Changing Perspectives

Lake Jocassee as seen from the boat ramp at Devils Fork State Park in South Carolina

Isn't it truly amazing how one's perspectives change over time? For instance, anyone who has ever been addicted to something and recovered or is recovering can look back upon said addiction and wonder what the appeal was to whatever the addiction was. I shall insert this song about the dangers of gambling here, based on this psychological book that Eric Woolfson's wife was reading at the time. Once a particular cycle has been broken, over time the thoughts which once led to that cycle can be seen to be rather faulty. These thoughts are known to be triggers, and once a person begins a different way of living without a particular addiction, one can clearly see the insanity of following the cycle of abuse. Gambling, for instance, is one that most of us see as completely unenticing. We can look at gambling or really any addiction and wonder what the draw or attraction to it is. Some addictions are more difficult to see. Why are we addicted to civilization, technology use, and fossil fuels? Our ancestors from, let's say, 50,000 years ago didn't have much technology to use. They didn't have agriculture, smartphones, civilization, or fossil hydrocarbon energy to power it all. In fact, they would look at us today and wonder what the draw or attraction to all of this is, not much differently than the Indigenous North American Tribes looked at the Europeans and couldn't ascertain why they wanted to live the way they did. What might be surprising to many people is that there were many different occasions when European people who were taken hostage by the Indians and lived with them for some time often didn't want to return to "civilized" living and even when let go, returned to the Indians. This wasn't always the case, but it happened frequently enough for people to have noticed it.

Here in the United States, we often romanticize the journey which made Lewis and Clark famous. After the journey, Meriwether Lewis wasn't the same person. Depression and, most likely, PTSD from the journey of the Lewis and Clark Expedition caused a long list of issues for Lewis. Ultimately, his cause of death has always been somewhat uncertain, although suicide is suspected. There have been claims that he was murdered, but there is nothing concrete in terms of evidence one way or the other. It is possible that alcohol or drug abuse may have contributed to his demise. There is little doubt that he understood wetiko much better than his peers (let alone the rest of society at the time) and there is considerable evidence that he had empathy for Indigenous cultures across the lands once inhabited by the Indigenous peoples that became the United States. He most likely struggled with the experiences and knowledge that he had not only about the cultural differences between European and Indigenous people, but also about the taking of Indigenous land by the United States. 

Going from a person who was taught that the Indians were the "bad guys" and that we "won out" over them to a person who has great appreciation for the fact that in reality, it was the Europeans who were the bad guys and just because we won doesn't make it right from an ethical standpoint. We simply had more power through more advanced technology. Once again, the Maximum Power Principle shows itself through wetiko. Indoctrination and cultural conditioning provide the means to rationalize these behaviors, making the overpowering of more sustainable cultures appear acceptable to most of society - might makes right in many people's eyes, unfortunately. Making technology use attractive and socially acceptable is the work of wetiko thinking; only after the wetiko mask has been removed can one clearly see the mistakes made of choosing material and capital wealth over a healthy ecosystem. Indigenous people understood this only too well, having ventured into civilization themselves at Cahokia, Chaco Canyon, Mesa Verde, and many other locations in North America. Just like every other civilization which has ever developed, these also collapsed due to overshoot. While the specific reasons may have been different for each one, some change within each such as drought, water scarcity, flooding, political/governance/immigration issues, disease, or threats from outside the area (raids by rival tribes) caused each to collapse. More often than not, one of the main causes was population growth fostered by technology use. Population growth often ushers in all sorts of issues such as disease, trouble getting rid of waste, obtaining clean water, etc. So, overshoot caused by technology use ultimately ends up in collapse at one point or another, often coinciding with some other type of pressure caused by a change in environmental conditions.

I've mentioned all of this many times here and so I often feel like I am repeating myself over and over. Not that not saying this will change anything, but most everyone reading this already knows these things. The folks who need to see this message simply are not interested in learning about these topics and the facts as I have outlined in this blog won't change their minds. This is a key fact that I have outlined in several of my articles regarding false beliefs - that people will only change when they are ready to change and not beforehand:

 

People like myself who see the need to change now are rare. I see folks who make claims about switching their electrical needs to solar panels and power inverters and batteries and EVs and have to just chuckle at the naivety involved in thinking that doing that essentially changes anything about the sustainability of their living arrangements. If anything, it actually makes those choices worse than doing nothing. Switching how we power civilization changes nothing about its unsustainable nature. 

Knowing all of this, what does one do with all this knowledge? Understanding what I do, I keep soaking up more information with the idea that perhaps one day I'll come upon something, some sort of "Hail Mary" or something, while at the same time realizing that this is bargaining (one of the stages of grief and completely natural). So far, the only thing I have discovered with any empirical ability to change anything is the abandonment of civilization, return to local and community-wide ways of living, and continue learning more about sustainable ways to live. Of course, those ideas come with their own limitations and consequences, no differently than all the other ideas out there. So, ultimately, I have chosen to share what I know and have made it free to access (I receive no money or services for my efforts) to anyone with internet access.

I have changed my perspectives somewhat as a result of what I have learned as well. Looking for "solutions" or being obsessed with them doesn't work when one faces a predicament with an outcome. Only acceptance of the predicament and having the courage to face the predicament knowing that no solution exists now or ever will (that we would be able to voluntarily implement) has made any difference to me. Understanding what bargaining is has also helped considerably, since going in and out of that stage of grief has been a constant challenge. Because I now realize our lack of agency, I also understand that continuing to write articles attempting to promote the idea of reducing technology use is every bit is futile as those who believe degrowth will save us. Degrowth is already happening, but it is involuntary. 

William E. Rees has come out with another blockbuster article. His message mirrors my message to Live Now, quote: 

"As someone who’s been contemplating questions like these for more than fifty years, I have a few suggestions. First of all, learn not to take matters personally—neither the human dilemma nor attacks on efforts to awaken the sleepwalkers. Neither you nor the world will benefit from fits of depression or your withdrawal from the fray. Instead, revel in your knowledge and understanding even if it’s partially wrong (which it inevitably will be). There is a certain satisfaction in being able to interpret sensibly what’s going on and sharing your understanding with others. You might even learn something from the debates and likely push-back! Perhaps the most important thing is not to allow events beyond your control to prevent you from celebrating life—grab that bouquet, nettles and all! (For one thing, it’s unlikely that you’ll get a second round!)

Of course, informed people want to “do something,” and there are dozens of books out there describing the 100 things you can do to save the world. But be cautious—offloading responsibility onto individuals and debasing the common good is part of the neoliberal agenda that has shaped public discourse and elevated corporate values, particularly in North America, since the 1970s. Drastically modifying one’s lifestyle may be a genuine response for some, but is mere virtue signaling for others. In any event, it has no detectable effect on the state of the world. Sorry.

“But wait,” you protest. “If we all just consumed less, it would make an enormous difference.” Agreed, if everyone chose poverty, for example, the environment might catch a break—but not everyone will, so the environment won’t. The simple fact is that humanity’s ecological predicament is a collective problem best addressed through collective solutions. Individuals cannot pass environmental protection legislation, implement ecological tax reform (full social cost pricing), impose resource quotas and rationing, build adequate public transit, implement population planning, replace GDP with a genuine well-being indicator, etc., etc. These are full-on, macro-level “Plan B” activities. The really heavy lifting can be done only by senior governments or other umbrella organizations in the wider public interest. Even the bottom-up activities of individuals and sustainability-oriented community groups (e.g., the degrowth, transition towns, circular economy, and similar eco-advocacy organizations) will be most effective in a supportive top-down policy environment.

But there is a catch. The political process in many countries (particularly the US) has largely been co-opted by powerful elites and the corporate sector. Those who fund politicians’ electoral campaigns expect—and receive—reciprocal favors. An ecological “Plan B” is not among them. Modern so-called democracies are plagued by regulatory capture by the corporate sector or other vested interests, which have succeeded in kneecapping the US Environmental Protection Agency, for example, and reversing many important environmental reforms passed since the 1970s."



He continues at the end with this:

"Let’s be honest. Preparing the present to thrive in the future sounds like a formidable task. And it is—you will likely spend a lifetime at it. But after the daily fray, go home, open a bottle of wine and enjoy dinner. Remember, we may live in uncertainty, but the bouquet of life is by no means all barbs and nettles."

I still want to write about overshoot because I think it is necessary, if nothing more than to point out what overshoot is or be yet another voice in the wilderness shouting about it. Will it change anything? Probably not, but at least more people will hear about it. Perhaps those who do will feel just a little bit better about it by realizing that they aren't crazy or having some sort of meltdown but that they are responding to the predicament in very human ways. My prescription to Live Now appears to be just as valid if not more so now than it has ever been, which is why I have begun posting pictures and stories about my recent trip (back in May). Here is my most recent article.

Until next time, Live Now!