Cultural Programming - Who Will Stand Up For What's Right?
Understanding the knowledge that I have isn't easy. As the quote from Aldo Leopold that I posted last time attests to, having an ecological education or knowledge requires an ability to realize that society will tend to follow its cultural programming. Even if that programming/indoctrination is wrong or unethical (from an ecological standpoint), few people will stand up for what is right. History shows us time and again that those who wield the most advanced technology "win" and that those who live the most sustainably generally lose the battle (see wetiko). Of course, in the end, we ALL lose because technology won't and can't solve predicaments, especially ecological overshoot. Since overshoot is the root predicament causing all the symptom predicaments, none of those symptom predicaments can be improved upon without overshoot being reduced and, unfortunately, technology use can only increase overshoot because it CAUSES overshoot in the first place. This is accomplished by the reduction or elimination of negative feedbacks, allowing more people to be born and thrive, living longer lives and having lives utilizing far more energy and material throughput than without all of that technology use.
It pains me to watch all of this unfold and see so many people make mistakes using reductionist thinking to attempt to "solve" what they think are "problems" rather than understand the core reality/actuality as to whether the issue is truly a problem or whether the issue is actually a predicament. The difference is stark because there is not much use in trying to solve a predicament because it doesn't have a solution; it has an outcome. Can you improve the outcome? Possibly you can in one area or part of a predicament, but it always comes at the expense of another area or part of the predicament which cannot be done away with. Being able to see things using a wider boundary lens can be quite helpful to determine the best path forward.
Something else that pains me greatly is the effort often spent trying to tackle one symptom predicament or another through political avenues. Without tackling overshoot first, it is a complete waste of time and energy. The "fight" against climate change and/or emissions has gone absolutely nowhere (see video of Nate Hagens and Daniel Schmactenberger below). Emissions are higher than they've ever been, temperatures are higher than they've ever been, and the last 4 decades have been spent doing very little in actuality. Yes, we have accomplished a considerable amount in terms of narrative-spinning. For instance, the hype over the so-called "energy transition" is a constant hum in the background. Many people think that there is this false dichotomy going on with "renewables" versus fossil fuels. What most people don't seem to realize is that without the fossil fuel platform, non-renewable energy harvesting devices cannot be built, installed, maintained, and decommissioned at the end of their service life. The whole shebang is really nothing more than an illusion based upon non-acceptance of overshoot being a predicament. Instead, the industries involved figured out a way to make money by selling people on the illusion of these devices reducing emissions. But emissions are a symptom predicament of overshoot, not overshoot itself. They cannot be reduced by building new or more technology; only technology use reduction can accomplish that. Getting rid of using fossil fuels means getting rid of "renewables" as well because they are fossil fuel-derived devices, just like all the other infrastructure; especially the roads to get to these devices, the electrical grid, and the rest of industrial civilization infrastructure itself. One particular type of infrastructure repeatedly runs into trouble, and I have added this link to the Infrastructure file.
Now, imagine trying to tackle the root predicament, overshoot, in the political arena. The entire idea resides in no man's land politically. Nobody will touch it with a ten foot pole because reducing overshoot means reducing technology use, a smaller "economy," and an end to growth. This really isn't such a bad thing, but imagine trying to sell that to crowds who are invested in the cultural stories that "growth is good" and "we need a great economy" and "everyone wants the latest technology" without realizing the actual cost ecologically of all of that. Nobody wants to see the fact that all of that actually ends in die-off:
Also, nobody wants to understand what a predicament is. They prefer comforting or reassuring lies to inconvenient truths. The truth is that politicians, at least here in the United States, are part of an oligarchy more than a democracy. If the corporations that really run the country don't want a certain law passed or want more favorable conditions for their business, you can bet that they will lobby for that and most likely win - today or tomorrow. If they lose one battle, they will stay in the war until they win. Understanding the Maximum Power Principle is key here, since that is the underlying reason all of this is happening in the first place. As one can clearly see, no political solution was ever truly coming about because what we face is, foremost, a predicament, and, it isn't in a politician's best interest to even try such a move because they would be ousted very quickly just like Jimmy Carter was. Some countries are better than others at attempting to resolve certain issues, but overall globally, one can clearly see what is happening just by Googling the Great Acceleration. Pinning hopes on some sort of political solution remains and always will be pure hopium.
Comprehending that most people really don't want to know the truth came somewhat as a shock to me at first. Then it seemed to make sense, given the circumstances. We are only human after all. But going back to wetiko and the Maximum Power Principle, we can see the effects of both all around us. Name your resource, and there the situation is in spades. Take trees for instance (logging); here's just one of many examples of trees (or other resources) being harvested in sensitive areas or places where Indigenous tribes live. Not only are the logging companies reducing or destroying habitat for the people and species who live there, but they bring in diseases that the tribes have no natural immunity to. The same thing is happening to people in Gaza where Israel (due to overshoot) wants the gas and water under the land where Gaza is. Notice how most of the world simply rubber-stamps all of this by either brushing over it or turning a blind eye altogether. "It's not good for business to raise a ruckus over it." It's highly frustrating and very saddening for anyone; especially for those who understand what is happening ecologically which is hidden from view to most people.
Speaking of being hidden from most people, I imagine that many people don't realize how carbon sinks are becoming sources. I think many people wouldn't even understand what the implication is. Sadly, I came upon this study [link to PDF] which only confirms my fears that tipping points are being passed right now. Obviously, just because a new tipping point is proposed doesn't mean that it will be accepted as a new one. But there is good reason to think that oceanic hypoxia is, in fact, a tipping point. More on this phenomenon can be seen in this article about hydrogen sulfide.
Perhaps understanding the cycle of life and realizing that in order for things to improve they must first get dramatically worse is a doubled-edged knife. It cuts both ways. But this same knowledge can also produce a soothing touch, knowing that eventually all will be healed. At this point, however, I'm not feeling all warm and fuzzy. The political situation here in the U.S. is pretty dire. Then, to add fuel to the fire, I came across this video of Nate with Daniel Schmactenberger discussing AI and ASI (Artificial SuperIntelligence). I'm glad that they are tackling this topic, however, Schmactenberger points out how unlikely it is that anyone will actually try to put some sort of halt to the development process. The video is quite frankly not really all that surprising to anyone who understands overshoot, the exponential function, and the human knack for innovation (which, in this case, is not a good thing). The implications of the video, however, are rather stark and Daniel even freaks Nate out around the 31:00 point. By that point in the video, you will already most likely be a bit depressed, but wait - it gets better! WAY better! OK, maybe "better" is the wrong word here. By the end of the video, one will understand a bit more comprehensively where we're headed and just how remote the ability to stop this process is. Even if AI was halted though, it's only a matter of time before some other innovation (or the collection of ones we've already unleashed) takes its (or theirs) tolls on us. Just pollution loading in and of itself has the ability to remove habitat for most species on this planet. Even though that particular article is rather comprehensive, here's another article discussing radiation being released from Fukushima which will also raise the hairs on one's neck. We really are poisoning ourselves to death, just like the Limits to Growth study predicted back in the early 1970s. When one looks at all the information contained just in this single paragraph, one can't help but be amazed by the hubris of it all. Is there nothing we won't do in the name of progress or the almighty dollar? This article demonstrates that the answer is probably NO.
Speaking of taking tolls, this situation was a humdinger, eh? It reminded quite a few of my friends (and me too) of Joseph Tainter's timeless book, The Collapse of Complex Societies. Of course, this article that I wrote keeps coming up in my mind quite regularly as well. None of this is anything anyone wants to happen (well, most of us anyway), but those of us who have educated ourselves with ecological knowledge also realize that kicking the can down the road can only last for so long. We all know that sooner or later, one of the Jenga blocks will be taken out and whole pile will come tumbling down upon itself.
Congratulations if you made it this far! One criticism that I constantly see in comments (on social media sites when someone discusses our predicaments) goes something like this, "Well, what's your solution?" They also often ask if we should just "give up." Of course we shouldn't give up! (<<< Help IS available; follow the link to helpful articles, groups, and services.) I often chuckle because many times the person saying that has already been told that what we face is a predicament and yet the meaning hasn't yet sunk in. It may never, as some people will choose to live in denial to the bitter end rather than face these predicaments courageously without hope for any type of solution or answer, knowing that there is none. For those who wish to accept the actuality of today and not stick their heads in the sand, there is always the ability to Live Now and appreciate today for what it is. Here is today's latest installment in the series that I started last month and these will appear every Wednesday for the rest of this year at least (I actually have them scheduled into February of next year already). Enjoy!
Comments
Post a Comment