And what are western leaders doing? Supporting a genocide, pushing wars -- both of which contribute hugely to environmental destruction, and approving new fracking projects. And then propagandizing their actions, which the gullible among us are falling for. These leaders are unfit to govern.
Beyond unfit, criminally insane. They are definitionally psychotic, out of touch with reality in a delusional world of their own making. Unfortunately, that is the case with all too many of us.
These types of reports used to destroy me. But I’m finding hope in the actions of the Earth Law movement. It’s easy to get caught up in the lack of change from our largest systems, like international law and the UN. But those are always the last to change. Eco-centric law is rapidly spreading around the globe, I’m about to publish a post in it. Moreover, even the CBD has eco-centric language and refers to the Rights of Mother Earth. Even tho there’s nothing concrete yet (aside from a new funding mechanism, and we’ll see how that goes), this signals a huge societal shift. We must act as if we can save the planet or it’s already lost.
We need a new tack to take. Blasting about danger falls on deaf ears. So, now what? That's the question to be asking. We have a humanity running on economic interests not humanitarian ones. It's urgent to change the mind of humanity. I have an offer to send anyone $100 for pointing me to scheming that's going on. No takers. I have ideas. Here's my latest post: "Making a case for how the world could be different" https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/making-a-case-for-how-the-world-could.
I totally agree that the needed change is on the level of a consciousness shift toward cooperation, as you write in your piece. The issue is that institutions which shape consciousness, media, education, etc., are oriented to competition and business as usual, owned and influenced as they are by corporations and the rich. I think it will take some hard blows to erode belief in the system. The question is how we will prepare, set up cooperative alternatives. I’ll try to get at that in next post.
It was emotionally hard to pull that piece together, even though it was mostly quotes. I’ll relate how I’m dealing with it I hope in a post later this week.
Getting some comments from climate deniers, including a new variation known as “climate realists.” I don’t debate settled science. No time to waste on that. Comments will be removed and commenters blocked.
I know many are out in the backwoods of my Cascadia bioregion pursuing just such a path. Outside of #9 I do not disagree. To the level you can create an ecological alternative close to the Earth, all power to you. But I also note my friends out there tend to drive way more than this city dweller, now less than 1,000 miles/year. And who is to say rural dwellers won’t get burned out by the wildfires scorching the hills? As many have in the mountains of Oregon and Washington. Or washed away in the floods? And if it really goes down into a Mad Max world, and you’re the people with food, you better have some common defense and firearms to protect you from the hordes streaming out of the cities. It’ll be a warlord world. That’s assuming that droughts and inundations have not cancelled your ability to grow food. I think if we don’t deal at a systemic level, what we do as individuals and small communities will be swept away in the rising tide of consequences. Maybe our chances are limited to avert them, but in my view it’s the best shot we have.
We are not on the brink, we are over the brink, on the way to a lot of really bad stuff happening to everyone. The best we can do is plan for a few of us to survive. Maybe the Defense Department is already doing that.
It says something when such an extreme statement can seem moderate. In my view, yes we have bad stuff coming. Hopefully it can motivate a change. I think mass dieback is a possibility, but not an inevitability.
You may think mass dieback (or dieoff as some of us say) is not an inevitability, but can you dismiss it? Of course not. And what is the probability of dieoff? I would say 95%. In other words a certainty except for the 5% probability of a random positive change in the overall base conditions. So if it is a 95% probability - as I have been saying since 1970 - isn't it incumbent on us to develop solutions that have viability in the short-term, mid-term and long-term? For the economics folks I deal with, I say that there is a huge opportunity cost in spending energy on reform when the system will collapse. Or that has well over a 50% probability of collapse.
All I can say is I understand why you believe what you do. Though I do not share your view of the percentages. I have opted, out of a sense of care for future generations and compassion for us all to work for what I see as providing the greatest odds of collective survival, which entails systemic change. That is reflected in the writing at this site.
We will have a much better idea of how things stand on November 6th. If Kamala wins, I willl concede that there is hope. If Trump wins, it is every person for themself.
And what are western leaders doing? Supporting a genocide, pushing wars -- both of which contribute hugely to environmental destruction, and approving new fracking projects. And then propagandizing their actions, which the gullible among us are falling for. These leaders are unfit to govern.
Beyond unfit, criminally insane. They are definitionally psychotic, out of touch with reality in a delusional world of their own making. Unfortunately, that is the case with all too many of us.
These types of reports used to destroy me. But I’m finding hope in the actions of the Earth Law movement. It’s easy to get caught up in the lack of change from our largest systems, like international law and the UN. But those are always the last to change. Eco-centric law is rapidly spreading around the globe, I’m about to publish a post in it. Moreover, even the CBD has eco-centric language and refers to the Rights of Mother Earth. Even tho there’s nothing concrete yet (aside from a new funding mechanism, and we’ll see how that goes), this signals a huge societal shift. We must act as if we can save the planet or it’s already lost.
We need a new tack to take. Blasting about danger falls on deaf ears. So, now what? That's the question to be asking. We have a humanity running on economic interests not humanitarian ones. It's urgent to change the mind of humanity. I have an offer to send anyone $100 for pointing me to scheming that's going on. No takers. I have ideas. Here's my latest post: "Making a case for how the world could be different" https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/making-a-case-for-how-the-world-could.
I totally agree that the needed change is on the level of a consciousness shift toward cooperation, as you write in your piece. The issue is that institutions which shape consciousness, media, education, etc., are oriented to competition and business as usual, owned and influenced as they are by corporations and the rich. I think it will take some hard blows to erode belief in the system. The question is how we will prepare, set up cooperative alternatives. I’ll try to get at that in next post.
This is so depressing and frustrating. And it still is so low on the list of priorities for most people. When will we learn??
It was emotionally hard to pull that piece together, even though it was mostly quotes. I’ll relate how I’m dealing with it I hope in a post later this week.
We will regret so badly. It’s so hard living knowing all this and still seeing no real action.
Getting some comments from climate deniers, including a new variation known as “climate realists.” I don’t debate settled science. No time to waste on that. Comments will be removed and commenters blocked.
"I will follow up with my reflections as a long-term climate activist and writer, stating what I think we can do, facing such a dire situation."
The situation has been dire since 1965 at least. What we can do is the same thing I and many others have been working on for over 55 years.
1) Get out of the city.
2) Grow as much of your food as you can.
3) Live simply so others can simply live.
4) Build community.
5) Set up alternative structures and systems.
6) Do research on the ground.
7) Use the most efficient engine we have to do work - the human body.
8) Use as little fossil fuel as possible and try to make do without it.
9) Work as little as possible in the System.
I know many are out in the backwoods of my Cascadia bioregion pursuing just such a path. Outside of #9 I do not disagree. To the level you can create an ecological alternative close to the Earth, all power to you. But I also note my friends out there tend to drive way more than this city dweller, now less than 1,000 miles/year. And who is to say rural dwellers won’t get burned out by the wildfires scorching the hills? As many have in the mountains of Oregon and Washington. Or washed away in the floods? And if it really goes down into a Mad Max world, and you’re the people with food, you better have some common defense and firearms to protect you from the hordes streaming out of the cities. It’ll be a warlord world. That’s assuming that droughts and inundations have not cancelled your ability to grow food. I think if we don’t deal at a systemic level, what we do as individuals and small communities will be swept away in the rising tide of consequences. Maybe our chances are limited to avert them, but in my view it’s the best shot we have.
See my response to your comment below.
We are not on the brink, we are over the brink, on the way to a lot of really bad stuff happening to everyone. The best we can do is plan for a few of us to survive. Maybe the Defense Department is already doing that.
It says something when such an extreme statement can seem moderate. In my view, yes we have bad stuff coming. Hopefully it can motivate a change. I think mass dieback is a possibility, but not an inevitability.
You may think mass dieback (or dieoff as some of us say) is not an inevitability, but can you dismiss it? Of course not. And what is the probability of dieoff? I would say 95%. In other words a certainty except for the 5% probability of a random positive change in the overall base conditions. So if it is a 95% probability - as I have been saying since 1970 - isn't it incumbent on us to develop solutions that have viability in the short-term, mid-term and long-term? For the economics folks I deal with, I say that there is a huge opportunity cost in spending energy on reform when the system will collapse. Or that has well over a 50% probability of collapse.
All I can say is I understand why you believe what you do. Though I do not share your view of the percentages. I have opted, out of a sense of care for future generations and compassion for us all to work for what I see as providing the greatest odds of collective survival, which entails systemic change. That is reflected in the writing at this site.
We will have a much better idea of how things stand on November 6th. If Kamala wins, I willl concede that there is hope. If Trump wins, it is every person for themself.