dear all, 


re: this debate and Brian's request for a more focused one:  just the
gentlest of reminders that Crisis Forum  has been exploring exactly these
potential dichotomies now through a series of workshops entitled 'Climate
Change and Violence' for the last three years -  the fundamental premise
being that it will not be climate change per se which has the greatest
potentiality to destroy s us but the nature of our ongoing response....if
you like the consequences of consequences.


Rather than reinventing the wheel through having another debate (though
please feel free to do so if you Brian or whoever wish to organise!) the
next workshop is imminent on Friday 18 March at York St John university

I know a few of you are coming but here's as good an opportunity as any
(especially given this workshop's very open and inclusive format) for a
wider number of good folk on this list to put their very 'gentlest' of oars
in.....

Workshop 5: Human Consequences: Human Welfare 
http://www.crisis-forum.org.uk/events/workshop5.php

please let Marianne <[log in to unmask]> know if you're coming by
next Friday 11 March

cheers,

mark 




on 1/3/11 6:07 am, Luis Gutierrez at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Hello Brian and all,
> 
> I second the motion ... even though ... rather than an "either/or"
> bifurcation between the two camps, I would prefer to think in terms of
> "both/and" ... I agree that radical solutions will be required that can
> only be articulated holistically, but the "gentle camp" can buy time for
> such overarching solution to be found ... if it is ever found, for the
> kind of crisis we are discussing transcends "problems" for which
> "solutions" can be found.  Even if the most urgent symptom (such as
> climate change) could be addressed in a timely manner, it is impossible
> to predict the repercussions that "resolving" one dimension of the
> crisis will have on all the other dimensions ... it boggles the mind.
> 
> But assuming that your motion carries ... what would be the next step?
> 
> Luis
> 
> Luis T. Gutiérrez, PhD, PE
> The Pelican Web of Solidarity and Sustainability
> Mother Pelican: A Journal of Sustainable Human Development
> http://pelicanweb.org
> 
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>>> On Behalf Of Brian Orr
>>> Sent: 28 February 2011 11:57
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: Re: Economic Crisis<---->  Ecological Crisis
>>> 
>>> John, Luis,
>>> 
>>> CRISIS-FORUM has spawned two camps under the economy/ecology
>>> dichotomy. There are
>>> those who insist that we can find our way out of the dichotomy by
>>> pursuing the goal of
>>> a 'steady-state economy', with the emphasis on ditching consumerism,
>>> "need not greed"
>>> and our addiction to fossil fuels.
>>> 
>>> The other school contend that we've left things far too late and the
>>> state of nearly everything
>>> you can think of having global importance - the environment, the
>>> world's ecological systems,
>>> energy supplies, world finances, population, social tensions, tensions
>>> between nations - and
>>> global warming - all individually look capable of badly damaging
>>> 'civilisation, or bringing it to
>>> it's knees. And this latter school proffers the solution of
>>> 'cataclysmic solutions', as illustrated by
>>> the current upheavals in the Arab world - or, in a different sphere -
>>> 'geoengineering' to provide
>>> breathing space for us to abandon our current insane modus vivendi.
>>> 
>>> As an aside, it might be thought that the 'gentle camp' and the
>>> 'geoengineers' might rapidly converge
>>> after the temporary cure has been applied. I would contend that this
>>> is not the case in that the 'geoengineers'
>>> would not accept that a gentle docking between business-as-usual and
>>> the 'steady-state economy would be
>>> anything like what is needed. In a nut-shell, only the stark
>>> divergence between where we are and where we
>>> ought to be can justify 'tampering with the earth's climate', and that
>>> stark divergence will still remain even after
>>> the geoengineering 'sticking plaster' has been applied.
>>> 
>>> As Professor Bill McGuire says "Whilst the 2007 IPPCC report paints a
>>> pretty bleak picture of the future, the
>>> scariest thing about it is that it may not be scary enough."
>>> 
>>> A debate would seem vitally necessary. I offer the motion:-
>>> 
>>> "The underlying rationale pursued by the 'gentle camp' in CRISIS-FORUM
>>> to address the world economy/ecology
>>> dichotomy constitutes a totally inadequate basis for addressing the
>>> multiple, interacting, crises manifest in that dichotomy,
>>> with the global warming/Arctic ice-melt crisis the most critically
>>> urgent of the multiple crises."
>>> 
>>> Brian Orr