 |
 |
Gosh. It seems like there really are two types of people. I'm not sure how to describe them: the pragmatists and the theorisers? We certainly need those who can envisage a better and perhaps more harmonious world, where governments are benign and societies are more equal and less driven by profit and power. Let's face it, that opportunity has been there for throughout recorded history and we haven't reached it yet. That trajectory has failed so far. Even so-called democratic governents are nowhere near it. Right now, less lofty types like me would like to get on with trying to find and adopt a solution to climate change that will at least enable us to begin to reach that world (probably futile too, I know), and that today appears to involve short-term and long-term planning in concert. I cannot help wondering, though, do those with the non-pragmatic type of brain want to at least TRY to save their children's future? Maybe I'm jaundiced, having watched too many populations plummet at they consume the last of a particular resource (e.g. diatoms and silicon if you're wondering), but I think, despite the fact that power lies in the hands of greedy and ill-suited people, we do have a brain clever enough to get us out of this mess. We've left it too late though, so must resort to drastic action in the short term, combined with more intelligent resource management from now on, in the hope that will one day it can underpin a sustainable society. Tom ________________________________ From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alastair McIntosh [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 21 February 2011 14:32 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: So ... what now folks? Beautifully put, Steve. What you say about “structural violence” is crucial. I am enthused by this discussion, including all John’s prods about geoengineering. It is bringing us round on a much deeper spiral of looking at the underlying dynamics of psychology and violence, but also, of hope as in the Middle East example (and why I sent out that Gene Sharp link earlier). The really big picture is that this is all about the evolution of the human condition and our task is not necessarily to “win” in a narrow sense, but to set in place the tools for thinking, and being, that can allow that evolution to happen. A. From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wright, Steve Sent: 21 February 2011 10:32 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: So ... what now folks? Hi Tom, I agree that it is folly to yield to either or solutions but have a sneaking admiration for Mark's integrity saying I'd rather gloriously fry than endure some of the "solutions" being proffered. Why? because more of he same lifestyle choices are worse than letting nature take its course....However, I fear Yunus that nature is a completely ruthless bastard when it comes to culling redundant lifeforms. Gaia's mission is simply to ensure some adequate immortal coils can worm their way into a new survival niche to keep the dance going. For us that might measn unbearable psychic shock as we bear witness to a horriffic game of consequences. Am I alone in watching with awestruck admiration to millions of ordinanry people coming onto the streets in the Middle East to face down teargas, plastic bullets and full blow machine guns - yes often banaded made in England..or USA and left wondering is this our collective fate? My interest in animal swarming during food crises has increasd over recent years and I'm left wondering about their significant collective triggers towards such behaviour and whether or not humans have them too? Call me cynical, but this in my estimation is likely to be our most probable form of geo engineering as the economic and environmental crises deepen. I am sure John and others are sincere when the focus on emergency solutions but most of us on this list have not had a foodless week or faced down m ach in guns..In our times these are skills we have to reluctantly learn. My serious point is that we can not simply place the environmental crisis outside the wider context of inequality and poverty and the willingness of "advanced nations" to drown the world in small arms and light weapons and to squander our scientific R&D resources on so called Defence. Even as we speak, in the UK every public s erv iceis being cut whilst we protect trident and military projects go massively over budget. Mark's point about healing hewrld is well taken but it can not be healed if there is a massive deadly arsenal ready and waiting to maintain existing levels of structural violence.... We have had discontinuities before - they entail a horrendous reduction of life forms on Earth but some have evidently found niches and we are their descendants. If the next discontinuity happens in our lifetime, the upside if is sustained for a few hundred years of chaos and frightening suvivalism, is that all near surface resources have been squandered and it will be virtually impossible to reproduce our current technostructures. In the Madmax slivers of life that survive, if at all, recycling and mutual aid are the only viable approaches towards continuing - once a deathly dog eat dog phase is over. Will this happen? None of us have enough data to calculate so all is more or less informed speculation. Is it desirable - well yes for te planet but none of us alive now wold want to endure such primordial testing of ability to survive such unremmitting horror. But t he eco struggle can not be separated from the eral people putting th eirbodies inbetween machine guns and the state i n oil rich regions of the Middle East tonight. It is one struggle. Steve ________________________________ From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Barker, Tom [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 21 February 2011 09:05 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: So ... what now folks? So much for pathos (remembering Arthur Pewty). Whatever individuals might feel, I can't see the governments of the world shrugging their shoulders and laying down to die. There are two distinct world-views operating in the list, and not much in between. Lot's of good points are being made but no synthesis. It is not a question of either-or. Of course we must reduce total output of greenhouse gases as soon as possible, but all the while we, (i.e. including the UK but mostly the US and China) are relying on reducing emissions by new technologies of increased energy use efficiency e.g. efficient cars, fridges, there will be no progress on total emissions. We cannot grow our way out of this crisis. (see e.g. Jevons Paradox and www.workersoftheworldreleax.org<http://www.workersoftheworldreleax.org/>). GHG emissions in the UK in 2009 apparently fell by 9.8% on previous. Why? because of the recession. No other reason. Contraction and Convergence remains the most sensible option for reaching an international agreement on mitigation. It is precisely because the leaders of the world have failed to grasp the nettle of climate change at the same time that positive feedbacks are emerging in the climate system that we now have to resort to geoengineering at all. Simply, the time has run out for solving this problem by mitigation practices alone. We must use physical measures to reduce the temperature, but remember that, apart from acidification of oceans, which Alastair correctly points out, there will be numerous other consequences of environmental change deriving from increased atmospheric CO2 and from geoengineering. There is absolutely no chance that we can control the global environment via geoengineering for long periods. Look at how governments have only just started taking action to protect nature after Costanza pointed out that it is worth money. Geoengineering is not a long-term solution; it is an emergency solution, if it works. If it doesn't, the rest of us will have to join those who want to give up immediately. Yes, it means vesting power in those who control the technology, but they are kidding themselves if they think it will give them more than transient control. SDI was about power and political bluff. This is about survival now. Tom ________________________________ To view the terms under which this email is distributed, please go to http://disclaimer.leedsmet.ac.uk/email.htm