Thank you Patrick....it looks like we are not going to turn it around. Unless somehow we could grab the wheel and shut down the fossil fuel industry. Would that work..? I wonder?
Very well might. In fact, hard to see the powers taking us to hell being dislodged without some kind of collapse. I have worked and still do for a smoother transition based on foresight. With some sense of futility now. But it may take the asteroid striking for the dinosaurs to die so the mammals can emerge from their burrows to begin evolution anew. A lot of what is being done now to create alternative social, economic and political structures might be regarded as burrowing. Is there an either-or? It could be argued that global economic collapse is the inevitable outcome of the current system. That we really are in the early stages of the limits to growth scenarios projected by Meadows et al. It could also be posited that the financialized economy that is driving ecological overshoot is also undermining itself by its own internal contradictions that ramify throughout the economic and social world, even apart from the ecological foundations. I wish I could be more optimistic. But I don’t see the turnaround happening that needs to be happening now.
I am also concerned that the "captains" seem more interested in spending their wealth on war rather than taking care of people or, critically, on making sure the large chunks in the broken up meteor belt that the earth passes through twice a year are removed...we have the technology to do this.
If a meteor could wipe out the dinos, how is it that we think we are immune?
It's as if, as a race (humans), we are collectively as immature as young people convinced they are invincible and will live forever.
Meanwhile, as Mary Oliver says, "the world goes on;" her poem "Wild Geese" continues to sustain me.
Evolution endowed humans with emotions, i.e. with a biological system within our brains, which enabled us to assess (usually accurately) danger on the one hand and opportunity on the other. Those who made the wrong assessment were removed from the human gene pool. Those who correctly assessed it passed on their more finely honed observations and reactions. However, innate human emotions, as effective as they are for natural risks, were not endowed with the capacity to understand or predict the consequences of human-created entities, i.e. technology and complex social arrangements. Only science and the Enlightenment were able to provide us, via language, books and evidence, with the potential adverse effects of non=nature. That is our dilemma today: we have scientific data and evidence analyzing the consequences of our behavior, our society and the technologies we rely on. It is these, not emotions or experience, that tell us
what we are doing right or wrong. The absence of an evolutionary internal signal telling us we are nearing the precipice leaves humans open to ideology, lies, myths, fiction and just bad judgment.
Even in ancient times, myths were artistic attempts to warn us about possible negative consequences, such as those of incest or other aberrant behavior. Now we have science to provide
explanations for how things work but this is insufficient to overcome the embedded irrationality of humans, which education and knowledge have NOT erased or even mitigated. The Prometheus
myth tried to address this by warning of overreach and arrogance. Even the ancient Greeks knew that there were limits, though punishment was not climate change but something smaller and more localized. How to "privilege" knowledge, intellect and scientific evidence over innate irrationality and constructed ideologies was and is the biggest challenge. So far most humans, at least governments, have not only failed to do this but actively RESIST it. Anti intellectualism has triumphed in social governance and society large. As long as it prevails it is clear that our planet
has a very short future, or at least human civilization. No evidence exists to indicate the contrary.
There is one myth of modern times that resonates. Frankenstein’s monster. When we think we can evade the greatest limit, death, by our scientific and technological mastery. Older myths also speak to us. You can have your magic carpet ride, says the djinn. Just that little problem with the effect of its spew on the atmosphere. You can create entities to do your work for you, like the sorcerer’s apprentice. But they may get out of your control. You can research what’s in Pandora’s box. But once you do, you can’t put it back in. From nuclear to AI. I think what we really face now is the greatest system of distraction and disinformation ever created that obscures what we know of science, and diverts our attention elsewhere. Because the system is built around no limits and uses its ability to manipulate the public mind from paying attention. It’s quite deliberate.
Thanks for articulating this difference. However, in apprenticeship there can be authoritarianism in order to enforce discipline and focus on the important details instead of being distracted or casual.
Think of medieval apprenticeships. Then think of the modern classroom, where discipline and focus are needed continually. People will accept this kind of discipline because most of them recognize its benefits and respect the teacher. But when leaders start making important decisions or policies based on their own ideology and ignore their constituency (i.e. elected officials), that's when trouble arises, in the lack of accountability or even defiance of public wishes. We readily delegate power to those we trust and who honestly represents. if they don't, we don't re elect them. Or the leader loses authority and status. As a music lover I point to Wagner's opera Die Meistersinger, with the respected disciplined Hans Sachs and the meistersinger organization that
is empowered to judge artistic merit. Sachs must have been a formidable character (he really existed), one of the most highly regarded in his profession as well as his wisdom. Despite the mindless hate of Wagner, this opera made the point that tradition and training are crucial in any endeavor but innovation must not be smothered. Unfortunately the focus on traditional art and culture in this opera has led many people to consider the opera as some kind of preHitler
authoritarian culture. They need to listen more closely to the music.
Let us hope that we'll figure out a new way, a way in which there is not a hierarchy with "captains" at the helm. I have lost all faith in such hierarchy as a mode of organizing human affairs.
Dream on. With social animals, of which humans are one, there is always a hierarchy and for the most part it is adaptive (it facilitates survival and reproduction) even if it sometimes involves conflict or violence. It is not so much hierarchy as diversity of skills that allows
leadership to emerge and thus to instruct others and pass on knowledge. There will always be people with skills who excel in these. They need to be acknowledged and respected because they are how humans progress and create things. I am perfectly happy with a "captain" who has a medical degree because he is useful. I am happy with artists who excel in their art and thus provide me with aesthetic pleasure. This kind of hierarchy will never disappear. The hard part is insuring that captains are accountable to their constituency, i.e. to society.
I guess I should have been more specific and clear. I was referring mainly to authoritarian hierarchy -- and especially to authoritarian hierarchies of the sort which are now so common in capitalist industrial technological civilization. These are devoted to devaluing all which doesn't accumulate money and power into the hands of the few, while extracting it from the many through the power of command of a kind which is arranged into a command structure of a hierarchical sort, as in the military. It's fascinating how similar the military and the business corporation are in this respect.
Having a hierarchy of talents and skills is one thing. Being embedded in an authoritarian command structure within a Megamachine which behaves much like a paperclip maximizer is another. (See: https://generative.ink/alternet/paperclip-maximizer-wikipedia.html ) But the maximizer of corporate capitalism doesn't maximize paperclips. It maximizes money, of course. Money and power -- which are just two aspects of a singular "thing".
So it's important to understand that not all hierarchy is the same. Different qualities get organized into hierarchies in very different ways. The power to educate others in one's skill set definitely has a sort of hierarchy about it. But, ideally, this is never expressed in an authoritarian way. Nor need it be.
The hierarchies which comprise the Megamachine are part of a devouring apparatus which is ecocidal, effectively malicious and dangerous. They should not be participated in or tolerated.
In my view, when climate denialism is no longer a big problem, economic modelling that undermine the severity of climate change seem to be a major problem. I’ve translated a piece from a debate in Norway, following an author’s petition to the Norwegian government to stop exploring for new oil and gas, signed by 159 Norwegian authors, including among others Karl Ove Knausgård and me.
We're on the Pequod
Life on the Pequod
http://www.wolfenotes.com/2014/04/life-on-the-pequod/
And the captain is mad.
Thank you Patrick....it looks like we are not going to turn it around. Unless somehow we could grab the wheel and shut down the fossil fuel industry. Would that work..? I wonder?
If we could find a way, yes.
Global economic collapse could possibly do it. Would that be more or less awful than the alternative?
Very well might. In fact, hard to see the powers taking us to hell being dislodged without some kind of collapse. I have worked and still do for a smoother transition based on foresight. With some sense of futility now. But it may take the asteroid striking for the dinosaurs to die so the mammals can emerge from their burrows to begin evolution anew. A lot of what is being done now to create alternative social, economic and political structures might be regarded as burrowing. Is there an either-or? It could be argued that global economic collapse is the inevitable outcome of the current system. That we really are in the early stages of the limits to growth scenarios projected by Meadows et al. It could also be posited that the financialized economy that is driving ecological overshoot is also undermining itself by its own internal contradictions that ramify throughout the economic and social world, even apart from the ecological foundations. I wish I could be more optimistic. But I don’t see the turnaround happening that needs to be happening now.
...thank you for your thoughtfulness...
I am also concerned that the "captains" seem more interested in spending their wealth on war rather than taking care of people or, critically, on making sure the large chunks in the broken up meteor belt that the earth passes through twice a year are removed...we have the technology to do this.
If a meteor could wipe out the dinos, how is it that we think we are immune?
It's as if, as a race (humans), we are collectively as immature as young people convinced they are invincible and will live forever.
Meanwhile, as Mary Oliver says, "the world goes on;" her poem "Wild Geese" continues to sustain me.
Evolution endowed humans with emotions, i.e. with a biological system within our brains, which enabled us to assess (usually accurately) danger on the one hand and opportunity on the other. Those who made the wrong assessment were removed from the human gene pool. Those who correctly assessed it passed on their more finely honed observations and reactions. However, innate human emotions, as effective as they are for natural risks, were not endowed with the capacity to understand or predict the consequences of human-created entities, i.e. technology and complex social arrangements. Only science and the Enlightenment were able to provide us, via language, books and evidence, with the potential adverse effects of non=nature. That is our dilemma today: we have scientific data and evidence analyzing the consequences of our behavior, our society and the technologies we rely on. It is these, not emotions or experience, that tell us
what we are doing right or wrong. The absence of an evolutionary internal signal telling us we are nearing the precipice leaves humans open to ideology, lies, myths, fiction and just bad judgment.
Even in ancient times, myths were artistic attempts to warn us about possible negative consequences, such as those of incest or other aberrant behavior. Now we have science to provide
explanations for how things work but this is insufficient to overcome the embedded irrationality of humans, which education and knowledge have NOT erased or even mitigated. The Prometheus
myth tried to address this by warning of overreach and arrogance. Even the ancient Greeks knew that there were limits, though punishment was not climate change but something smaller and more localized. How to "privilege" knowledge, intellect and scientific evidence over innate irrationality and constructed ideologies was and is the biggest challenge. So far most humans, at least governments, have not only failed to do this but actively RESIST it. Anti intellectualism has triumphed in social governance and society large. As long as it prevails it is clear that our planet
has a very short future, or at least human civilization. No evidence exists to indicate the contrary.
There is one myth of modern times that resonates. Frankenstein’s monster. When we think we can evade the greatest limit, death, by our scientific and technological mastery. Older myths also speak to us. You can have your magic carpet ride, says the djinn. Just that little problem with the effect of its spew on the atmosphere. You can create entities to do your work for you, like the sorcerer’s apprentice. But they may get out of your control. You can research what’s in Pandora’s box. But once you do, you can’t put it back in. From nuclear to AI. I think what we really face now is the greatest system of distraction and disinformation ever created that obscures what we know of science, and diverts our attention elsewhere. Because the system is built around no limits and uses its ability to manipulate the public mind from paying attention. It’s quite deliberate.
Thanks for articulating this difference. However, in apprenticeship there can be authoritarianism in order to enforce discipline and focus on the important details instead of being distracted or casual.
Think of medieval apprenticeships. Then think of the modern classroom, where discipline and focus are needed continually. People will accept this kind of discipline because most of them recognize its benefits and respect the teacher. But when leaders start making important decisions or policies based on their own ideology and ignore their constituency (i.e. elected officials), that's when trouble arises, in the lack of accountability or even defiance of public wishes. We readily delegate power to those we trust and who honestly represents. if they don't, we don't re elect them. Or the leader loses authority and status. As a music lover I point to Wagner's opera Die Meistersinger, with the respected disciplined Hans Sachs and the meistersinger organization that
is empowered to judge artistic merit. Sachs must have been a formidable character (he really existed), one of the most highly regarded in his profession as well as his wisdom. Despite the mindless hate of Wagner, this opera made the point that tradition and training are crucial in any endeavor but innovation must not be smothered. Unfortunately the focus on traditional art and culture in this opera has led many people to consider the opera as some kind of preHitler
authoritarian culture. They need to listen more closely to the music.
Let us hope that we'll figure out a new way, a way in which there is not a hierarchy with "captains" at the helm. I have lost all faith in such hierarchy as a mode of organizing human affairs.
Dream on. With social animals, of which humans are one, there is always a hierarchy and for the most part it is adaptive (it facilitates survival and reproduction) even if it sometimes involves conflict or violence. It is not so much hierarchy as diversity of skills that allows
leadership to emerge and thus to instruct others and pass on knowledge. There will always be people with skills who excel in these. They need to be acknowledged and respected because they are how humans progress and create things. I am perfectly happy with a "captain" who has a medical degree because he is useful. I am happy with artists who excel in their art and thus provide me with aesthetic pleasure. This kind of hierarchy will never disappear. The hard part is insuring that captains are accountable to their constituency, i.e. to society.
I guess I should have been more specific and clear. I was referring mainly to authoritarian hierarchy -- and especially to authoritarian hierarchies of the sort which are now so common in capitalist industrial technological civilization. These are devoted to devaluing all which doesn't accumulate money and power into the hands of the few, while extracting it from the many through the power of command of a kind which is arranged into a command structure of a hierarchical sort, as in the military. It's fascinating how similar the military and the business corporation are in this respect.
Having a hierarchy of talents and skills is one thing. Being embedded in an authoritarian command structure within a Megamachine which behaves much like a paperclip maximizer is another. (See: https://generative.ink/alternet/paperclip-maximizer-wikipedia.html ) But the maximizer of corporate capitalism doesn't maximize paperclips. It maximizes money, of course. Money and power -- which are just two aspects of a singular "thing".
So it's important to understand that not all hierarchy is the same. Different qualities get organized into hierarchies in very different ways. The power to educate others in one's skill set definitely has a sort of hierarchy about it. But, ideally, this is never expressed in an authoritarian way. Nor need it be.
The hierarchies which comprise the Megamachine are part of a devouring apparatus which is ecocidal, effectively malicious and dangerous. They should not be participated in or tolerated.
The What Is Politics YouTube channel is largely devoted to exploring social hierarchies through an anthropological lens. I recommend it. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcYvqQ-UuvvFsHNNfwjYEBw
In my view, when climate denialism is no longer a big problem, economic modelling that undermine the severity of climate change seem to be a major problem. I’ve translated a piece from a debate in Norway, following an author’s petition to the Norwegian government to stop exploring for new oil and gas, signed by 159 Norwegian authors, including among others Karl Ove Knausgård and me.
https://agnarlirhus.substack.com/p/climanomics
This connection is beatifully pictured in your comparison between Titanic and our world order today.