What is Our Actual Reality?

 


The Blue Ridge Discovery Center in Konnarock, Virginia


I read many articles every month, which allows me to detect certain patterns within these articles. (I am working on slowing down on the number.) A large percentage of most of them contain so much bargaining and hopium that a reader who understands the predicaments we face can only laugh or cry at them. I try to glean what I can from them and ignore the parts of denial of reality and optimism bias, but some articles are so full of crap it's just not funny. Here's a prime example of what I'm talking about (although I often list these types of articles and have even written entire articles based upon them, named appropriately, Fantasies, Myths, and Fairy Tales). That article (the prime example) lists an issue caused by several different symptom predicaments of ecological overshoot, namely, pollution loading, climate change, and ocean acidification (also a symptom of climate change). 

Now, to be sure, the bleaching and death of coral reefs is very serious, indeed. For anyone who hasn't read much about them, being suddenly exposed to this information sends the signal that "we must do something about this immediately." The article provides a laundry list of prescriptive actions such as cleaning beaches and reducing plastic pollution, but without reducing overshoot globally, existing coral reefs are doomed. Beach cleanups, cutting back on plastic, and everything else they recommended just isn't gonna cut the mustard. Reducing overshoot is the only way to reduce pollution loading, climate change, ocean acidification, and all the other symptom predicaments such as emissions. I feel bad for pointing that specific article out though, because there are literally hundreds of these every month that contain the same type of "offerings of hope" primarily due to the fact that one needs false hope to deal with the fact that none of the actions typically listed will actually cure or even reduce the issues they are listed for.

It's similar to offering paper bags at grocery stores instead of plastic or paper straws at restaurants instead of plastic ones. Do they really reduce the threat of plastic pollution? Perhaps in a small token way; but overwhelmingly we simply wind up producing different types of plastic or increasing other ways of plastic pollution instead. Part of the issue with plastics is that the feedstock for them comes from refining crude oil. Initially, the feedstock for plastics is a waste product from producing the main products of crude oil, different grades of fuel. So, getting "rid" of plastics more or less means getting rid of fossil fuels. But wait...how do we power civilization without fossil fuels? Well, we could go back to powering civilization with just agriculture, trees, and human and animal power like we did back in the early 1700s, but this would most likely require a mass die-off of about 6 or 7 out of every 8 people. There simply wouldn't be enough energy and resources for more people because we are in extreme overshoot. In fact, some studies show far less than one billion people currently could be supported without the energy provided by fossil fuels. 

I've gone down quite the rabbit hole here. But in order to explain why none of the issues we face have simple answers, there really is no other way. Simply saying that what we face is a predicament with an outcome and not a problem with an answer doesn't really suffice for most people. I might as well be speaking a foreign language with the looks I get from most people. Their faces scrunch up and get all wrinkly with confused looks like, "WHAT?!!"  My passion for trying to explain all of this so that others can understand the situation gets me every time. I really want others to comprehend these predicaments. 

George Tsakraklides provides a great article here about the common narratives regarding so-called "solutions" to the predicaments we face. A similar article from Jem Bendell goes into detail about these narratives and the stark reality. Many people focus on climate change, even though overshoot is really the overarching issue. This article from The Conversation pretty much sums up typical "solutions" with the following quote:

"Climate change is dangerous because of weather that affects particular places at particular times. Simply put, this extra heat is making weather more unstable. Unfortunately, having temperature targets makes solar geoengineering seem like a sensible approach because it may lower temperatures. But it does this by not reducing, but increasing our interference in the climate system. Trying to block out the sun in response to increasing carbon emissions is like turning on the air conditioning in response to a house fire."



Compared to the article in the first paragraph, the articles in the last paragraph throw a serious amount of reality/actuality into the mix. The common narratives being provided to us are really nothing more than lies designed to generate income to those who stand to gain from those lies. What we really face has been put forth in a document from Canada, which I found somewhat surprising given the typical messages governments often provide mixing reality with optimistic outlooks. Unlike most documents I read, this particular one doesn't contain the hopium I am used to seeing. Notice the second item in both lists from the document:







Along those same lines, and as I have shown in this article, collapse is here and deepening now. A friend of mine encouraged me to include a link to Sir John Glubb's The Fate of Empires, but I can do even better with this article which includes many of the same articles and books and studies I have been highlighting here for years. Gail Tverberg is mentioned in the article, and indeed, she has a new article out that goes into great detail about what is happening.

It's difficult to tell how much hype is in some of these articles in the MSM (Main Stream Media), but one article on Oil Price provides some worrying figures, quote:

"According to the supermajor, global oil production is facing a natural decline at a rate of some 15% annually over the next 25 years. For context, the IEA sees the rate of natural decline at 8% annually. Exxon points out, however, that the faster decline rate is a result of the shift towards shale and other unconventional oil production, where depletion happens faster than it does in conventional formations.

'To put it in concrete terms: With no new investment, global oil supplies would fall by more than 15 million barrels per day in the first year alone." This is a scary prospect because "At that rate, by 2030, oil supplies would fall from 100 million barrels per day to less than 30 million - that's 70 million barrels short of what's needed to meet demand every day.' "



Now, those figures would mean collapse of industrial civilization in less than 5 years. It's difficult to predict these kinds of things because there are so many moving parts and they are all self-organizing. It's also difficult to attach any particular meaning to such a scenario because none of us have ever lived through such a scenario. Those going through such a scenario right now often lack the means to access articles like this, as they are fighting every day just for basic needs like water, food, shelter, and medical services. Those living in Gaza and Ukraine are going through wetiko-inspired loss of civilization right now. This amounts to more than just a loss of complexity that we will all face because they have lost the entirety of the cities and towns they once were a part of. Tom Murphy's latest and last video about his series regarding modernity really packs a punch about what we can do (or the lack thereof) about all of this, and much of it revolves around acceptance of actual reality.

This acceptance of actual reality is what I have been pushing for similarly since my launch of this blog. Recently I have written more about accepting this reality because that is truly the best that can be accomplished once one understands our lack of agency to "solve" the set of predicaments we face. Of course, since I comprehend our lack of agency, I realize that I can push for whatever I want and my sphere of influence is just as small as everyone else's. I agree with Tom Murphy's ideas 100%, and I am certain that many other people who have an ecological comprehension will likewise be fully supportive. Still, our sphere of influence won't overcome those who want civilization to continue even though it is self-terminating. Sure, some of the people on this planet have a much larger sphere of influence, but people who don't like a particular idea won't support it regardless of who is pushing for it. I also realize that the number of people who have the enlightenment that Tom does is quite small in comparison to those who believe in the ability of technology to solve anything and everything, including the predicaments its use has caused. Reductionist thinking is unfortunately endemic in society today. I would also say that most people don't realize that the basis of our living arrangements, civilization, is unsustainable. This makes a cogent argument for letting go of civilization (or modernity) difficult, if not impossible. 

Then again, those who "believe" that we do have agency to be able to solve the predicaments we face or have some sort of control over the situation (overshoot) won't be convinced of any of my arguments here since their beliefs are based on magical thinking to begin with. The facts I present will have no effect on their beliefs whatsoever. So, once again, the prescription to Live Now is sage advice. Go on over to my latest post on Treasured Traditions and check out pictures from my trips! For those of you in the United States, I wish you a Happy Labor Day weekend!





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why The "War" on Climate Change is Bipolar

Image
  One thing which has become more and more clear as time has moved forward is that the messaging on climate change is bipolar (contradictory; incongruent; hypocritical) in its assessment. More and more articles talk about how we need this and how we need that in order to "fight" climate change DESPITE the facts that climate change is caused by ecological overshoot and building more products (especially building materials) only increases ecological overshoot. Some articles discuss ideas which have already been proven by science to be impossible . Of course, people who deny reality will utilize optimism bias to attempt said impossible anyway. I could continue posting link after link to article after article regarding this same scenario, as there are hundreds of articles which contradict each other in what we need or what we must do or how much it will cost and on and on ad nauseum. So, why is it that there remains this huge disconnect with society? Much of it has to do
Read more

Welcome to Problems, Predicaments, and Technology

Image
Welcome to my new blog - titled Problems, Predicaments, and Technology -  because that is the title to a short article I wrote over a year ago to point out the difference between problems and predicaments (often called dilemmas ) and explain the role technology use (and the culture surrounding it) has had in creating most of the predicaments we face today. While this blog is mainly focused on Ecological Overshoot, Abrupt Climate Disruption ( ACD ) and Energy and Resource Decline (generally associated with peak oil and collapse), there are a myriad of other predicaments closely associated with these three that will also be covered. Many scientists focus a large amount of their lives trying to figure out how to solve these predicaments as if they are problems in the hopes of coming up with a way to at least mitigate some of the harm society is doing to life on this planet. My efforts here are to point out that in a very real sense, this has been rooted in denial of reality  and opti
Read more

What Would it Take for Humanity to Experience Radical Transformation?

Image
Today we shall investigate this question: What would it take for humanity to experience radical transformation of individual and collective consciousness within the next decade? This picture looks inviting, doesn't it? But does it realistically represent the world we collectively live in today? In one word, NO. One look at the news stories of today can easily show how individuals, groups, corporations, and nations of all stripes are arguing and fighting for attention, for purposes, and for goals and strategies. Look at social media and it is ripe with every flavor of disagreement known to society. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there are few things everyone can agree on, and even when one IS found, nobody can agree on the ways to solve what everyone agreed the problems are. Now, throw in a PREDICAMENT instead of a problem and guess what happens? From my experience, when a predicament is put into the mix, most people still look at it from the same standpoint the
Read more

Denial of Reality

Image
  In my last written post (to clarify the difference between the files, which contain only links to outside material), I mentioned denial of reality. You might wonder what this has to do with climate change and extinction. Cognitive dissonance is one of the most powerful mental issues that affects humans. Rob Mielcarski explains the evolution of how this came to be, quote: " The singular emergence of human intelligence, and its ability to write and read this paragraph, evolved in a gene controlled machine with an unusually powerful computer, that was created by an improbable simultaneous adaptation for an extended theory of mind with denial of reality, and whose complexity was enabled by the increased energy per gene provided by mitochondria, that resulted from an accidental endosymbiosis of two prokaryotes, powered by an unintuitive chemiosmotic proton pump, that originated in an alkaline hydrothermal vent, on 1 of 40 billion planets, in 1 of 100 billion galaxies, and that plane
Read more

More Cognitive Dissonance

Image
  In my last post , I expressed my concerns regarding methane emissions along with the growing speed which our collective predicaments appear to be gaining. Then I explained precisely why we have thus far not made any real progress on these predicaments based upon our collective denial , which has a considerable amount to do with our basic human psychology. In conclusion, the reality is that very few people are actually paying an ounce of real attention. What they are paying attention to are all the distractions - the hype, advertising, marketing, and propaganda. Today I bring more evidence of the increasing speed of these predicaments as I recall some of my articles which I had privately hoped might be a long way off into the future. I'm not one to try to evade uncomforting news. If I was, I most certainly wouldn't be reading and watching these articles, reports, studies, videos, and other media to try to understand and comprehend fully where we are and where we're heade
Read more

Fantasies, Myths, and Fairy Tales

Image
  Advertisement from the mid-20th century I have often used this expression (the title) to describe many things people tend to think of as solutions for one thing or another that either are not solutions or are unrealistic at best in terms of actually solving something. For anyone just joining these articles, this post  will help get you started so as to be able to comprehend what this article is about.  As I have expressed before, my deep passion is to help explain where we are (as a species), how we got here, why we are in this mess, and what can and/or cannot be done to "solve" these predicaments. My very first post explained the difference between problems with answers or solutions and predicaments (or dilemmas) with outcomes. In it, we discovered that predicaments don't have solutions, and that every solution proffered for a predicament winds up causing new problems and/or predicaments or comes with unacceptable costs or just simply doesn't solve anything. The re
Read more

What is NTHE and How "near" is Near Term?

Image
I distinctly remember my first introduction to the initialism (or abbreviation or acronym) "NTHE" which ushered me into a whole new set of exploration. I was a member of a climate change group on Facebook at the time (which I had been a member of for quite some time) and I saw a post which was discussing it. I hadn't seen this abbreviation before and wondered what it meant, so I did a search and a whole list of links was presented (as usual) along with the spelled out version, Near Term Human Extinction. I clicked on one which took me to a website blog by Dave Pollard . I started reading and was introduced to another person, Carolyn Baker, with whom Dave had a video interview with. Through this video, I was introduced to another person, a professor by the name of Guy McPherson. A video of him presenting information at an Indiana university, DePauw, where my grandmother attended, was available; so I watched it. The information was stark and I noticed the looks on the ki
Read more

So, What Should We Do?

Image
  Pictures of wildfire damage at Glacier National Park in Montana 2016 What type of activities will help in reducing the effects of ecological overshoot? I'm often asked this question when I point out that solar panels, wind turbines, nuclear energy, hydroelectric dams, EVs, and all other technological devices will not help climate change, pollution loading, or any other predicament under the parent predicament of ecological overshoot: "Well, what are your solutions?" Sadly, this question assumes that I am pointing out a PROBLEM, not a predicament. Predicaments don't have solutions. So, I don't have a solution (and nobody else does either, despite claims to the contrary - more on that in a couple of paragraphs). But I can tell them what WON'T help. Buying more stuff, REGARDLESS of what it is, WILL NOT HELP. Because ecological overshoot is a predicament with an outcome and not a problem with a solution , people need to adjust their expectations accordingly.
Read more