The Double Bind With Mitigating Ideas
Mash Fork Falls, Camp Creek State Park, West Virginia
Earlier this year when I embarked on writing about acceptance, I didn't realize at the time how that would actually help me to see things from a slightly different perspective; one from realizing that the synthesis of my articles has a particular component of breaking down mental barriers of cognitive dissonance to filter out the common myths, narratives, and reassuring lies that bombard us every day. This then allows me to see more clearly just how most peoples' concept of solutions is really a mental attempt at escape, whether perceived consciously or not. Perhaps this is based on fear, one of the biggest motivators of all time. Fight or flight are the two typical initial responses to any perceived threat, so escape (flight) fits well into this theme. One cannot negotiate with these predicaments, so attempting to bargain with them is rather pointless.
Most of us are, in a sense, trying to "escape" from the realities of the predicaments bearing down on us. This is why the "solution" obsession is so prevalent. Some of these escape mechanisms are rooted in ideas that might actually work IF attempted in small communities where cooperation was more or less guaranteed. But right there is the issue that causes most ideas to fail before they even get out of the gate. Global society is a mix of small communities and much larger urban metropolises. Ideas in larger societies such as these much larger urban metropolises most common in today's industrialized nations are seen differently by different groups of people, colored by their own belief systems and worldviews which Dave Pollard pointed out in last week's article. Another troubling issue is the fact that not everyone actually defines ideas and concepts the same way. As a result, ideas that would work in a small community will not work in global society because of conflicting definitions, goals, beliefs, and opinions, making uptake of such ideas patchy at best.
Most the ideas I've seen end up taking us in the wrong direction because a large part of society today has little if any comprehension of ecological overshoot. The ideas are idealistic because they don't take into account how society accepts or rejects such ideas. In addition, due to a lack of understanding of the root predicament, many people think that false "solutions" can actually help when in reality they don't because they actually increase overshoot. An excellent example is how most climate scientists understand their symptom predicament quite well but don't appear to have the capacity to zoom out and see the wider boundary of the root predicament causing climate change.
Reducing emissions cannot be accomplished by increasing overshoot, so adding more technology and/or more complex technology will not help. Attempting to build more systems, new systems, and/or more complex systems simply takes us backwards, not forwards, AND requires new forms of maintenance that causes even more overshoot to occur. Those two links regarding cleaning solar panels are just one part of the growing requirements that this form of bargaining entails. The same kinds of maintenance issues affect wind turbines and all the new infrastructure of the electrical grid required to facilitate the use of solar panels and wind turbines (and every other source of intermittent generation). Don't forget to add in the required maintenance on the robots cleaning those solar panels.
"Very few people seem to understand common sense that the first thing one does when one finds themselves in a hole is to STOP DIGGING. The bottom line is that we are not going to build our way or engineer our way out of this predicament. Reducing ecological overshoot by changing our behavior of technology use through reducing it is the only way for us to voluntarily reduce the harm, and as one can clearly see through all the various metrics, this is actually going in the wrong direction (simply Google "Great Acceleration" or look at recent temperature records being broken all over the world or look at recent global emissions measurements)."
I've tackled so many different ideas in the past that I often forget which ones I've delved into and which ones I haven't. I have talked about localization before, but here is a more indepth view of things that I doubt many people spend their time thinking about. It demonstrates how even the ideas that many think will help us have their own inherent shortcomings. I tend to focus on these shortcomings to point out that so many of the common narratives that seem soothing on the surface are really anything but soothing once one looks underneath the hood in a more critical fashion.
What I write about isn't popular. Nobody likes a Cassandra. However, I'm not trying to win a popularity contest, and whether people like me or what I bring to the table is likewise not a concern of mine. I expect that folks aren't going to like my articles, as even I don't like what I am disclosing in them. I am joined by many other ecological thinkers on this topic, and Robert Jensen brings this front and center in this guest post titled, How to Lose Friends and Influence Very Few People. I know very little about the trans culture, so I'll take his word for it. This article helped to inform me enough to be able to make an opinion on it at least. But I know a considerable amount about ecological sustainability and the lack thereof in modern society and agree with him on many levels. I do think he is staying somewhat conservative on population numbers, as I do not think most people are going to willingly give up today's modern conveniences, meaning that nature will be stepping in and forcing the issue. It's a good article, as he sees the same issues I do and is willing to speak out about them.
The trouble with practically every mitigating idea is that most all of them have effects opposite of what is desired over the long haul or their effects are nullified by the existing conditions of the future. Even ones designed to regenerate life systems or conserve biodiversity or protect certain species have specific blind spots rendering them nothing more than noble ideas just for today. This often comes as a result of short-term thinking based on today's conditions, not the conditions of the future. I have taken a look at many of these ideas such as regenerative agriculture, permaculture, and assisted migration, among others, and once one realizes that agriculture is on its way out due to climate change, one can easily see that the first two ideas are moot long-term. Assisted migration has the blind spot of limitations both due to energy and resource decline and the geographical limitations of where species can be migrated to. When one takes into consideration that the poles are warming much faster than warmer areas closer to the equator, does moving species towards the poles equal anything more than bargaining? Sure, this idea works today, while we still have ample surplus energy available to undertake such activities and the existing growing conditions are better in other areas, but soon enough this will be a waste of time and energy. By the end of this century or the next, conditions will no longer be favorable for many different plants and trees regardless of location.
I pointed out the trouble with ideas designed to help coral reefs. The ideas are noble, but misguided. Just like practically every idea posited as a "solution," each one of them makes the mistake of assuming that what is being fought is a problem instead of the predicament each actually is. So, many of these ideas proposed that are great in today's world will not work in tomorrow's world. Still, the trouble with every single idea proposed as a "solution" is to continue everything as it is today. This is, quite simply, IMPOSSIBLE. I hate to sound so pessimistic, but take ANY unsustainable activity (such as civilization or even an individual life) and the longer it exists or persists, the closer it becomes to its own destruction, death, or devolution. So, even if one could solve climate change or energy and resource decline or even the master predicament, ecological overshoot, what we have today is still unsustainable and nothing will change that basic fact.
While writing this, I came across yet another prime example of the reductionist mindset most people have. This article follows the same path so many others do in not seeing the forest through the trees. It reduces the predicament into constituent parts rather than seeing it holistically. The author is still trying to bargain with the predicament instead of accepting it, since he appears to think that political will can somehow solve it. This isn't a political problem; this is an ecological predicament. It appears that the author doesn't truly understand the predicament, quote:
Will we rise to the challenge? Here it is useful to make a distinction between optimism and hope. We can think of optimism as a glass-half-full attitude that everything will be fine despite the evidence. I’m far from optimistic. As Peter Frankopan concludes in The Earth Transformed (2023): ‘Much of human history has been about the failure to understand or adapt to changing circumstances in the physical and natural world around us.’ That is why the great ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia and the Yucatán peninsula have disappeared.
On the other hand, I am a believer in radical hope, by which I mean recognising that the chances of success may be slim but still being driven to act by the values and vision you are rooted in. Time and again, humankind has risen up collectively, often against the odds, to tackle shared problems and overcome crises.
The challenge we face as a civilisation is to draw on history for tomorrow, and turn radical hope into action."
In the very first paragraph of this quote, he makes the mistake of thinking that any such thing such as an "ecological civilization" exists or even can exist. Once again, attempting to continue life the same way but with a few modifications is what this person is hoping for. Sorry, but no can do. There is a sustainable lifestyle - it's called hunting and gathering and it can only support a small fraction of today's global population and (here's the kicker) it most likely can't support any large animals (like us) by the end of the century due to changes caused by all the symptom predicaments of ecological overshoot.
In the second paragraph of the quote, he appears to think that if we just "adapt to changing circumstances in the physical and natural world around us" that we'll avoid collapse of civilization. It's obvious here that he doesn't understand that collapse is inevitable. Once again, here's someone who is busy trying to escape the inescapable. The civilizations he mentions disappeared because like all civilizations, they were unsustainable. This isn't something that can be adapted to.
In the third paragraph, quote: "Time and again, humankind has risen up collectively, often against the odds, to tackle shared problems and overcome crises." We don't have a problem here - we have a predicament. It has an outcome, not a solution; which means that it really doesn't matter what we do to tackle it, it will not be overcome. What's required here is acceptance, not yet another mitigating idea that won't mitigate anything.
The last paragraph is yet another call to action but one which inevitably denies that collapse is built in and cannot be avoided. His belief in radical hope [see hopium] is really nothing more than denial of reality, sadly.
All in all, mitigating ideas are generally rooted in the obsession for solutions which is rooted in escapism. It's understandable because it is human nature to want things to be similar to today and for life to continue as it is right now, but this IS NOT POSSIBLE. Change is the only constant. Rather than embrace ideas guaranteed to fail because the frameworks and conditions of today will be unavailable and/or different in the future, embrace the change that is inevitable. Try to keep in mind what you can control, and what you can't.
Like my pictures? Check out my latest post here!
Comments
Post a Comment