My generation appears to be mortgaging and threatening the future of coming generations by remaining religiously focused upon the endless accumulation of material wealth, the unrestrained increase in consumption of limited resources, and the continuous consolidation of political power. Despite all the cascading rhetoric to the contrary, we need not look far to see that money, power and privilege for ourselves, for our bought-and-paid-for politicians, and for our newly-made rich minions are the primary object of life.

Regardless of the human-driven calamities — derived from per human over-consumption, unbridled economic globalization and skyrocketing global human numbers — that might befall coming generations, we live on in a patently unsustainable fantasy world (we call it reality) of idle comforts, effortless ease, conspicuous consumption, secret handshakes, exclusive clubs, exotic hideaways and thousands of private jets, having abandoned our regard for the less fortunate among us, for the maintenance of life as we know it, and for the preservation of the integrity of Earth. Think of the single-minded pursuit of dollars, political power and privileges to profligately consume and recklessly ignore the requirements of practical reality as our raison d’etre.

When my not-so-great generation of elders has completed its ‘mission’ on Earth, I fear young people will look back in anger and utter disbelief at the things we have done and failed to do……. all the while proclaiming ourselves “masters of the universe” in the performance of uniform exercises of virtue.

Always,

Steve

http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf

We need to stick together, and we need to experience some sort of equal sharing in the problems at hand. As it is, right now, there is way too much inequality in this world: we’re not at all together, as we need to be.

Sadly, all I can think of in repsonse is, “Yep.” We need to get together. But what steps can I take to contribute to that? The Live Earth concerts were one approach, a good one. Blogs like GIM are another. I continue to believe acting locally is the way forward.

I’ve been thinking about Trinifar’s and Paul Chefurka’s discussion here, and I think it has something to do with what I might call “the psycho-social processing of extreme information.” – I believe you’re both right in what you are saying here. We’re imbibing (and producing) this kind of information here, which is disheartening, almost by nature. As we can all observe and understand that the present world civilization is destroying the ecosystems of this planet very fast — by means of dirty industry, over-consumption and an all but complete lack of ecological reason — it is quite natural that people who have chosen to stay well informed on the various problems at hand, sometimes run into fits of angst and despair: we’re humans, all emotions, most of the time. –

We’re producing an awful lot of serious and quite unfortunate information here. Then, as we start to think about it, we can easily think up a future thirty years from now (complete with 9 billion oil, gas and coal hungry consumerists, perhaps) … it is basically not looking any good, now is it? …

- —

Paul: “After all, if it was my insistence on realism that got me into the despair, I certainly couldn’t get out of it just by clapping for Tinkerbell.”

Trinifar: “Once you become aware of the depth and breadth of the damage we are doing to the planet and each other — and how persistent that damage is going to be — I don’t see any other rational response but to enter the “long dark night of the soul,” to experience the sadness and despair associated with personal loss, the loss to subsequent generations, the loss of a vibrant and diverse world-wide ecosystem.”

I know exactly what both of you mean. Problem is: it seems to me that people and societies are all about to give in to a feeling, not of despair, but of acceptance: that there’s nothing anyone can do about the grave environmental problems we are facing, and that we shall have to simply endure this as best as we can, while we all know that it’s just a question of time before it’s all over. How much time is left, is hard to tell. A few decades? A couple of centuries? As much as a thousand years? Who knows? Nobody knows, and that’s a fact.

I’m sensing that we’re approaching an “End of Days” situation. One in which we’re all going to stop worrying about all the things that an ever growing human population is doing to nature, but just let it be. Because all good thought about fossil-fuels consumption and the greenhouse effect is futile; especially from a social / cultural point of view. No matter what might happen to the climate systems, we’re bound to remain an ever-growing bunch of fossil-fuels addicts, until the world runs out of coal or there simply is no human being alive anymore. Now why? Well, because it just is the way it is, and nothing to do about that.

- —

John: “I wasn’t sure I could continue with this blog on a long term basis because it kept me constantly in touch with some very depressing, disheartening stuff. But as you guys point out there’s a process of recognition, acceptance, and ultimately finding hope in one way or another.”

Personally, I’m only hoping that a will to peace is going to come spiritually and simply possess the world’s population, as soon as possible, so that we can all start working to achieve the UN’s Millennium Goals, as I see these goals as the key to start dealing with environmental issues on the global scale. We need to stick together, and we need to experience some sort of equal sharing in the problems at hand. As it is, right now, there is way too much inequality in this world: we’re not at all together, as we need to be.

Incidentally, Jack Alpert is coming to Chapel Hill, North Carolina later in August to meet with some people who are thinking about the same things we are discussing.

For whatever it is worth, Magne, please know that I do not believe the human predicament you have described so well in many places in this blog is nearly so bleak and futile as you make it out to be.

For example, and there are surely many more of them, if Jack Alpert actually has something of value to offer us with his thinking about “temporal blindness,” then perhaps we will be able to find techniques and strategies that make it possible for people to see WHAT IT IS that is somehow inaccessible to their sight; WHAT IT IS that already exists before their eyes but, at least until now, is not seen.

Perhaps the raising of awareness within the human community will become a profound and powerful force that helps us enjoin our leaders to lead by actively legislating necessary changes in social behavior and, thereby, more adequately fulfilling the principles of democracy for all.

Sincerely,

Steve

TEMPORAL BLINDNESS is a limitation in cognitive process. People with temporal blindness can not gather and process available information into predictions of future conditions. Their processes can not connect future conditions to a causing behavior. When their processes do create unpleasant predictions, and identify the causal behavior, they fail to create enough present meaning for the future conditions to motivate a change in that behavior.

- —

That’s a very useful perspective indeed. Now, it seems to me like a lot of people around me are about to become conscious of their very own “unpleasant predictions.” And they seem, also, to accept the apparent fact that there is nothing much we can do about the environmental problems at hand. Climate change and extreme weather patterns are becoming part of our common psyche now. Yet nothing what-so-ever is being done about the human side of this all so frightening dilemma.

I can sense that people around me are finding it extremely hard – or even impossible – to open their mouths and talk about climate change. It is too frightening. Talking about this shit amounts to anti-social behaviour.

In my personal life, this has been a very serious problem for quite a while now. I’ve been very occupied with an unbelieveable amount of environmental problems for a long time now, and I’ve been hoping that it would one-day be something that people would actually be discussing vocally and starting to actually do something about, in terms of starting to make some lifestyle changes, and pressuring people of politics and big business to become serious, but I’m hearing nothing of the sort. I’ve actually got noone to actively TALK TO about any of the big issues which are constantly under discussion on this blog and elsewhere on the internet (see the blog-roll here, for instance). Unfortunately, I’m coming to understand that ignorance indeed is bliss; that people are actively avoiding all sorts of talk about issues that each and every one of us should be deeply concerned with. I’m feeling very alone here. Lonely and lost. And if I start talking to people about climate change, I soon sense that I’m completely out of line, and out of touch with the social reality of my surroundings.

It must be because people are conscious about unpleasant predictions of their own. The end of the world is somehow at hand here, unless all of us should actually become committed to serious lifestyle changes. It is becoming increasingly apparent here. Everywhere. But nobody seems to be doing nothing at all to change things. Not anywhere.

But ecocide is going to take a while. It’s going to take more than just a few years. It is going to take decades, maybe centuries. And here’s what I’m afraid of: the notion that we’re all going to sit down and silently accept that the world is going to come to an end, through manmade ecocide, over the next century or so. And there is no use even thinking about doing anything about this, since it is going to happen anyway.

What a life?!

Paul — Thanks for the link. I’ve read part of the piece and, man, can I relate to:

“I’ve discovered that it’s very difficult to say the things I do and not be misinterpreted.”

It’s almost impossible, it seems, to present any sort of truth or realistic comment about population and not be wildly misunderstood. Case in point – the comments here:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/07/when-environmental-writers-are-part-of-the-problem/

On the plus side, I usually learn from such debate, if only in refining and honing my views. But I do find it frustrating when it seems I’ve laid out a certain message, with careful precision, as clearly as I can, only to encounter responses to things I didn’t say. :-/

I’m going to take a close look at the Gristmill comments ASAP, as they look interesting:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/24/92030/7096

- —

K. Smail: “… it is increasingly apparent that the long-term sustainability of civilization will require … a colossal reduction in both population and consumption.”

This is the kind of argument which I can easily understand, but not cope with. Why? Because it will be absolutely impossible to reduce the world’s population unless we should start by teaching all the third world’s (catholic, muslim and hindu) school children about the consequence of three child-births per woman (the simple consequence is: POPULATION EXPLOSION), and this is not something that anyone wants to do, which is understandable. For fear of ones life, and nothing less. There is no reason to believe that third world populations in general will stop growing until they have doubled at least once and possibly twice, which means that even discussing the idea of reducing the world’s population at all is, at best, philosophic. What we need is no longer philosophy but action. Classroom action in front of 12-year-old children with calculators in front of them. Easy. But unachievable. Unfortunately. For religious, cultural, social and other moral reasons.

- —

K. Smail: “Obviously, a demographic change of this magnitude will require a major reorientation of human thought, values, expectations, and lifestyles.”

That’s absolutely correct. I can only hope that I will live to see the day. – But I don’t think I will. Unfortunately.

- —

K. Smail: “Is it naive to hope that, once a critical mass of concerned investigators begins to make a serious case for such a reduction, it would become much easier for scientists, environmentalists, politicians, economists, moralists, and other concerned citizens of the planet to speak forthrightly about humanity’s critical need for population stabilization and shrinkage?”

Yes. It is naive. Why? Because “God” created us with the capacity to procreate / reproduce more than fifteen times in a lifetime, that’s why. – And people in general, on all corners of this planet, will never (ever) agree to stop giving birth to an average of 3 or more children per woman. Why? Because “God is Great.” Of course. And noone is allowed to say otherwise and expect to get heard and understood at the same time. But okay: I’ll go ahead with it. I’ll say it. God is not great. in fact: God is a moron. (S)he should not have been so foolish as allowing human females to give birth to little babies more than two times in a lifetime. God’s an idiot! A fool!

It stems from a conversation on Gristmill about Homer-Dixon’s “The Upside of Down”. Along with another discussion of why I think Peak Oil is going to trigger the collapse, it addresses some of the criticisms that population commentators receive with depressing regularity.

I think I’m heading toward a deep ecology perspective as well. But my reading has been awfully scattered, touching on lots of bits and pieces of things lately. So wherever I’m going it’s taking some time.

And Trin, I like the Kornfield line.