Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumMass Extinction and Mass Insanity
Out of the fucking park. Ilargi gets it.
What drives our economies is waste. Not need, or even demand. Waste. 2nd law of thermodynamics. It drives our lives, period.
First of all, dont tell me youre trying to stop the ongoing extinction of nature and wildlife on this planet, or the destruction of life in general. Dont even tell me youre trying. Dont tell me its climate change that we should focus on (thats just a small part of the story), and youre driving an electric car and youre separating your trash or things like that. That would only mean youre attempting to willfully ignore your share of destruction, because if you do it, so will others, and the planet cant take anymore of your behavior.
We killed 58% of all vertebrate wildlife just between 1970 and 2012, and at a rate of 2% per year we will have massacred close to 70% of it by 2020, just 4 years from now. So what does it matter whos president of just one of the many countries we invented on this planet? Why dont we address whats really crucial to our very survival instead?
What exactly is wrong with saying that we will have to make it here on planet earth? Is it that weve already broken and murdered so much? And if thats the reason, what does that say about us, and what does it say about what we would do to a next planet, even provided we could settle on it (we cant) ? Doesnt it say that we are our own worst enemies? And doesnt the very idea of settling the next planet imply that we had better settle things right here first? Like sort of a first condition before we go to Mars, if we ever do?
In order to survive, we dont need to escape our planet, we need to escape ourselves. Not nearly as easy. Much harder than escaping to Mars. Which already is nothing but a pipedream to begin with.
Conservationist groups today serve as apologists for the havoc mankind unleashes on its world: all people have to do is donate money at Christmas, and conservation will be taken care of. Recycle a few bottles and plastic wrappings and youre doing your part to save the planet. It is utterly insane. Its as insane as the destruction itself. Its denial writ large, and in the flesh.
Its not advertized that way, but that doesnt mean its not how it works. Saying that its not too late is not a call to action as many people continue to believe. Its just dirt poor psychology. It provides people with the impression, which rapidly turns into an excuse, that there is still time left. As almost 70% of all vertebrates, those animals that are closest to us, have disappeared. When would they say time is up? At 80%, 90%?
Every species that finds a large amount of free energy reacts the same way: proliferation. The unconscious drive is to use up the energy as fast as possible. If only we could understand that. But understanding it would get in the way of the principle itself. The only thing we can do to stop the extinction is for all of us to use a lot less energy. But because energy consumption provides wealth and -more importantly- political power, we will not do that. We instead tell ourselves all we need to do is use different forms of energy.
Our inbuilt talent for denying and lying (to ourselves and others) makes it impossible for us to see that we have an inbuilt talent for denying and lying in the first place. Or, put another way, seeing that we havent been able to stop ourselves from putting the planet into the dismal shape it is in now, why should we keep on believing that we will be able to stop ourselves in the future?
There's much more in the original. This article is too good to keep to a 4-paragraph excerpt. All I can say in self-defense is that Ilargi is a personal friend of mine, and I know he's not going to mind the publicity.
hatrack
(59,597 posts). . . until this year.
mountain grammy
(26,663 posts)depressingly true. No solutions, there are just too damn many of us.
mackdaddy
(1,530 posts)But for humanity we have a problem. There are fossil fuels in the bottom of that hole, and we can't stop digging any more than a heroin addict can stop injecting themselves.
When the walls of the hole collapse on us, we will stop digging. Unfortunately for most other life on earth, we will be burying them with us.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)We carry within our inherent nature the seeds of our own destruction. We cannot, and will not succeed as a species. Extinction is our inevitable destiny.
I wish it were not so, because humanity has produced so much good and so much beauty. But that good, and that beauty is but a minuscule drop in the bucket compared to the evil and ugliness and sheer wanton destructiveness of our species.
The thugs and barbarians have always vastly outnumbered the Rembrandts and the Mozarts, and it will, sadly, always be so. And there's not a damned thing any one of us can do about it.
Which stage are you in?
Denial?
Anger?
Bargaining?
Depression?
Acceptance?
Most people are in denial.
A few are in anger.
Most DU members are probably in Bargaining ("This new wonder battery technology will save us all!"
Depression is not pleasant, but...
Acceptance is not the same thing as depression, which we will all eventually discover for ourselves when we get there.
CrispyQ
(36,552 posts)You say we're flawed & that we carry the seeds of our destruction, but you don't say what that flaw is, or what it is about our inherent nature that is going to destroy us.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)CrispyQ
(36,552 posts)Bye!
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)We are behaving no differently than any other animal species does in the presence of a resource surplus. The main difference is that we won the evolutionary lottery and developed these incredible brains that let us turn the entire planet into a "resource surplus". At the same time, however, we did not develop any behavioral changes that would have prevented us from using it as such. Behaviorally we are still St. Matthew Island reindeer - except instead of just lichen, our food supply is everything.
That disparity between our species' intellect and its behavior is the tragedy.
THE INTRODUCTION, INCREASE, AND CRASH OF REINDEER ON ST. MATTHEW ISLAND
hatrack
(59,597 posts). . . to paraphrase E.O. Wilson.
Bad fucking combination.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)CrispyQ
(36,552 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)relative to what it is that we (the best among us) aspire to be.
We are animals by nature, and behave as such. The tragedy is that we, collectively, cannot be what we aspire to be. We could say that our aspirations are too lofty, and thus "flawed", or that our nature precludes attaining our aspirations, and thus, is "flawed".
Or, we could simply say "It is what it is." and leave it at that. In the final analysis, that's probably the most accurate characterization of the state of affairs. It is what it is.
OceanPete
(29 posts)Man's destiny is to drown in his own feces. Modified From Chief Seattle statement on the "white" men invaders.
Delphinus
(11,845 posts)Mountain Mule
(1,002 posts)Biologists are in almost complete agreement that the earth is facing its 6th great extinction event. Here's a snip from the home page of the Center for Biological Diversity:
"Its frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. Were currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural background rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate were now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century.
Unlike past mass extinctions, caused by events like asteroid strikes, volcanic eruptions, and natural climate shifts, the current crisis is almost entirely caused by us humans. In fact, 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activities, primarily those driving habitat loss, introduction of exotic species, and global warming."
The essay above dismisses the role global warming plays in habitat destruction and in the creation of new climate zones and new niches in highly specialized ecosystems where such niches never existed before. These things are huge and to ignore them is like ignoring the extinct elephant ossifying in your living room.
The natural world is an incredibly complex place. We and every other species still extant are the result of millions of years of evolution, including co-evolution. An audience of non-scientists are unlikely to even know what the second law of thermodynamics is, never mind realize the impact of entropy on closed systems - both living and the purely physical.
The author may be dismissive of the environmental movement's attempts to limit the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, but anyone with a background in the sciences is very much aware of the horrific changes in the earth's climate which are already coming about thanks to the fact that the atmospheric levels of CO2 now stands at 400 ppm and continues to climb with no end in sight. Is it too late for the planet? Are we indeed all doomed? My honest reply has to be "very likely." But no one can yet make a 100% guarantee that any further action on our part is useless. Do that, and you may as well turn the planet over to Donald Trump, turn your face to the wall and die.
I refuse to live by the philosophy despair espoused by the individual quoted above. I am 65 years old and I walk everywhere for miles on miles on my own two feet. I suggest you younger folks do the same. Entropy is going to have to catch me and work hard to do it - and, by definition, entropy hates to work hard.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)But there are things we can do - Right Actions we can take - whether they are answers or not. However, if we choose not to do what others think is Right Action, and choose to do something else instead, that's OK by me. Even if it involves driving cars or electing idiots. It's our right as self-determining human beings to make our own choices for our own reasons - or at least to believe that's what we're doing...
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)This is why we have laws against manslaughter, reckless endangerment, criminal negligence etc.
If you want to commit suicide, Ill give you that right (not all will.) If you want to commit suicide in a way that kills another who does not wish to die, no.
You do not have a right to act irresponsibly regarding others.
We should not be allowed to act irresponsibly when it comes to the totality of the ecosystem of this planet.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Where does that supposed "right" to do or not to do something come from? We act as we do. The right to behave confers the right to misbehave. If society doesn't like our behaviour, then punishment follows - if society has the strength to mete it out.
Might makes right, right? Our wish that it were otherwise does not make it so.
I don't speak "should", I'm afraid.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)He was probably influenced by John Locke. However, the concept of Natural Rights can be traced back at least as far as the Stoics.
Youre the one who claimed a right as (a) self-determining human (being) to make choices for your reasons. This is a limited right.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/hum-rts/#H2
The doctrine of human rights rests upon a particularly fundamental philosophical claim: that there exists a rationally identifiable moral order, an order whose legitimacy precedes contingent social and historical conditions and applies to all human beings everywhere and at all times. On this view, moral beliefs and concepts are capable of being objectively validated as fundamentally and universally true.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)It comes along with being alive. It also comes with the obligation to suffer consequences.
I think the rights so favoured by the Stoics and John Locke are wishful thinking.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)No one has the right to act however they choose.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Beliefs.
Wishes.
Ponies.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Other species seem to recognize some of these rights.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3690609/
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)We have those evolved behaviours too, but I don't call them rights when we exhibit them either.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I fell into a semantic trap when I used the word initially. I suppose I meant something more like "the ability to act as we choose."
Mountain Mule
(1,002 posts)If you wish to act in a self-defeating or out-right suicidal manner, I couldn't care less. Free will is everyone's right. However, when your acts of free will bring harm to me or anyone else, you lose the right to act as you please. I do speak "should" when it is appropriate to do so. There are certain moral truths which an individual ignores to their own peril.
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)I just lose the expectation that my action won't have consequences. If I'm OK with that, I can keep on doing what I want. Look at criminals and at least one presidential candidate for examples of how that works.