Are we sleepwalking to catastrophe?
Well thought out and executed piece. I'm excited because it ties into my own research, which explains why so many people CANNOT accept peace. Cannot accept harmony, tolerance, wisdom, kindness, respect, humility, etc etc. He (capitalized) eats at the core of our minds, convincing us we are more, that we are deserving, that we are right. Life, Nature, and Earth all pale before His influence, which means all of our fears will be realized: people will content themselves with material goals, they will try to be first, try to be on top, no matter what they have to do to get there. No morals, ethics, or laws shall restrain them-the ludicrous development of the military-industrial complex is a testament to this. Time to repost this on LinkedIn...Bravo, sir!
I agree with the conclusion, that the solution to the crisis of the threat of nuclear annihilation, and the various ecological crises, is to move from a world order based on domination to one based on cooperation. But I must point out that this is calling for a truly profound revolution, to an upending of the path humanity has been on for several thousand years. The reason we're in the fix we're in is that groups, tribes, nations that seek to dominate via violence nearly always succeed; no one has yet figured out a solution to this problem. The UN was based on the idea that the wold's nations collectively could block a single nation, or cohort of nations, beginning to act aggressively. But the price of it getting off the ground was the Security Council, in which the most aggressive nations, those that already had nukes, were all given veto power, so therefor it had its teeth pulled at its birth. If we can't somehow figure out how to stop the sociopaths among us from seizing control over the rest of us, if we can't come up with an answer at last to the problem of the success of domination-based cultures, we likely won't exist another century.
The topic of this piece is the threat of nuclear war, along with the fundamental obsolescence of competition as the basis of international relations. That obsolescence, is, of course, of key concern to me, since it is the driver of the nuclear annihilation threat. And because nothing could possibly be more absurd.
Still, I must briefly comment on this statement:
"The climate movement is certainly working on the challenge by seeking to replace fossil fuels, tools of global geopolitical domination as we see all too well today."
The belief that "the climate movement" has as its principal purpose the replacement of fossil fuels is at least as obsolete as the notion that the legitimate purpose and function of nation states is competition in a King-of-the-hill game of domination and hegemony. One has to be entirely bereft of the significance of the Heinberg Pulse and the Michaux Monkeywrench (Google them), and myriad other paradigm shifting critiques of the mainstream "energy transition" paradigm to understand that there can be no simple replacement of fossil with non-fossil energy sources to solve the ecological-energy-economic crisis of our time. That paradigm or narrative -- of simple replacement-- is, in a certain sense of the word, a "myth". It's a fiction. Its purpose is to distract us from the real task at hand -- which is voluntary energy descent on the basis of knowledge, understanding and fact-based responsiveness.
The "energy transition" illusion being offered by the liars (corporations, billionaires, 'educational institutions', politicians and the media) is meant to keep kicking the can down the road to our collective doom, not to respond to a fact-based knowledge of our actual world situation. It's certainly no less a threat to the future of life on Earth than nuclear arms are, in the longer temporal framing. But all of the narratives which threaten our future are rooted in deception, ignorance, lies, fraud and ... did I mention ignorance? The threat to life on Earth is ignorance. And the replacement theory of energy transition is rooted in ignorance.
Just to be clear....
I said, "The belief that "the climate movement" has as its principal purpose the replacement of fossil fuels is at least as obsolete as the notion that the legitimate purpose and function of nation states is competition in a King-of-the-hill game of domination and hegemony."
What I meant to say here is that the goal of "energy transition" is not a matter of replacement of one kind of energy with another -- from fossil to renewable. That's nonsense! The real goal of energy transition is mostly a matter of radically reducing energy use, regardless of source. To understand this one must understand the Heinberg Pulse and the Micheaux Monkeywrench, etc., etc. There can be no replacement of current energy use levels with renewables. That proposition is not factual.