in dry conditions, harvest the crops, and store any surplus food [requiring the building of some sort of barn or silo and/or a house in today's world]) isn't sustainable.
Here's another poignant quote from Joseph Tainter's book, The Collapse of Complex Societies, which points to this reality:
"As the development of complexity is a continuous variable, so is its reverse. Collapse is a process of decline in complexity. Although collapse is usually thought of as something that afflicts states, in fact it is not limited to any 'type' of society or 'level' of complexity. It occurs any time established complexity rapidly, noticeably, and significantly declines. Collapse is not merely the fall of empires or the expiration of states. It is not limited either to such phenomena as the decentralizations of chiefdoms. Collapse may also manifest itself in a transformation from larger to smaller states, from more to less complex chiefdoms, or in the abandonment of settled village life for mobile foraging (where this is accompanied by a drop in complexity)."
I think that the reason for people being unable to comprehend all of this is due to the fact that the Earth's biosphere is a hyperobject; an entity so large and complex that we can't perceive it in its entirety. Ugo Bardi explains it in this article. It probably also has a considerable amount to do with interest level (or lack thereof in reality) along with a concomitant inability to think in systems concepts. A system is a group of interacting or interrelated elements that act according to a set of rules to form a unified whole. In addition, systems have inputs, processing mechanisms, outputs, and feedback mechanisms, which all affect the outcome of changes made both within the system and outside of it (for both open and closed systems). Keep in mind that the only constant in the universe is change.
Ultimately, what most frequently happens with many people (including many scientists who propose many of these so-called "solutions" without having any expertise in sociology or systems outside of their specialty) is that they will come up with ideas to "solve" overshoot or many of its symptom predicaments (most often climate change) without having the knowledge of all the systems involved and/or how those systems interact with one another. These ideas frequently use reductionist and siloed thinking in their approach, which can be easily spotted and discounted. Most are also anthropocentric, overshoot blind, energy blind, and/or full of hubris. Here's one that combines all four of those qualities and proves just how ridiculous some of these ideas can be. His approach is laughable at best, since it completely ignores the root predicament (overshoot) and what causes it (technology use) and his prescription is to ramp technology use up to increase overshoot rather than reduce it. Honestly, after looking at his titles of each section and a brief look at the article, I couldn't be bothered to read any further. The bottom line is that he has tunnel vision and is once again focusing almost exclusively on emissions which cannot be reduced with technology and he is ignoring overshoot which must be reduced first if emissions are to be reduced. But here's the catch - I can only laugh at it now - two decades ago I would not have had this knowledge that I do now, and back then I would have probably bought into such a strategy out of pure ignorance. I also didn't realize back then that overshoot and its symptom predicaments are not problems with solutions.
That is why I continue writing. My efforts to inform folks about these predicaments keeps me asking questions and learning more daily. A large portion of the information isn't pretty to look at; I will admit this. The outcomes of all of this are likewise not very nice to consider. Even though nobody really knows the precise outcomes, and many people envision all kinds of flowery, romantic, beautiful scenes about what the future looks like, I can assure you that the reality will be far different. Of course, everyone sees this from a different perspective. Some people actually see collapse and extinction as a good thing - things which will reduce overshoot eventually and rebalance the cycle of life. The cycle of life is based on the carbon cycle and this can be seen in geologic time spans; this brand new video from Nate Hagens and Peter Brannen goes into some interesting territory and much is mentioned about both the Gaia hypothesis and the Medea hypothesis (along with some topics repeating material from Peter Ward that can be read about and/or watched here).
What I find interesting is that of the thousands of people I have come into contact with over the years, most everyone sees these predicaments as being all about us. What about all the other species here on this planet? Considering that it is the ecosystem services provided by them which allows us to be here, why aren't more people concerned about them? As I browse through most groups, I see discussions taking place all the time about matters of modern civilization but rarely does anyone discuss how to live within nature, in a sustainable manner, in an effort to preserve the other species. While there are many discussions about how to "save" species threatened with extinction, no such saving can be accomplished realistically while overshoot is still increasing or even maintained at the level it is today (with no increase).
One also must realize that since we cannot stop climate change and the best that can be accomplished is a reduction of the severity of the predicament, some species will go extinct regardless of what we do to try to stop it. These species evolved in different climatic conditions. The same can be said for humans - we may survive conditions this century only to succumb to climate change in the next. While that is a possibility, that doesn't take into consideration all the other symptom predicaments caused by overshoot which will likely have a more pronounced effect much earlier. One of the primary concepts I have been explaining for many years now (that technology use causes overshoot) is finally confirmed in a new study as explained in this article, quote:
"This effort revealed a set of common patterns. Over the last 100,000 years, human groups have progressively used more types of resources, with more intensity, at greater scales and with greater environmental impacts. Those groups often then spread to new environments with new resources.
The global human expansion was facilitated by the process of cultural adaptation to the environment. This leads to the accumulation of adaptive cultural traits — social systems and technology to help exploit and control environmental resources such as agricultural practices, fishing methods, irrigation infrastructure, energy technology and social systems for managing each of these."
Red text and light blue highlight is my emphasis. Remember, technology use is a behavior. Astrophysicist Tom Murphy has already confirmed this in his articles, and this issue has already been pointed out in this study I published in an earlier article. Can we collectively rid ourselves of technology use addiction? I've posted that video before as well, but it seems that perhaps now is a good time for a re-post. I used to think that we had a pretty good chance of being able to reject technology use - if we wanted to or if we chose to. Now, however, I'm more convinced that such a concept would be exceedingly difficult socially and politically to achieve until after it is too late to defeat tipping points and feedback loops.
As a matter of fact, most of this article is comprised of material I've dealt with before but is an attempt at honing in on the point that once one takes all the evidence into consideration, we simply lack agency to be able to do much collectively about the overshoot situation we find ourselves embroiled within. The reasons were complex and varied, but all of them were based on overshoot and the fact that dissipative structures do not go backwards:
That picture has been published here before also, but it represents a reality that no civilization that has ever developed has ever found a way to reverse. Many false beliefs clearly exist surrounding collapse with many people thinking that there is some way to avoid collapse. "Perhaps technology can be harnessed," I frequently hear. Technology, unfortunately, is what the unsustainable system of civilization rests upon - so it can't help. What about human ingenuity? Some people finally come to the conclusion that they have run into a brick wall and that denial and bargaining don't actually amount to acceptance. Understanding limits and not exceeding those limits is the only way to sustainability. Frequently, many people opt to try to find a way around this by indulging in ideas that are difficult if not impossible to implement at scale as demonstrated by Art Berman here:
One must realize the implications of precisely what Art said. The idea of a voluntary degrowth just doesn't really parse out with reality. As much as I support the movement, I have discovered that generally, the most ardent supporters aren't on board with this reality and instead have their expectations set on impossibly high goals.
I didn't set out to write a book here, it just happened that way. It just seems that most of society is still mired in mainstream thinking. More on that in my next article. Until next time, Live Now!
Comments
Post a Comment