Living in Peace and Wisdom on our Planet

	My Profile Log In Register Free Now

Planet Thoughts

Advanced

Try a video

Home About Books&Media Resources Contact

News Quote Review Story Tip

All Blogs News Quotes Reviews Stories Tips

Get Email or Web Quotes

or use our RSS feeds:

New Feed: Fossil Fuel
Full	Blog	News
Read & Comment: A Solar Community In Isr... 'Let's You And Him Fight... Paul Krugman's Errors An... Why Climate Change Is An... Most recent comments: From Farm To Fork A Simple List: Things We... Can the affluent rest at... Actions: Bookmark the site Contribute $ Easy link from your site Visit Second Life Visit SU Blog

Blog item: Deny, Deny, Deny - But Never Look at the Big Picture

Email a Friend See Related

11 comments, last: Mar-10-2009 Add a comment Author:

(Mar-7-2009)

Categories: Philosophical & Quality of Life, Pollution, Sustainable Living, Wildlife and Nature

Die off, seen in the plant world "Deny, deny, deny" is the way some adults try to deal with unpleasant realities, whether caused by them and which they want to cover up, or caused by others (or by no one) and which they don't want to deal with.

In particular, those who deny the human influence on climate change and other resource or species problems, such as changes in the ocean, desertification, and so on, those people are busy denying as hard as they can while the true story continues to unfold all around them despite their best use of verbiage as a defensive shield. It reminds me of the typical shooting victim in a violent TV show, holding up a hand to try to ward off the bullets.

Recently I was reading, yet again, some under-informed denier claims made as comments on a blog site. But I realize clearly that the argument is not, and should not be, about how much global warming is being caused right now by humanity. That is a degradation or oversimplification of the real discussion that is needed, about our overall understanding of the planet as a finite home for all of us.

In that vein, I offer below what I wrote on that blog site as a comment. I hope it can help shift some views. I know that I have personally gotten enmeshed in the minutiae of environmental debate at times, and at times that is necessary and helpful, but the following is my antitode for both you the readers – if this helps – and for myself, for those periodic times when we absolutely need to come up for air and remember the big vision of a healthy planet well-managed by its controlling species – us. Here is that comment (with a couple of small punctuation improvements and a spelling change):

The deniers keep trying to make noise and confuse the issues. I have previously looked at WattsUpWithThat.com and ClimateAudit.com, and their articles are superficially scientific. They are popularized enough and demogoguery-filled enough to gather some popular support. However, as I have studied science more carefully than that, their arguments can be seen to originate out of some kind of fear.

The so-called alarmists are really those who can improve the economy and make the world a more stable place with a better future. There is a lot of hard work ahead – but not to see what is coming, and what is already here to some extent, is to have one's eyes shut tight.

As a teen, before I went to MIT, I used to grow bacteria in petri dishes. I learned then and have read repeatedly, that populations in restricted environments inevitably will overshoot and then die off – not completely, but well below their otherwise stable levels. In a natural environment, which a petri dish is not, eventually equilibrium gets restored, but for planetary changes that could take hundreds of thousands of years; let's not debate for the moment EXACTLY how long it would be.

The big picture, therefore, is that we have a limited system, the planet, in which people are using resources more and more rapidly, increasing both industrialization and population size. The big picture goes beyond the AGW debate, and that is what deniers are missing. The point is that the gradually melting ice caps and glaciers (including Antarctica), and the increasingly hot years (no, 2008 was NOT cooler than the prior 10 years, it was one of the warm years but not at the top), are only symptoms of a bigger problem, namely, that without use of intelligence we will continue to overshoot on this planet, with very painful results when the inevitable die off occurs.

We are a part of nature, and though we have more control than other species, we still need food and clean water, and shelter in most areas, in order to survive. These laws of nature are inexorable, and need to be considered carefully. The rest all flows from there.

Related PlanetThoughts.org reading:
  10 Human Fingerprints On Climate Change (Aug-19-2010)
  Winning the Lemonade Award (lemons included) (Nov-26-2008)
  Agriculture: Unsustainable Resource Depletion Be... (Nov-5-2008)
  The Ecology of Overpopulation and Overconsumption (Sep-25-2008)

Tags: overshoot, blog, big picture, agw, die off

Click one tag to see readings related specifically to that tag; click "Tags" to see all related readings

^ top

Add a comment

(Please log in or register free to follow comments)

Comment by:

PT (David Alexander) (Mar-10-2009) Web site
Stop, you are just saying that because you are my Auntie!

Indeed, you pose good questions in this comment. I think it will require a new way of doing things. But I think people do respond eventually. The fact that we are too slow this time around, for the moment, is NOT a prediction of future results in our behavior, as investment advisers like to say. I know you love the finance community, AG....

Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Mar-10-2009)
You are a kind, wonderful, motivated person. It shows.
I am a cynical, angry, distrustful creep and I think everyone else is delusional.
I would make a bet with you that humanity has already destroyed the earth and the "climate change" we are seeing is just the beginning of a new Venus-like atmosphere.
The problem is, no matter what happens, I lose.
The difference between now and all other occurances in human history of selfish behavior is that we have overwhelmed the earth's self-repair mechanisms. We could change, but we won't. Even if we do, I think it's too late.
The idea of the "one great society" is old and tired. Humans will cooperate until they figure out how great the group is working out, then they take the biggest group and use it to destroy anyone they don't like, eventually the rest of the little groups get together and repopulate the depleted Petri dish (Rome) or destroy the big group and its environs (Germany).
The bill of rights was written to maintain the protections of individuals against the bigger groups. What mechanism would you use to maintain the ideal group? When would the human group be considered less important than the nature group?
Until humans realize that they are no more important than the cockroach, we will not survive on this planet. We will eat and consume as long as we have an imagination to tell us we are more important than the things we eat.
Consciousness is NOT all it's cracked up to be. It is merely one more advantageous tool to exploit our environment for selfish gain. IF (a big if) we can contrive some permanent mechanism to moderate that exploitative behavior, then we have a slight chance. The problem is that we needed that mechanism in 1946. Perhaps if we take all of our processed technologies and consume them in an effort to put the carbon back in the soil, we could go on living as part of the natural world and sometime in the future rebuild slowly and net usefully. How many people do you think we would need to maintain a viable DNA base with enough diversity to overcome disasters and diseases?
The Fringe are the key, not the Mean. The Mean have created a petroleum-derived spike in the bell curve which is about to be sliced off at the root.

Comment by:

PT (David Alexander) (Mar-10-2009) Web site
Starting at the end, the earth is NOT a "bigger Petri dish". The difference is that the earth has self-cleaning and renewal mechanisms, while the Petri dish has none (dooming the bacteria or other organisms growing there).

I think you have shown your gloomy perception of humanity. Although we have never on a large scale acted with enlightened foresight, that is not to say we never will. In fact, humanity has never been forced to act as one.

Our trend toward unity may come too late to avoid some catastrophic results, but the ultimate question is whether we are doomed to acting as glorified reptiles following the basest survival and growth instincts, or whether humans and perhaps other mammals are capable of self-sacrifice of life and limb, sacrifice of well-being for others, and use of wisdom and intelligence to guide action.

I claim that we are all capable of that, and that such enlightened activity is already an everyday occurrence throughout the planet. At some point in the future such actions may dominate human society. They are already a significant part of every society, but are not dominant, and further, the perceived separation into tribes, cities, and countries has inhibited some of the instincts to act on a planetary basis to see the earth as one large "society".

To allow further growth into maturity by humanity, we need better or updated models of how to implement a such a society under today's specific circumstances, and then LOTS of education (in the broad sense of the word) at all ages, including adult.

But, at the least, to condemn humanity to mindless self-destruction goes against the evidence that I see. We may act too late for our own best interest this time around, but that strong flame of knowledge in humanity should be made even stronger so our future will be brighter.

Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Mar-10-2009)
I tend to dismiss everyone else's views because they are usually incomplete. Not always, but usually.
I don't assume that you are looking at a superficial approach, I see it in your other comments and how your statements conform to the 'normal' 'progressive' structure of statements.
For instance, your support of the various alternative energy programs to moderate the failure of our current economic system.
You mention the "big picture", but you don't see it. The big picture is that humans don't do as much intentionally as they THINK they do. We do stuff. We make up reasons for what we did. In that order. We delude ourselves into thinking that we 'changed' our culture when we might get lucky once in a while and the less destructive thing produced just happened to be prettier or shinier than the more destructive thing (selling more Mini Coopers than Hummers).
Human beings are defined as human by the existence of their imagination. It allows us to imagine we are smarter than yeast, but all logical evidence is to the contrary: we are using our imaginations to consume our planet and will soon die off: a bigger Petri dish is still a petri dish.

Comment by:

PT (David Alexander) (Mar-10-2009) Web site
AG, you make some good points, but I think you tend to dismiss everyone else's views. For example, we DO make the economy what we chose, by changing the culture and pattern of human activity.

I did say that we can improve the economy, and it seems you agree with that but you assume I am looking at a superficial approach to changing our economy, and maybe you assume that I have a traditional view of "economy". But why do you make those assumptions?

Through a process of intentional culture change as well as forced changes, we will eventually arrive at a new way of living. It seems that the battle is to increase consciousness enough so that we can make more of the decisions early and intelligently, rather than waiting until a collapsing natural world forces those changes on all of us under great duress.

Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Mar-10-2009)
One more (sorry, I'm a windbag):
The Really Big Picture is that we have to look at the small things. Answers to how we behave come from the bottom up and how we respect the bottom of the living chain of things will determine if we stay on the top.
The phrase "Act Locally" is cute, but what, exactly, should we DO locally? Helping the neighbor get his yacht running isn't exactly what is meant. How do we get people to think every time they make a purchase about how much it costs in the world? How do we also encourage people to do things for themselves instead of making purchases?
What are People For? If "simply living" isn't a good enough answer, then "living simply" is what we will ALL be doing soon enough; IF we are alive at all.
The Big Picture is that the vast majority of activities we are engaged in are unnecessary for actually just living. The failing economy reflects this in how the speculative money lost amounts to ~ 50% so far, with no end in sight, and we haven't lost 50% of the population of the planet, and in fact, it is still growing (for now).
Are we going to be able to keep everyone alive when the Systems fail without the masses consuming every living thing on the planet like locusts in a grain field?

Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Mar-10-2009)
Oh By the Way...We are already paying approximately 50% of our income in taxes and fees of one sort or another, probably more when all the costs are added up for administration and environmental effects of that administration. (we hire people to drive to work while paying gas taxes to tell us how much tax we pay for driving to work, then companies add it to the cost of our products).

Comment by: auntiegrav (auntiegrav) (Mar-10-2009)
Steve said:
"But prevail we shall because we must."
>>>>>
Why? That statement is illogical. You do not know for sure that we will prevail, and the only impetus is a desire to do so, not any natural reason. Most species go extinct, as we most likely shall. If, however, we look at the reason that species prevail or go extinct, it comes down to one thing: Net Usefulness to nature (including ourselves). The species that survive are the ones who create more usefulness for nature in the future than they consume in the present. They are not just 'sustainable', but overproductive (in case of catastrophe) in a Net Useful way.

David said: "The so-called alarmists are really those who can improve the economy and make the world a more stable place with a better future."

The real delusion is that we intentionally make the economy what it is. We do not. The economy is a side-effect of human activities. Human culture up to this point has been like the previous statement "we prevail because we must", which, when translated, means "we prevail because we can exploit something to be productive", but it does not address our fundamental success as a species, which REQUIRES that we consume less resources in the present than we enhance or create for the future of our offspring (or create useful offspring). No matter what technical schemes or systems we come up with, they will not be successful unless they BOTH encourage usefulness AND limit consumption.
Economically, that means something that limits the economy....a consumption tax.

Eliminating the income tax (Trade alone already encourages overproduction) while implementing consumption tax would do both. The only question left is "How much?"

THAT's what our politicians should be debating. Not "carbon tax" or "road tax" or "incentives", but just "How much will the sales tax be on everything we purchase?"

I suggest a starting point of 40%

Comment by:

Greengecko (Rona) (Mar-9-2009) Web site
The big picture is what we have to be aware of in all our planning and future building activities. The unsustainability of the current fossil-fuel based economy becomes ever more apparent.

Unfortunately a large proportion of society takes a head-in-sand approach to many aspects of our situation.

We need joined-up thinking about the whole matrix of issues of sustainability and the long-term survival of humans.

A new economic order is so clearly needed so that real lives of people and wildlife are no longer secondary to short term profit for the relatively few.

I don't know just how important groups like the Bilderberg group are - I think that anxiety about the fate of the earth and our powerlessness against vested interests probably leads to a certain amount of paranoia. Nevertheless, it is clear that companies and individuals which profit from "business as usual" will be obstacles to change.

I still hope that some techno-fixes will help us usher in a new world order which is much more egalitarian. Maybe that's wild optimism - but I often think that 9 billion people is not really that many - if we are doing things right. And that there are "more things in heaven and earth" than we have yet dreamt of - to misquote Shakespeare!

Comment by:

PT (David Alexander) (Mar-9-2009) Web site
Thank you for the support, Steven.

I do what I can, as do many others. I think you are right that a relatively small number still control the way society operates, not through a vast conspiracy, but by having control of the economic and publicity mechanisms that exist today. I hope you are right that the grass roots growth will uproot the giant tree.

Comment by: StevenSALMONY (Steven Earl SALMONY) (Mar-7-2009) Web site
Dear David Alexander and good people all,

Let us agree never to give in and certainly not to ever give up.

At no time prior to recent days can I recall more vibrant and worthwhile discussions of humankind’s distinctly human-driven predicament. For me, the "big picture thinking" found in the PLANETTHOUGHTS community represents a microcosm of what needs to be occurring ubiquitously. This work, the work of other groups, organizations and institutional instrumentalities appear to be necessary parts of an overall effort that simply has to continue, I believe, because our efforts will eventually lead to change.

Change from unsustainability to sustainability is the goal of the human community, I suppose.

It seems that if our leaders keep doing precisely what they are doing now and the family of humanity keeps getting what it is getting now, then the chance of some sort of unimaginable collapse of human civilization at some point in space-time appears likely……….perhaps sooner rather than later. On the other hand, if we can determine what human behavior changes need to be achieved and then move forward boldly to encourage policy formulation and implementation of the changes, perhaps the mere perception of the necessary behavior changes would be experienced as tantamount to another sort of crash, one that would accompany the unwelcome change of worldviews, expectations and lifestyles. While in the former instance, Nature would be in control of the fate of the human species, in the latter circumstances perhaps the human family could assume at least a modicum of control, initiate behavioral changes and, by so doing, take some degree of control over its fate.

Please note that I am a psychologist. For a moment imagine a patient that is suffering from an addiction to a patently unsustainable way of living in the world. You ask the patient, “As you see it, what can you do about your addiction?” The patient replies, “If I keep doing precisely what I am doing now and have been doing for a long time, I am sure to be dead soon. On the other hand, if I choose a different way of living in the world, then I am afraid I might die.” The avoidance of an actual danger exposes the patient to a perceived danger. Behavior change would also mean that the patient’s experience of comfort would be exposed to the time-limited experience of subjective discomfort.

Despite the best efforts of David, Paul Chefurka and many other sensible people, there are people in high places who vigorously object to efforts such as these. Gatekeepers {Bilderberger Group and Trilateral Commission members are excellent examples} of the global political economy and the status quo are not large in number; nevertheless, these self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe are so well-entrenched within the most recently reconstructed Tower of Babel {called the global economy in our time} that it is difficult to imagine how the family of humanity prevails against them. But prevail we shall because we must. Alternatives to our success would be ever so much more catastrophic and destructive than what is wrought in the process of voluntarily making necessary changes in the unsustainable ways human beings live today.

Let’s keep going and hope others will choose to join us by doing the same.

With thanks to all for what you are doing here and elsewhere,

Steve

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on the Human Population,
established 2001
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
www.panearth.org

^ top

About author/contributor Member: PT (David Alexander)

PT (David Alexander)

Web site: http://www.insightandenergy.com

My lifelong pursuit, since age 18, has been to live more fully and find wisdom. This has involved studies with Zen masters, Tai Chi masters, and great psychotherapists while achieving my license as a gestalt therapist and psychoanalyst.

Along the way, I became aware of how the planet is under great stress due to the driven nature of human activity on this planet.

I believe that the advancement of human well-being will reduce societies addictive behaviors, and will thus also help preserve the environment and perhaps slow down the effects of global warming and other major threats to the health of human societies.

Visit Green Wave Email Marketing
Email Marketing for You and Your Planet

We won a Gotham Green Award for 2010, on Earth Day! Thank you Gotham Networking for this award.

See the attractive event brochure.

Recommended Sites

  Member of:
GOtham Green networking
Green Collar Economy
New York Academy of Sciences
Shades of Green Network

  PlanetThoughts
     Members/Affiliates *
Approaching the Limits
    to Growth
EcoEarth.Info
Environmental News Network
EESI.org
GreenBiz.com
GreenHomeBuilding.com
Heroin and Cornflakes
NewScientist
ScienceDaily

* Members of PlanetThoughts
  communities on SU or MBL,
  and blog article affiliates

Other Favorite Blogs
21st Century Citizen
Center for Bio. Diversity
Easy Ways to Go Green
EcoGeek
Good Bags
Opposing Views

ClickBlog.org

	Volunteer Terms of Use Privacy Policy
	Copyright © 2024 PlanetThoughts.org. All Rights Reserved. Except for blog items by David Alexander: Some Rights Reserved.