History Shows Climate Changes Led to Famine and War
HONG KONG - Global warming is one of the most significant threats facing humankind, researchers warned, as they unveiled a study showing how climate changes in the past led to famine, wars and population declines. 
The world’s growing population may be unable to adequately adapt to ecological changes brought about by the expected rise in global temperatures, scientists in China, Hong Kong, the United States and Britain wrote in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“The warmer temperatures are probably good for a while, but beyond some level plants will be stressed,” said Peter Brecke, associate professor in the Georgia Institute of Technology’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs.
“With more droughts and a rapidly growing population, it is going to get harder and harder to provide food for everyone and thus we should not be surprised to see more instances of starvation and probably more cases of hungry people clashing over scarce food and water.”
Trawling through history and working out correlative patterns, the team found that temperature declines were followed by wars, famines and population reductions.
The researchers examined the time period between 1400 and 1900, or the Little Ice Age, which recorded the lowest average global temperatures around 1450, 1650 and 1820, each separated by slight warming intervals.
“When such ecological situations occur, people tend to move to another place. Such mass movement leads to war, like in the 13th century, when the Mongolians suffered a drought and they invaded China,” David Zhang, geography professor at the University of Hong Kong, said in an interview on Thursday.
“Or the Manchurians who moved into central China in 17th century because conditions in the northeast were terrible during the cooling period,” he said.
“Epidemics may not be directly linked to temperature (change), but it is a consequence of migration, which creates chances for disease to spread.”
HALF THE WORLD AT RISK
Although the study cited only periods of temperature decline to social disruptions, the researchers said the same prediction could be made of global warming.
A report last week said climate change will put half the world’s countries at risk of conflict or serious political instability.
International Alert, a London-based conflict resolution group, identified 46 countries — home to 2.7 billion people — where it said the effects of climate change would create a high risk of violent conflict. It identified another 56 states where there was a risk of political instability.
“I would expect to see some pretty serious conflicts that are clearly linked to climate change on the international scene by 2020,” International Alert secretary general Dan Smith told Reuters in a telephone interview.
Near the top of the list are west and central Africa, with clashes already reported in northern Ghana between herders and farmers as agricultural patterns change.
Bangladesh could also see dangerous changes, while the visible decline in levels of the River Ganges in India, on which 400 million people depend, could spark new tensions there.
Water shortages would make solving tensions in the already volatile Middle East even harder, Smith said, while currently peaceful Latin American states could be destabilized by unrest following changes in the melting of glaciers affecting rivers.
Unless communities and governments begin discussing the issues in advance, he said, there is a risk climate shift could be the spark that relights wars such as those in Liberia and Sierra Leone in west Africa or the Caucasus on Russia’s borders. Current economic growth in developing states could also be hit.
© Reuters 2007.
There was a blurb in the Atlantic Monthly some time back that noted Rumsfeld’s Defense Department having done its first study of “global warming.” The theme was that this had been done in the teeth of Dubya’s insistence that the science was not in.) Not mentioned in the Atlantic note is the study’s primary recomendation seemed to be development of “no regrets” strategies for occupying regions of the world where agriculture remains feasible as climates change.
There was a blurb in the Atlantic Monthly some time back that noted Rumsfeld’s Defense Department having done its first study of “global warming.” (In the teeth of Dubya’s insistence that the science was not in.) I read the study and found its primary recomendation seemed to be development of “no regrets” strategies for occupying regions of the world where agriculture remains feasible as climates change.
You can read the pentagons report on global warming in full, google it.
The conclusion of the report is that wars of the future will be fought for resources, like stealing other countries oil. hm that rings a bell.
James Lovelock, in a recent Rolling Stone interview says that global warming will cause mass migration and conflict, and by 2100 the human population will be down to 500 million from the present 6.5 billion. Happy Thanksgiving.
Hey if Global Warming helps reduce the human population on the planet, I am all for it.
The human species is a very destructive animal, constantly killing its own in cannibalistic fashion.
We humans are always at war with one another; we are perfectly willing to kill other humans for food, territory, women, (Helen of Troy), money, jealousy, and oil.
If global warming will help bring an end to human domination of the planet, then all I can say is start your engines folks and inhale all that lovely sweet tasting carbon monoxide.
Happy Thanksgiving, with deep sympathy for the Turkeys among us.
Are you going to inhale first?
Hey KEM,
Are you suggesting I should? LOL
I know some of my posts would lead people to suggest I quietly leave the planet.
But, I am not suicidal yet, however, it is becoming apparent that the planet needs to be refreshed.
I know you are the official roving commentator here at CD and I do appreciate your clever comments. Keep up the good work.
I’m the OFFICIAL ROVING COMMENTATOR???????? Oh please,,please don’t allow that horrible rumor to make any headway. I’m just trying to keep an eye on PJD and make sure he doesn’t get too carried away. ___ It’s a big job too and I get yelled at quite a bit in the process.
And please don’t leave, I was joking of course and your posts almost always hit the nails, ___ at least I think so.
How much time is the only question. Tony
WATER
Where can life be if 98% of what our life forms are refuses to make an appearance in the form of precipitation in as diverse places as Georgia, USA, the countries of southern Europe and Turkey and Australia?
As the ice floes, glaciers, and big chunks of the ice sheets at the poles break off setting up a chain reaction that is changing and will change more of the weather patterns that have been of a stable influence.
To the raping of the planet earth for a few dollars more; cutting vast groves of trees that are used to absorb carbon emissions and supply oxygen, a staff of life. A cycle of life for flora and fauna.
Environmental events throughout the world reflect changes significant; a dry river, the Amazon, a polar bear that can’t find ice, killer cyclones that batter Bangladesh, people praying for rain in Tennessee, Mount Kilimanjaro dry, the Great Lakes drying up; drought, the ultimate consequence.
Repair? I don’t know how but it would require that the whole world work together. Reality? Forget it.
Tony 11/15/07 Of course there is more and “the cup runneth over”, How long? Hope our kids are smarter than we are.
“scientists in China, Hong Kong, the United States and Britain wrote”
Britain: Whose imperial industrial revolution, based on burning coal, which started this mess.
United State: Whose imperial mass marketing revolution, based on burning oil, which perfected this mess.
China: Who is adopting and implementing, the mistakes of both the U.S. and Britain, and with 1/4 the world’s population will lead us over the cliff.
I think we should hire more scientists, create more committees, and publish more reports. That should do the trick.
Everyday, seems to bring a new report, on Common Dreams, about how the planet is doomed. It’s becoming redundant - and so am I. Here again:
The problem is over consumption. Our economic model is based on growth through increasing consumption. The solution is conservation.
Yes, corporations will lose money, and the empire will shrink, it’s a choice between CEO profits, and the future of the planet. Our political system is controlled by corporations. Don’t look to corporations, or the governments that serve them, to develop the solutions. Only you can save the planet, by switching from consumption, to conservation.
I should copy and save, what I just wrote, to save myself from re-typing it again tomorrow.
Ramsay
Just a quick note-
Check out “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security”
October 2003
By Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall
Imagining the Unthinkable
The purpose of this report is to imagine the unthinkable – to push the boundaries of current research on climate change so we may better understand the potential implications on United States national security.
We’re entering Peak Cluster F@#k.
Have a good day anyway.
Famine and fighting — not just a dire prediction for distant lands. I used Google News to look up “drought” and find problems across the globe, including an NOAA prediction of increased drought for most of the southern half of the U.S. next year. Much of the southern U.S. is already in drought conditions. Snowfall projections for the mountains that provide water to the southwest are expected to be around half of normal this winter.
Political fighting over water is already occuring in Atlanta and the Great Lakes.
Time to stop pooping in our drinking water!!
Sequoiabison: So you’re volunteering to starve you and your family and your community? You’re more than happy to watch you and your family get slaughtered in war? Or is it just okay if it happens to Africans and Asians?
So, it’s alright if Latin Americans, Africans, and Asians, hell toss in the Arabs, die in famine and war, from a problem caused by White Europeans?
Sequoiabasin: You’re being silly and you know it - just pushing buttons for the hell of it. You’re argument is silly as well. Did you know that based on per capita consumption the population of the U.S. is 1.5 billion? Even bigger than China. Or that population is going to level off some time this century and go into decline?
The problem is not population but consumption.
And to the other posters. Look, humans have fought wars over resources from the beginning of time. It’s nothing new. It goes on today. No great revelations from the pentagon.
No Turkey on my Table,
Ramsay
RAmsay— The problem is not population but consumption.
I wholeheartedly agree, but would take it another step—-the illusion of scarcity offers all of its Creators, an opportunity to go to the next level. It’s widespread appearance offers us a chance to change the story, to reject the belief of “not enough” and create a new belief in abundance. This is done by rejecting fear as a life choice, which leads to hoarding. Instead, start to give it all away—-it will come back in vastly increased amounts, and then, continue to take only what you needs for the moment and give the rest away as well. A leap of faith is required, I don’t claim it’s easy at the outset, but it would be a wonderful gift to birth this new reality, so all would know and co-create abundance through collective generosity.
We have been our own worst enemies. We have written and repeated countless times, a story about limitation/scarcity for so long, in fact, that it seems imuntable. It is a massive delusion. And we have the power within each of us to create together the abundance that has always been part of us.
As all who have researched the ramifications of global warming know, its calamitous effects are self perpetuating as the ice melts thus absorbing more heat, as the tundras melt thus releasing more CO2, and the list goes on. The loss of near shore areas to the sea, spread of tropical diseases to the temperate latitudes, are only the tip the iceberg. Although temperature variations have occurred in the past, they never approached this accelerated rate,
Often overlooked is the fact that the same measures needed to mitigate global warming would be necessary even if it were not an issue. Conservation, alternative energy development, anti- pollution refinements, etc are essential for other vital environmental reforms such as air and water quality, reductions in toxic waste generation, land preservation, etc.
The dangerous manipulation of essential scientific data used by this administration to conceal and derail corrective measures for this threat and other vital environmental reforms has alway been apparent. Contrary to their assertions, measures to reduce greenhouse gases could only improve our economy by lessening our trade deficits, and improving our security by reducing our dependance on foreign oil. We could also regain some of our lost world respect that has resulted from our opposition Kyoto while arrogantly contributing disproportionally to carbon pollution.
The environmental and social damage from our indifference to carbon pollution and related environmental measures can only worsen if we allow these destructive environmental policies of this reckless and unlearned president to continue.
I can hardly believe it when I arrive at my elementary school in my Echo parking in a lot full of SUVs driven by soccer mom teachers. Most of them would jump at the chance to take spouse and kids on a jet to Disney World. I wonder what is going to change this mind set of wasteful and destructive consumption? Has the North American middle-class been so co-opted by the materialism of Corporate America that only a major environmental disaster will make them change their behavior? Like French singer Zazie( je suis un homme on youtube) says :” je suis un homme devant le mur, comme une aberation de la nature” - I am a man in front of the wall, like an freak of nature .
Are humans really an invasive species?
Truthfully:
1) Humans are animals.
2) Animals, like every living organism, evolve due to forced, external influences.
Therefore, if the above are true, humans will only evolve to climate change when it has thoroughly and negatively impacted their living style. In other words, only when famine, starvation, and fuel costs take full impact will the United States and China be *forced* to examine other options. Though some have incredibly changed their lifestyle to a have minute carbon footprint, the general population that is currently floundering in health costs, education payments, and subprime mortgages is not able to install solar panels, buy hybrids, and only buy local, organically grown produce (not cattle, for its carbon footprint is horrendous). Knee-jerk reaction. That’s the only way this will happen.
As far human population is concerned, the field of ecology terms this ‘carrying capacity’. At the current rate of consumption, which will generally maintain a constant rate until negative feedback dictates otherwise, most experts agree we have already passed or are rapidly nearing earth’s carrying capacity. In other words, the earth is not a petri-dish; it cannot produce indefinitely.
As strongly as I want to feel that individuals changing their lifestyles will make a difference, I rationally know that homo sapiens will not, do not, have never, and will never change before it is necessary. Emotionally, I want to believe that all will be swell because some miracle or invention will change everything….EVERYTHING. Rationally, I recognize that we entered Iraq because we felt our oil supply was slowly being constricted like the oxygen supply of a heart attack patient; The executive office thought that establishing a democratic nation with *billions* of barrels underground would create a constant, steady supply of oil while iran invaded/invades saudi arabia (who has no standing army and is one of the biggest holders of oil in the middle east) and other surrounding shiite, oil-strong-holds. Yes, rationally, I recognize that we have spent precious time and money on a war to secure oil reserves. Unfortunately, I also recognize that we cannot leave that war. Yes, civil war is inevitable, but ecologically, economically, and rationally it is not our concern…unless the oil supply is at risk. Rationally we cannot leave because Iran will most likely overrun Iraq, cut off oil supplies to the United States, and secure our place as an absolutely helpless, destroyed country. Empire aside (I really do not care about our placement as such), ALL shipments would come to a grinding halt - our economy would fall apart. So, instead of that, we are left to maintain SOME sort of control in order to obtain a product that environmentalists (you and me) hate but our economy (yours and mine) loves. Do I believe that the war is justified? Absolutely not. The money spent on Iraq could have easily corrected our problem with carbon emissions, payed for universal healthcare, and put everyone through college. But, rationally, we are no longer in march 2003, the dollar has tanked, an estimated 10 million people will lose their homes due to the mortgage fallout, 50 million are without healthcare, and our economy is still strongly oil-based. We cannot and will not be able to gracefully change to a hydrogen/solar/non-oil economy.
Talk about being between a rock and a hard place…
Just finished a delicious vegetarian pasta my wife prepared. My first turkey free Native American Genocide Day (Thanksgiving) dinner. No guilt, or remorse, turkey is boring anyway.
Erik: Absolutely 100% correct. Well written, humans are a cannibalistic genocidal species just ask the neanderthals, and answers
northernally: “Has the North American middle-class been so co-opted by the materialism of Corporate America that only a major environmental disaster will make them change their behavior? The answer, of course, is yes. Just go to your nearest mall tomorrow to obtain visually verifiable proof, but please be careful in the parking lot, don’t want you to get shot.
Star: Diamonds are a girl’s best friend. The biggest scarcity scam of them all.
My point is that, the problem is obvious, the solution is equally obvious and not complicated, we don’t need more research papers.
If, and when, this planet goes to hell, it won’t be because of me. My powers to effect change are limited to my individual actions, posting on common dreams, starting an environmentally friendly business, voting for Al Gore, oops scratch that, he doesn’t give a crap, setting an example to friends and family, and crossing my fingers.
I have to admit, I kind of miss, the pumpkin pie.
Ramsay
Bingo. Just what our shadow government and those working toward a one world government want. Wars + famine = depopulation and the conditions leading to a global government. Now you know why they want to deny global warming so as not to do anything about it, and why Bush keeps on talking about WW III. We do not have to worry about too much carbon emissions if there will only be 1/2 billion or fewer of us (mostly them) left after the war.
Of course, 90% of those left will belong to the servant class to take care of the elites. Democracy and a middle class never did set too well with the financial and coroporate elite, and as Bush said, being President is a whole lot easier if you can be a dictator.
Those who cooperate are promised to be one of the survivors, hence, their ability to control the MSM and Congress to keep the everyone else in the dark. Meanwhile, the sheep meekly follow their shepherds as they are led to their fate.
When the next war to end all wars comes - which will be sooner rather than later until the next war, half the population of the earth will be wiped out and the problem will automatically be solved.
I have a cheerful reminder for us all!
Its BLACK FRIDAY! The no shopping day for us good people! Don’t spend a thing! Enjoy your family and friends. Just like walking threw the woods…Don’t leave a trace.
So If we all are destined to die in this world, why cant we do something better with our bodies? Wouldn’t it be better to flush your own ass down a self composting toilet so right after death we can go on in our microbe form?
Wonder Twin powers activate! Form of ass fibers! Power of Darth Cheney’s fart!
So if we all want to die…can I go shopping? NOT
Maybe far, far more than half KALIA, and a planet so polluted with atomic waste, that all life, except some bacteria is forever eradicated.
Of course we don’t have to have WW 3 to accomplish that, we are already doing it with atomic power plants, their incredible deadly waste matter and use of DU in weapons of war.
I’d just like to poke some harmless fun at pjd because he’s not here. But he looks out his window and as far as he can see to the east it’s a vast barren plain. To the west, a bunch a people running around in suits.
We should try and start a fund and pitch in a few pennies to a)clean his windows. and b)purchase a pair of binoculars.
Hey, PJD, no harm buddy. Folks here have twice accused me of smoking which has not been truthful either on their part. Leading me, as my jibe may in this instance lead you, to calling into grave doubt much of the rest of their observations on the matter at hand. sincerely yours.
GEOFF does smoke it. That’s three buddy.
Hope you had a good turkey and pumkin or sweet poptato pie and were able to forget about Bush / Cheney ___ for a day at least.
This reminds me of two movies: The Titanic and The Day After Tomorrow.
The whole “Too many people and so at least this will clean up the place” position and those close to that are obviously misanthropic and perhaps not so conspicuously racist and elitist. The scene in the movie is when the Kate Winslet character points out to her clawing mother that there are not enough seats by half so at least half of the people will die. “But not the better half.” Responds the voice of the ruling class.
The other movie points out that this is really about the natural seasons of the earth. In a different comments section (It’d be nice to have a real bullentinboard setup for Commondreams) I wrote that it makes no difference to what we have to how we have to approach our problems if we’ve gotten past a tipping point. The tipping point we have to work on is the Moral Tipping Point. We have to continue on our route toward a true Democratic Capitalism. Change our ways, repair, heal, and prepare, it is the potential for that where I find comfort.
One person piped in a tad of amplification by pointing out that it is selfish to consider a tipping point as a reason to give up. I think the selfish remark was more about those that use the “tipping point” idea as a reason to give up or to feel some misanthropic world view has been vindicated.
At least that is what my point about focusing our attentions to make the best of our situation is about. The long run may even reveal that what is happening to the earth right now is more about the natural seasons of the planet on a slightly larger scale. This is much more likely than the current trend toward global warming really being about either a retributive god (or Goodess) or even strictly human behavior. The whole “tipping point” Idea might be missing the mark completely. The earth produces seasons over slightly longer periods of time in the same way that it has produced seasons over a year’s time. And that’s the facts.
The continental glaciers melted and caused the rising of the ocean giving rise to the global flooding stories (the one in “The Bible” being only one) and it didn’t happen because of anything humans did. Just like the time before and the time before that.
METROLOUISE, The ice core samples taken at the poles, then studied by scientist who have spent their entire adult lives researching the subject, prove beyon sensible discussion, that your assesment of global warming, is TOTALLY incorrect.
Metroeloise—-so while I agree that the flooding stories are part of the collection of stories here on Gaia, I don’t know how you get from here to there when you say that humankind’s behavior was not a factor in the earlier ones.
That asserttion pre-supposes that our level of technology is a first time event. Sorry but with the planet being billions of years old, I kinda doubt it. I don’t claim I can prove my assertion any more than you can yours, but it’s not a documented fact that the other floods just happened in the absence of “human behaviors or input.”
Huh?
My position is simply that it has happened and quite frequently, with regularity. Moreover it has done so often within human life time.
That is what seems to me to be the uncontroversial bit to go away with in what the scientist have put together: That Ice Ages happen. What and how, when and what all will accompany the changes from epochs to epoch, those questions and others are what is controversial. That is my understanding.
And all I said in that post only “The long run may even reveal that what is happening to the earth right now is more about the natural seasons of the planet on a slightly larger scale.” Which is a minor point I made in the post.
Though. I am up for being educated. I embrace learning and that is what discussion is really all about, eh? Mutual-Self discovery-creation. So KP bring it on. How is what I wrote Totally Incorrect? Are “Ice Ages” Not recurring and devastating when they happen? (And we have never polluted to this degree before, right?) So whatever role pollution has in this, and that may be huge, it still “might be” that such a change as we are going through is more a part of the natural cycle of the earth than evidence of a malignant humanity. Apocalyptic visions leave me cold; no room for discovery and learning.
starofthesea: I don’t know. I think it very well can have been that we humanity have had hugely more developed technological cultures within some bygone epoch. I certainly like the idea. Moreover I am comfortable with the fact that the levels of devastation we are talking about with each major shift-change being repeated time after time that there could be little that remains for us to be convinced. Still. What we do seem to have is evidence for the changes themselves and that there also was a great deal of concurrent geological activities, earthquakes and more telling volcanic explosions. This last thing would bleach up more atmospheric pollution than the total amount we have put up this epoch. Then there is the natural results of the ecologic changes in the system. Currently we are starting to accept that the methane release that is occurring, beginning, in the polar region will produce climate altering levels of gases which are more antagonistic to ozone than co2. And there is lots of it yet just sitting there.
So again I am just saying it may be revealed that the climate change is more a natural occurring cycle rather than simply a human made catastrophe. And if it is so we do need to accept that and incorporate that into our understanding of the world and our position in. If not we still need to move on here and get over the moral tipping point and act.
Okay, the ice core samples prove that the Co2 in the atmosphere has risen ‘dramatically’ in the past few years. It also proves that the problems began when our industrial age began. That is because of actions by humanity.
Certanly there have been ice ages and warmer ages in the past. The warmer periods didn’t ever jump on like it is occurring at the present time and we do need to act now and with a world wide effort of mutual understnading and monetary support.
Never has the Arctic ice melted to such an extent as it has now. Also, the Antarctic ice shelf has not melted for at least the past 50 million years, as far back as the ice samples have been studied.
I do believe the story of Noah’s flood occurred some 4 to 5 thousand years ago. I believe we can discount that episode in the problem of Global Warming we are having now. The scientists know it is humanity that is creating the problem, in spite of what the uneducated on the subject may wish to believe. That’s why I stated your comment was totally incorrect. No big deal, we humans all make mistakes and I sure don’t know it all either.
Thanks again KP.
Guess after a few generations our great grands will have a time of debating this question. IN order to have that time come about there are some things we need to do.
Some of that is immediate and obvious: buy local, support only candidates that are committed to truth and justice for all; candidates that are committed to a public discourse of these problems; a party that is committed to supporting the increasing of the general capacity for constructive public discourse; a party that will tie our foreign policy to sustainable local development.
Some are more subtle at first: smile more at people as we pass each other; have more potlucks, block parties, reach out. Seek out those places that we have internalized the logic of oppression and repudiate them. Stand up and insist on truth from yourself and others within all our personal interactions. Become more accountable. Be an example. Look at that list of lies in the article on Being the Queen of England and ask yourself how many we allow to be told by us or to us without challenging the person? One of the biggest lies is the structure of dichotomies at all. That there is a black and white world out here at all. Causes and quietly supports all sorts of troubles that one.
I have been reading Rachel Carson’s The Sea Around Us that was coincidentally on the shelf here. I have a stack of about six months of books to read which depressingly represents about a week and a half of what N Chomsky reads and digests. By the way, I hope you all have the opportunity to check out Chomsky’s newest endeavor, “what we say goes.” It’s floating around out there.
But back to the sea which I know is dear to KP, regardless of what happens up here, it seems to me that within the passage of time beit ever so long, the sea would eventually restore life on earth.
Sadly, all that we have learned may be washed away and the same mess would happen all over again.
that should read “might happen all over again.”
on a holiday note just so’s y’all don’t think I’m sour dour. I met a fellow on the street, a service elevator man, last winter, who appreciating my life and my his because we both thought the other had Open Minds (good god I’m beginning to sound like Fielding.)
Anyway he recounted a story from the sixties when he dropped some acid and ended up 3000 miles from his home, with no recollection of how he’d got there and no money for the return trip.
Having two remaining “tabs” or whatever, he and his friends thought the only way to get back would be to take them and see what happened. So, he did, and ended up back where he started with not idea how that happened either.
“those were the days,” quoth he. “these are days too,” I replied.
Sorry, way off topic. But we’ve been talking about the travesty of the natural world since when? Well, I spent my formative years much with a naturalist who drummed it into my thoughts since when I was seven years of age so my fate has been sealed as far as this discussion goes.
I did think though, Kem, if I dropped some acid (which in all honesty I never have nor never could do despite everything probably) I thought I might stop by your place in Mill Valley for that beer you promised me. just guessing. . .
Hi Geoff, I’ll have some chilled and ready for you buddy,___ no acid. I get my kicks from reading. Another wonderful book about our seas is Jacques Costeau’s “Ocean World”. __Years ago, that scientist, nventor, explorer, author, and wonderful father for his children, warned us all, to stop polluting our oceans, or we would likely not survive another hundred years.
One of his most serious concerns was pollution from atomic waste, which could destroy the ocean’s phytoplankton, our planet’s atmospheres major source of oxygen. He never dreamed however, we would purposefully add to that serious problem, by using Depleted Uranium for weapons. The 100 years is going to come around a lot sooner than 100 years should.
“The human species is a very destructive animal, constantly killing its own in cannibalistic fashion.
We humans are always at war with one another; we are perfectly willing to kill other humans for food, territory, women, (Helen of Troy), money, jealousy, and oil.”
Not true for every human culture. Certainly, most cultures that lived for millennia without consuming their host have been eradicated, but the problem is not with the entire human species, just one part of it - ours.
The questions is: Can we change, or must we die in order for others to live sustainably? Well, there is the old saw: Old paradigms don’t change; old paradigms die with old men.
Gee, I don’t feel too well…
The problem is not just consumption or even overpopulation (though they are problems).
The problem is a global system of economics based on exploitation of resources and people, quarterly growth, competition, and wealth as power. This system has it’s own internal dynamic and has become a deadly juggernaut that if left to run it’s course will collapse leaving another dead civilization.
What is necessary to prevent the wars, mass migrations, and starvation resulting from new ecological conditions is a new system of economic, political and ecological relations; one that makes the most efficient use of energy to transport people and resources where they are needed. We need a system that is not-for profit, not competitive or nation-based. The archaic model of “nation states” must be abandoned. We need to see the planet as a large cooperative with regional interests that must be respected. We need local democracies that operate in a publicly accountable global system. The alternative is a very dark barbaric dystopia.
Jaded Prole,
your speakin in the choir room, we’re all here gettin’ ready to go out and sing wit ya.
JADED PROLE,
One meritorious solution is to redefine what measures we (falsely) use to now hide the complete life-cycle costs, as these current measures focus only upon the short term profits (like the GNP does).
When economics adds the costs:
_a. to clean up an industry’s waste liquid stream (to drinkable quality)
_b. to clean up an industry’s waste air pollution (to healthy quality)
_c. to clean up an industry’s waste solid pollution (to harmless quality, like radioactive materials being no longer deadly - or isolating them conservatively for millions of years)
_d. to clean up an industry’s human health damages (epi-genetic demonstrates that negative impacts progress through multiple future generations)
_e. to clean up an industry’s “carbon footprint” to balance whatever damages it causes to global environment.
_f. to clean up an industry’s psychological impacts to alleviate mental suffering
_g -zzz all else
This is not my idea, but one well documented for many decades.
Consider that a guided missile is programed to hit a target some distance away, and that the navigation system inputs ground images and GPS data to steer the missile in flight, which converges on the target. This approach in design is called a closed loop control system, where the target information is used to respond to the varying input information to obtain the desired results.
Because GNP avoids use of the complete target value (artificial and illusionary profits, propped up by ignoring real impacts to Earth), the missile (our constantly changing economic system of over-consummerism) is guided to a false target, which then yields resultant ‘collateral’ damages.
This is also abbreviated as GIGO, garbage in Garbage out, which is an accurate summary of this current administration (they’ve come in, and all this stuff comes out).
Namaste
nspire,
It isn’t just “this administration.” The nature of this system dictates all of the above. No particular leader or business can, within the economic system we have, operate outside of its internal laws.
If this civilization is to survive the very different conditions it has inadvertently created, the archaic rule of the competitive profit-driven market must be replaced by a more appropriate system of economic and political relations.
P.S. — that obvious reality is at the root of corporate and right-wing denial global warming.
JADED PROLE,
I heartily agree, and realize that some administrations had measurably better results — even when sitting upon the flawed notion of (very limiting) “GNP” context. We need a new one, but it is hardly as simple as a new suit.
And as I’m happy to repeat, context is far different than contents, to wit:
We’re now so busily re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic,
as if this ‘improved’ aesthetic would be beneficial, while
the inevitable direction of this context (and the Titanic) is
downward
Namaste
I agree with you as well and true, “it is hardly as simple as a new suit.”
We need to be building the institutions of the new society even in the shadow of the old because this system will collapse on it’s own due to its inability to adapt to new conditions. Expect economic collapse as crops fail, water dries up and the dollar goes the way of the dinosaur. Expect martial law as a dying order tries to suppress a panicked, angry and desperate population. If we are ready for it, many people will be ready to participate in the building of a better model.
Yes, the grimness of future possibilities does concern me, and we must gird our loins.
Consider that beyond mere physical assemblies (e.g a fish), that we most need to teach the population new ways of being (becoming fishers of men?), to guide those institutions.
Please read my posts (and related responses) within this thread, here, as they address a simple idea of gradually building compassion and understanding for each other, through mutual blessings, as in:
Namaste
Religionists have been trying to gradually “build compassion and understanding for each other, through mutual blessings . . .” for many millenia. Common interest and survival are much more effective. The system in which people live shapes the culture which defines how we relate to each other and to nature. Building a system that encourages cooperation and community is more realistic than attempting to build those values in an environment and culture that reward competition and the alienation of bogus individualism.
Does your use of language “We need to be building the institutions…” and “Building a system that encourages cooperation and community is more realistic…”, signify your propensity for taking ACTION?
And although I agree that “Common interest and survival are … effective” motivators, I also know that societies thrive upon a sturdy foundation (as of course buildings do). Consider that the unseen context of each society’s core beliefs both guides and strengthens the community, as well as allowing for adapting to drastic changes. Here I’m going beyond mere religion (THINGS DOING or HAVING: practices, ceremonies, power, wealth), to address the metaphysical and spiritual sustenance of a cohesive community (BEINGNESS: beliefs, faith, principles, intention, hope, joy, peace, and love).
If you follow this link here, you will learn more about the relative contexts of BE, DO, and HAVE
Namaste