Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Force of Nature: Us
The Anthropocene Period: What humanity does has important consequences, so we must manage our global life-support system
We live in epoch-making times. I mean this literally, rather than as a tool to dramatise the global economic crisis or latest political scandal. An epoch describes a geological time period. The end of the last glaciation, some 11,000 years ago, saw the transition from the cool Pleistocene to the warmer Holocene. This relatively stable epoch saw humans turn to agriculture and our population rise considerably. Now geologists, ecologists and climate scientists, myself included, are reporting we have entered a new and much less stable geological epoch: the Anthropocene.
Just as changes to the Earth's orbit, volcanic eruptions and asteroid impacts in the distant past have set the world on radically new courses, humanity itself has now become a collective force of nature, with far-reaching consequences. But what does this startling discovery – that humanity has become a globally significant geophysical force – mean for society, solving environmental problems, and perhaps more profoundly, how we see ourselves?
People have always had an impact on the environment. The difference now is that rather than influencing only local environments in limited ways, humanity is having planet-wide impacts on the Earth's workings. The best known global change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and resulting climatic changes. Some of the CO2 in the atmosphere dissolves into the oceans, making them more acid, which is degrading marine ecosystems. To put this in context, the oceans are more acidic today that they have been for at least 800 millenia. The atmospheric CO2 increase has also boosted plant growth in some places, changing the world's forests and grasslands. In short, the global cycling of carbon has been significantly altered.
The impacts of human activity on the other great global chemical cycles are similarly profound. To increase crop yields, more nitrogen is added to ecosystems through fertiliser use, than is added by all natural processes combined. But fertiliser run-off leads to 'dead-zones' of low-oxygen water that currently affect 245,000 sq km of the world's ocean.
Furthermore, scientists estimate that each year humans move more rock, sediment and soil than all natural processes , that at least three times as much fresh water is held in reservoirs than in rivers, and at least a third of all land has been appropriated for human use.
The heavy hand of humanity reaches into the living world too. Each year, we extract 7m tonnes of bushmeat from tropical forests, 95m tonnes of fish from the oceans, and raze 80,000 sq km of forest. The result: we are at the leading edge of the sixth mass extinction in Earth's history. Extinction rates today are at least 100 times higher than 'background' rates. Previous extinctions, such as that which wiped out the dinosaurs 65m years ago, are joined by a human-induced loss of life.
Many of these trends look set to continue or accelerate, with potentially dire consequences. Recent events may provide a taste of what's to come: in 2007 and 2008 food protests erupted across three continents, in part because of the switch of some land from food to biofuel production. In the same period, about 1% of humanity had their homes damaged or destroyed by extreme weather events. Interlinked feedback loops amongst political, economic and environmental spheres could lead to grave problems without foresight and planning.
The big question in the Anthropocene is: can we learn to manage our own global life-support system and avoid crossing dangerous thresholds? The answer so far, if progress in 14 years of UN climate change talks is a measure, is probably no.
But perhaps there are grounds for cautious optimism. The word "Anthropocene", coined by Nobel prize winner Paul Crutzen, has greatly assisted researchers in understanding how the Earth and human society function together. Perhaps pushing the concept into wider usage would enable politicians, business leaders, social movements and NGO's to similarly benefit from thinking along integrated, quantitative and evidence-based lines.
Of course, scientific knowledge itself cannot set goals for society. Choosing how to manage our life support system is within the realm of politics. Scientists can identify the likely (and unlikely) outcomes of choices we face. For instance, humanity's impact on the environment has been greatest over the last 50 years. In this time human numbers have doubled and the global economy increased more than fifteen-fold. Our socio-economic system and the fossil fuels that power it lie at the heart of understanding how humans have become a force of nature, and therefore how to alter our future impacts.
Big ideas from science are often discomfiting. The Anthropocene is no exception. There is a temptation to see humanity as "bad" for despoiling the environment, or to deny the evidence through fear of acknowledging the need for profound changes. I see it as an update on how we view our place in the universe. First, Copernicus discovered that the Earth revolves around the sun, and humanity is not at the centre of the universe. Then, Darwin established that we are not even at the heart of life on Earth. Now Crutzen has reversed this trend by naming a new human-dominated geological epoch. . The future direction of the only place in the universe where we know life exists is in our hands. Suddenly, after almost 500 years, humanity is centre stage again. Let's not blow it.
- Posted in
44 Comments so far
Show AllRather than defining the problem, it would be nice if the writers of these articles would wait till its proved that climate change is man made and secondly, if it is, has any way been found that would produce measurable results to change it.
So far no scientific evidence that its man made exists nor is there any solution if it was.
Henry8 July 24th, 2009 10:50 am,,,You seem to contradict yourself in this short response...."if it is, has any way been found that would produce measurable results to change it." ..seems to be a legitimate question if proof is ever found. BUT, then, you say,...."So far no scientific evidence that its man made exists nor is there any solution if it was. Maybe I mis-read your intention.
Good point...as I told Panda, I speak much better than I write.
My intention is to simply say that it is an unproven theory but even if it were true, there is no proven reponse.
Regards!
Wow Henry8, pay no attention to the massive extinction rate caused by human growth and development, and the other global-scale destructive effects we are having on the ecosystem. With thinking like yours, we should just keep plugging away to increase economic growth so we can all get richer and consume more - never mind these science writers telling us we're heading toward our own self destruction from too much growth and environmental impact.
It's from such self-centered, short-sighted blindness that those of the future will pay for in very painful ways. You know that little spot on your arm that may be melanoma, do you think you should wait until it's proven to be cancer before you have it checked out?
"It's from such self-centered, short-sighted blindness"
I'm abashed by your insight. Thanks.
Oh God this is so tiresome...
OK Henners, if "no scientific evidence... exists" why do the overwhelming majority of SCIENTISTS say that there IS evidence...?
Why do you want to publicly say such inanities?
"the overwhelming majority of SCIENTISTS say that there IS evidence."
The overwhealming majority of scientists say no such thing. By count there seems to be more that discount it than ascribe to it.
Tiresome is making assertions not based on fact.
maybe something ought to be said about GOD - where much of the USA that believes there is no scientific evidence of Global Warming due to human consumption habits in the modern , USA LED world .
why not apply THAT to religious America?
where is the PROOF of GOD or some Divine PERSON that controls everything? that they put FAITH in?
How did God get into this Teddy? (lol)
'let's not blow it'............
if we haven't already 'blown' it.................
Oh we have.
But those of us alive ought to DO THE RIGHT THING and change our own lives to STOP FEEDING THE BEAST, and at least give our best real effort to avert the fast-approaching crash.
Do not buy anything you do not truly need...
"Live like you were dying..." (Tim McGraw)
To anyone who has been following the Global Warming/Peak Resources debate, this is old news.
And there is 99% agreement of climatologists world wide that the human species is responsible for an ongoing and likely permanent alteration of not only the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land masses.
There is no other species capable of carrying out such destructive and biosphere threatening activities. None.
The pleasant environment we temporarily enjoy is the result of a global homeostasis that is working overtime to preserve the conditions that support Terrestrial life. As the deniers like to point out, there have been massive swings in the past that have made the environment less hospitable to life. No argument. But those changes took place over periods of thousands and tens of thousands of years. Not two centuries or a handful of decades, as the widely and verifiably collected evidence is proving.
The only reason there is still doubt as to who or what is responsible for Climate Change/Global Warming is the large corporations most responsible for the emissions of the atmosphere and biosphere altering chemical compounds that have too much to lose if the general populace understands who is really at fault. These companies are scrambling desperately to avoid any drop in their bottom line, and so engage in practices of paying off third party think tanks and those with no credentials in environmental science to do their dirty work of deliberately confusing the people.
Walk in peace.
"We are as gods, so we might as well get good at it."
---from Stewart Brand's intro to the Whole Earth Catalog
Kids learn how to build with blocks by first learning that they can knock down the tower that Mom just built.
The idea that we're capable of destroying the Earth is obviously a tough morsel for some to chew, but it's the necessary foundation for learning how to maintain it responsibly.
Henry8, You might be right. It might be someone else causing it. We need to look around carefully for anyone else releasing CO2 into our atmosphere.
I'll bet its those darn right wing loonies!
By the way though, with no proof of man made climate change and no proof that CO2 is actually causing the climate to change, it may be irrelevent.
We are nature. The belief that we are separate from or superior to our environment in part produces external expressions of that belief such as science. science as amazing as it is, tends to reinforce our disconnect from our surroundings because science demands that we have an observer and an object of observation. When what we observe is seen as separate then their is little concern for that object [minerals,plants animals]. On the other hand, if we viewed ourselves as an aspect of nature, or deeper yet ,as nature itself, then because of this intimacy, greater care would be exhibited so as not to harm "ourselves". keep in mind that the physical body can not exist without the planet and its gifts of air, fire earth, water and all of the resources that we arrogantly squander on a daily basis. This belief in separation is the fundamental problem, because when we see ourselves as isolated individuals only, then mental physical and emotional exclusion must be, to a degree, maintained, resulting in conflict with others and the environment.
The belief that we are separate from or superior to our environment is more a result of centuries of patriarchal religious brainwashing than science. All those Armageddonites got their ideas from religion, not science. Think how different things would be if all those religious people worshiped the earth instead of some cloud-driving whack-job in the sky. It would be a better world.
"Wait till it's proved"......this like waiting till you have firm, peer-reviewed proof that the man who has broken into your house and is pointing a gun at your head wants to kill you. The only the only way to be really sure is to wait till he pulls the trigger. Not an option I would choose. I have children and grandchildren and I wish for them a future less bleak than we are promising if we continue down the path of unbrideled consumption, greed, and denial. We are all culpable to the extent that we buy into the corporatocracy's
lies and deception. GMO's, endless war, petro-dependance and climate/environmental degradation are all interlinked. This may be old news to some. But apparently a huge sector of humanity just doesn't get it and so it bears repeating. Unfortunately, we are the change we don't want to see, and until we understand just how thin the ice has become upon which we stand, and how much improved our quality of life would be if we made the right choices, regardless of the climate destabilization issue, our planet-wide experience will more and more resemble a living hell.
Time to pick a theme song:
"It's The End Of The World As We Know It"
or
"The Party's Over"
And to all you reality-deniers: "US Energy Sec Steven Chu recently explained, “Climate change is not new; the Earth went through six ice ages in the past 600,000 years. However, recent measurements show that the climate has begun to change rapidly... caused predominantly by greenhouse gas emissions."
Or - it's all a hoax created by a pair of researchers looking to maintain and increase their funding, a hoax picked up on by the UN as a way of ushering in their dreaded, secret One World Dictatorship, lead, of course, by a non-American Muslim socialist fascist in our White House! http://tinyurl.com/aea6m6
tick... tick... tick...
Theme song:
"Live Like You Were Dying"
(BTW, i followed a reference today from CD about Obama having once been a member of The New Party, and i entered the world you refer to, of crackpot right-wing conspiracy theories about our non-American Muslim socialist fascist President...
So bizarre, in a way, as with Bill Clinton, we watch the Democrat move the country to the right, while the rabid far-right strategists work triple-overtime to froth up a public image of the man as a far-left ideologue...
But not bizarre at all, really, just classic fascist playbook: demonize the liberal "enemy" to lay the groundwork for your own ascension to power... As Mussolini said ""Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal")
i am the living embodiment of the earth and sky combined...
Here is a path that leads to real change. Free public transit. Destroy the power of the private auto.
http://freepublictransit.org
The Old Testament prophets were not fortune tellers. They were pointing out how present conditions or trends were likely to effect the future.
'If you oppress the poor there will be a price to pay'.
'If you ignore an external danger that is coming closer each day it will eventually arrive'.
'Your wealth can protect you only up to a point.'
I could go on, but prophets are not a popular lot, and are usually blamed for the disaster they saw coming.
this is not prophecy, this is the discerning of patterns.
same problems, different time. boom, bust, restoration of equilibrium. repeat.
Nine words to die for (George Harrison):
"I me mine, I me mine, I me mine."
Nine words to live by (webwalk):
"Do not buy anything you do not truly need."
If we all truly simply stopped buying...
"Don't buy it!"
one of our mistakes with linear Cartesian time is in thinking the ancients are some how outdated. the wisdom is never outdated.
righto. there is no "outdated" for time is an everflowing, everchanging Present.
we partied hard, showed no gratitude (reciprocation) and ignored the price. paying time comes sooner or later tho.
The Anthropocene - an opt title. Humanity is now in the process of creationg the sixth extinction. Maybe we will be part of it.
I would say it was the closest thing to a sure bet I have ever seen.
Hi.
Get a copy of Gore's BOOK "An Inconv Truth" and study ( like stare at it for hours ) the big chart of CO2/Temp dev until you see what it is telling us.
If you were a stock broker looking at a similar chart of a cyclical industry, what would you recommend your clients to do?
Note the spikes. (sharp changes)
Note that 3/4 of the mass of the atmosphere is at or below only three times the length of your average int'l airport runway. (10,000ft x 3)
Note that above 35,000ft (7 miles) the temp is pretty much a constant -55 degrees, C or F. The distance from your place to the nearest Walmart... Note that on a clear day from a hilltop you can see 10 miles minimum, out west, maybe 50 miles.
Note that water changes state in interesting ways.
Note that solutions to problems don't get chosen because they interfere "too much" with the status quo.
The people who float to the top of the power structure are not the ones who have the vision to see/appreciate these things. Don't expect appropriate action from these people. Their attempt at survival will most likely be to try to relieve you of whatever you may have gathered to prepare for your survival.
First they will ignor it, then deny it, then oppose it, then co-opt it, then profit from it, then try to power through it with force, then they will cannabalize each other.
And it could all be dealt with cooperatively and in harmony with Nature.
Tough noogies. Be prepared.
I did read that, but I saw UK'sChannel Fours answer to Mr. Gore and it refutes a lot of his points. You can get very dizzy trying to pin down the truth.
But my friend you are exactly right about trying to co opt it and profit from it. Thats all the Cap and Trade bill is. A very large tax on everyone with the usual suspects profiting from it. Makes me want to walk up to anyone that votes for it and expesss my contempt.
Henry8,
thx for the response.
Other good sources are "The Great Iceage" by Drury, Chapman etal; "Under a Green Sky";
Follow USGS earthquake data for activity along the tectonic plates.
I guess that undersea volcanism will supply the last 2 degrees of warming for the initiation of tipping pts. What do you think?
Henry8 -
Sometimes you try to be a reasonable, independent thinker -- and you succeed.
On this question, though, you seem to easily fall back to mindlessly right wing, or in any case, independently mindless positions.
Your position is indefensible because the question of human caused global temp rise is admitted to be finally irresolvable with absolute certainty, with current data and scientific understanding. But indefensible, a fortiori, because, THEREFORE, the question clearly has become, as surely you must know: Shall humanity, given the data's uncertainty, err on the side of caution --or not?
If the potential consequences of a wrong answer to this question were less weighty, I could understand your wait & see/let's have more info attitude.
As it is, with at least as much if not more data for as against the human-causation proposition, and with most of the world's Nobel Laureates in the relevant sciences in agreement that human activity IS sufficiently documented to be warming the atmosphere with likely catastrophic results, why would any reasonable person choose to err on the side of doing nothing by way of human-systems abatement?
Why would a reasonable person err on the side, effectively, of INcaution?
I sure would like to hear an explanation of your position vis-a-vis this (to me) entirely reasonably, cautionary principle.
If you do reply to me, please focus your reasoning at least in part on the Cautionary Principle.
A simple repetition of science's already-admitted lack of perfect certainty in this matter is, to repeat, logically No Longer The Point.
Panda
"Sometimes you try to be a reasonable, independent thinker -- and you succeed."
What a nice thing to say. Now lets see if I can make my point reasonably. I would point out that not believing the theory of man made climate change is not right wing and believing it is not left wing unless you view it strictly in idological terms. I try my best to focus what I determine to be the truth, not ideology. Thats why on one post I'm agreeing and another I'm being called a Troll.
Lets establish that the Climate is changing and that is not in question.
"Your position is indefensible because the question of human caused global temp rise is admitted to be finally irresolvable with absolute certainty, with current data and scientific understanding."
The same can be said about your position, so we both have indefensible position's. Which simply means that some believe the theory and some don't.
"Shall humanity, given the data's uncertainty, err on the side of caution --or not?"
If this were the question it would be simple. The answer is yes. However that is not the question or the claims. It is claimed that there is as much evidence for as against, which you correctly quoted, but I can't find it. There is very little scientific fact that it is caused by man. There is more evidence that it is not. Most of the evidence so far is contained in models that have proved faulty. Not one predictied the cooling of the last ten years. Not one. Their predictive powers have been less than stellar as far as I can tell.
Some Nobel Laureates ascribe to the theory (not most) some don't. The same for scientists. The advocates for each position are not in overwhealming numbers, but the majority do not ascribe to the theory.
Now we get to the real problem. We cannot be close to sure that the problem is manmade. But the one thing we can be sure of is that there is no evidence that there is anything we could do about it other than removing ourselves from the planet or taking draconian measures on birth control.
My problem starts when the government tells me something is a fact when I know that it is a lie, that climate change is man made. It grows when they propose an energy tax that has nothing to do with climate change, simply revenue that is supported by many of those that believe the theory. A bill that even if implimented would have so little effect they hesitate to claim it because it is miniscule.
Then its claimed we must lead even if China and India refuse to participate which would result in no achievement of anything except growing poverty in our country.
In other words I'm trying to say that scare tactics are not a good idea, neither is presenting something as the proven truth when it is not and thats what a lot of these articles do.
But at the same time in my view we should be trying to limit emissions (not good for the enviornment in any case)exploring every avenue for real sustainable alternative fuels, conserving and making more rational decisions about tyhe use of our resources.
Unfortunately I speak far better than I write, unlike you and many others here, so I don't know if I'm coming through or not. Am I answering your question or missing it?
I also view this in the frame of all the other predictions and theories that did not prove out, so perhaps experience simply makes me a bit more hesitant to jump on board.
I thank you for your thoughtful critique and question. Others thinking is most valuable.
Regards
Henry, its quite simple.
1. Carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" which means that it traps heat that would otherwise escape into space.
2. Measurements show that the amount of carbon dioxide has been increasing over the last century.
3. Humans burn fossil fuels producing carbon dioxide.
Since 3 causes 2 then 1 results in increasing temperatures on Earth.
This is the central paradigm. All other issues are side issues.
Which of the above facts and implied logic do you dispute?
I could use a good Prof right about now! Thanks.
1 and 2 are givens. Humans burn fuel and breathe which produces carbon dioxide. There are many other producers of carbon dioxide and it just struck me I have never asked what the normal level of carbon dioxide is supposed to be.
The implied logic gives you #3, but is it not just that...implied. There is no real measurable proof that carbon dioxide is the main cause of climate change is there?
Has there been any consideration of the correlation between the increase in population and the increase in greenhouse gases?
Plus by all scientific measurements we are not warming for the last 10 years but cooling. That is a confusing fact wouldn't you say? AS a confirmed fact it certainly confuses me.
Last I'd say the only real issue is can we fix it if it is proven to be a problem? In fact, lets say man made climate change is a fact....is there any way we as a nation could have any impact on it? I see no way at all. What is your thought on this?
I wish it were simple for me. Thanks for your input and I'll look forward to your thoughts.
"There is no real measurable proof that carbon dioxide is the main cause of climate change is there?"
First the notion of proof is misguided. Mathematicians make proofs based on generally accepted mathematically principles. Scientists are incapable of proving anything but are only able to disprove particular assertions by showing, sometimes by experiment, that they cannot be true. This is the basis of much misunderstanding between scientists and the public.
Now that we accept that we are incapable of ever proving what you ask we can look at the evidence. Carbon dioxide, because of its chemical properties, traps heat. That is a fact. Also the level of carbon dioxide has increased from 290 ppm (parts per million) to 385 ppm over the last 60 years. That also is a fact based on measurement. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide were in the 275 to 285 range. Thus it is reasonable to conclude that elevated levels of carbon dioxide will cause the planet to warm up. Since no other primary causes are known it is reasonable to assert that carbon dioxide is the main cause of warming.
"Plus by all scientific measurements we are not warming for the last 10 years but cooling."
This is quite untrue and is part of the pattern of disinformation propagated by certain vested interests. 2006 was the warmest year on record and each of the past 9 years placed among the 25 warmest years ever recorded. True 2007 and 2008 were cooler than 2006, but I would not cite that as evidence for planetary cooling.
"Last I'd say the only real issue is can we fix it if it is proven to be a problem?"
The disheartening prospect is probably not. I've been aware of this outcome for almost 30 years and my early conversations focused upon the 4 year time horizon of politicians and the inertia that would prevent effective action. Now we are seeing secondary effects, known as positive feedback, where an increasing temperature changes the environment so that it reinforces the increasing temperature. The major effect seen is the release of methane from thawing tundra. Methane is itself a greenhouse gas with a much greater effect, on a molecular basis, than carbon dioxide.
Irrespective of whether we can mitigate climate change we should move to renewable energy simply because we are running out of fossil fuels. These fuels are an archeological treasure based upon millions of years of solar energy stored by living organisms. In the case of oil perhaps half has been consumed in a mere century.
As the author points out we are currently witnessing the sixth major extinction event to occur on earth. Life itself is very resilient and will no doubt survive. The earth will eventually reach some new equilibrium of rich, diverse ecosystems. Humans will survive only if our species has finally learned to accept that we are part of nature and to live with the carrying capacity of the Earth.
Howdy Prof!
Thanks. I still don't believe there is enough information to give credence to the assertions of the doomsday folks that are (for example) pushing the Cap and Trade bill. Thats what proves to me that there is something wrong with their assertions. I may not understand science well, but I understand business very well and what cost projections are, how you make them and benefit analysis. The "climate" bill is a lie and a very bad tax.
I guess I find the approach to "selling" climate change completely wrong. I believe the current method is getting in the way of exactly what they say they want. And some here have called my opinion on Al "right wing", but I have little interest in what he says considering his current lifestyle. Walk it or shut up.
"Irrespective of whether we can mitigate climate change we should move to renewable energy simply because we are running out of fossil fuels. These fuels are an archeological treasure based upon millions of years of solar energy stored by living organisms. In the case of oil perhaps half has been consumed in a mere century."
Now this makes perfect sense! This is a different story altogether and politically sellable. Which I believe some of the Utopian folks forget. No matter how superior they view themselves if they don't know how to lead, they fail. Example...Pelosi, and Obama on health care. Waxman and Obama on Cap and Tax which the right has correctly named. The attack on the American working man by proposing another try at amnesty. All three will fail.
But I believe you are right. Why ask for proof of warming, why even consider it as close as both sides arguments are (though you make a better case than the boneheads writing about it). From now on if I comment at all on this it will simply be to ask if whoever is posting has a solution. I don't see one.
Thanks for your patience and consideration.
Pax
HAS ANYONE COME UP WITH A SYSTEM OF EXITENCE THAT DOES NOT USE MONEY?
You do know that at least thirty million people in this country BELIEVE that the world will end in their lifetime.
And are either conciously or unconciously trying to manifest that belief.
"IF THE THUNDER DONT GET YA,THEN THE LIGHTENING WILL"
Can ANYBODY visualize how the world would function without money?
Hey Webwalk,
The story is that two judges from Pennsylvania,were charged with receiving payments from a for profit prison,for each person they convicted .Collectively both judges convicted FIVE THOUSAND juveniles, of which TWO THOUSAND, were sent to prison.
BOTH JUDGES PLEADED GUILTY WITHOUT GOING TO TRIAL.
This was done to get the whole issue buried as soon as possible .
The press let it slide into oblivion, no mention was made about the prison,nor whether anyone associated with the prison was ever charged for anything.
Think about it, if you people don't know the story,and your hip to commondreams.org,read the articles presented as well as post comments to these articles.How many of the three hundred million people in this country have the faintest idea of whats happening around them.
We are running out of time,everyone gets enlightened by the efforts of all the people who deliver the information ( the people who run this site, the various people and organizations who do the laborus research for articles written on this site) and then the readers who get this information, for the most part the same people every day,posting their comments to the various articles written, become itelectual sheep, calling the rest of the population sheep.
RANTING AND RAVING WITHIN A CLOSED CIRCLE OF SELF-AGRANDIZING IMPOTENTANCY!!!!
HOW MANY DIFFERENT WAYS ARE THERE OF SAYING THE SAME FUCKING THING
THE ENVIRONMENT IS FUCKED
THE ECONOMY IS FUCKED
WE GOT FUCKED BY THE BANKS AND CONTINUE TO GET FUCKED
THE SENATE IS FUCKED
THE CONGRESS IS FUCKED
THE ADMINISTRATION IS FUCKED
CAPITALISM IS FUCKED
HEALTH CARE IS FUCKED
EDUCATION IS FUCKED
lET'S MAKE IT REAL EASY AND NOT BE REDUNDANT, AND JUST SAY EVERYTHING IS FUCKED!!!
SO WHATS THE SOLUTION,KEEP TALKING ABOUT HOW WE ARE GETTING FUCKED INTO OBLIVIAN?
THE ANSWER IS SO FUCKING EASY, NO MORE THAT TWO HOURS OF A PERSONS TIME.
THEN THE TOPICS WILL BE WHAT WE ARE DOING!!!!!!!!!!!
if WE CREATE "CITIZEN CENTRAL" WE WILL SOLVE EVERY FUCKING PROBLEM, AND ALL THE FUCKING MONEY IN THE WORLD CANNOT DO JACK SHIT TO STOP IT.
For an idea of what Citizen Central is, refer to commondreams.org
articles > "the great tax con job".
written by: Thom Hartman, july 21 2009
search for post titled: "try this on for size" july 22,2009
IF ANYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT SOLUTION ,TO OUR CURRENT HUMAN DELIMA,POST IT ON THIS SITE SO WE CAN START WORKING ON IT. IF NOT,CAN THE FUCKING EGOS,AND START TALKING
WHAT WE NEED TO BUILD "CITIZEN CENTRAL" ie. central web site, ways to access info. to web site ,ie. computer , telephone and television integrated to computer, for example a questionnaire on the t.v. screen with the answers input-ed through the phone ,everyone doesn't have a computer, but just about everyone has a phone and television,needs to communicate in many languages, ie. one for English etc. etc.
accessible to people with disabilities,support groups for the nearly forty percent of our population that is functionally illiterate. While we are it, besides getting names and zip codes and correlating them to congresspeople and senators,we might as well expand the questionnaire to provide what the census would be getting as well as whatever else would be germain to determine what our citizens health status,and other needs are ie.housing, employment,etc etc.
Once we have the information we can, besides telling our senators and congresspeople what we want for legislation and how to we want our money spent.we can multi-task and work on programs and issues simultaneously.
So lets get some ideas ginning,the physical requirements, hardware and software required.a political group to phrase laws and legislation to augment the social, physical,and psychological needs of our citizens for our representatives to enact.
the physical requirements for Universal Health care,fixing the foreclosure problem ,people who lose their jobs and have equity in their homes, use the stimulus
money to provide reverse mortgages for these homeowners.people that were defrauded on their mortgages,require the issuers and current owners of these mortgages to work out a doable payment plan,or have the property seized, the owner of these homes live for free, just paying utilities, until the mortgage has been litigated in civil and criminal courts.
OKAY LETS GET "CITIZEN CENTRAL BUILT"
IF THERE IS NO ENERGY PUT INTO THIS PROJECT FROM ALL OF YOU , BY USING YOUR TALENTS
AND EXPERTISE,WITH CONCRETE IDEAS AND PROPOSALS POSTED ON THIS SITE.
FUCK IT ,WHEN SOMEONE COMES UP WITH A BETTER IDEA, GIVE ME A CALL , I VOLENTEER.
Frank;
Thanks for the oh so eloquent post and plea for us to come together, to realize our common dreams (and no, I am not being sarcastic). If you google 'Citizen Central', you will be hard pressed to find any organization even vaguely similar to what you suggest. If we or anyone would really like to change this, make a true citizen's central organization, then there is a lot of work to be done. Though I may not have a lot to offer I am, however, quite ready and willing to participate in whatever capacity I can manage to be helpful.
Let's get this started, say perhaps, by networking ourselves on a personal level. I will be glad to go first; below is my email address, and I welcome any and all correspondents to contact me directly. We can share a little bit about orselves, get to know each other a little better, but more to the point, we can start building that citizen's central network, and get on with the tasks that need doing.
Feel free to contact me at your convenience.
tmotto_midsouth1@comcast.net
I realize that most of us have our daily lives, families, jobs/careers, and myriad responsibilities that require so much of our time, but a little effort spread among a goodly number of us can have remarkably, demonstrably positive effects.
For an extremely funny commentary on the subject matter of this article, please watch the following video clip by George Carlin on Saving The Planet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
It's guaranteed to make you laugh!
For everyone but Panda I thought I'd put this up here to make butt kicking more convienient.
As far as I have been able to find out, it's been asserted that:
#1 Man made climate change has been proven....what proof?
#2 That we can actually do something about it if #1 is true....what proof?
#3 That the scientific community overwhealmingly ascribes to this therory....where is this information? The numbers I have seen don't reflect that at all.
In the end I doubt personal insult or non factual assertions add much to a discussion. But feel free.
See my comment in response to your reply to Panda.
Henry8 --
For what it's worth, I'm with you on the need, always, for a cautious empirical approach to this and other techno-social subjects we discuss and sometimes claim knowledge of on this site. But on this particular subject, I draw very different conclusions than you from the same available common evidence; and I still can't understand, despite your rejoinders, Why there is this great difference
I readily acknowledge for example, that what passes for Scientific Consensus can be, and often enough is, later proven to have been largely the result of the herd mentality of various scientists acting out of non-scientific methods, motives, or values.
I would also say that most of us laypersons don't want to think of the professional sciences as being untowardly vulnerable to cultural biases or stampeded cognitions; but that our very 'not wanting to think-so' is probably just another form of exactly that general herd mentality tendency in all of us.
Thomas Kuhn's 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' gives many historical examples of, and credible psychosocial insights into, how this human tendency to run in mass-perceptual herds (most especially when frightened), can affect the enterprise of Science no less than it does all other organized human activities.
All that said, I still think that Reason demands that we now don't do other than quickly come to a probability judgment about the question of human-causation and/or degree of contribution to Warming based on the available evidence(verified evidence which you still, insupportably appear to claim to be empirically non-existent); and then act on that evidence via the cautionary principle -- even if that 'acting' means immediate deeper thinking about How or Whether humans might usefully act to abate their admittedly hypothesized degree of warming causation.
In entering the Google search term ----"global warming - human causation accepted by scientists?"----, and then re-scanning the resultant huge amount of data and opinion (a significant minority of which is conflicting, admittedly -- but in numerical balance, not so), I still can't see any reasonable grounds for your assertion that there is no credible/sufficient evidence for human causation. I see, instead, exactly the opposite of what you contend that you see.
Assuming that you've perused more or less the same or similar data and opinion on the subject, as I have, how is it possible that you and I can come to such seemingly opposite conclusions about even the statistically-polled Scientific Consensus.
I think the only ways THAT can happen is by you either purposely ignoring the scientific opinion polling results of scientists, or by your considering such data, in itself, fatuously collected and thus corrupt, or by your equating the existence of significant minority dissent on the question, with a subjective wish that the dissenting data and opinion automatically displaces the sufficient scientific. consensus -- simply because you want it to. Please remember that, just here, I'm talking about a polled statistical analysis of what most earth scientists think -- not about whether the warming phenomenon or its human causality/contribution is THEREFORE real beyond doubt. The attendant point being that, demonstrable majoritarian scientific consensus is, in the end, all that rational people have to go by for now.
So, to combine and repeat all of my points above:
given that there IS proven, numerically sufficient Scientific Consensus on this question right now (despite your claims to the contrary); and considering the potential consequences for humanity if people like you prove to have been wrong in advocating indfinitely-more research about causality; and even granting that the herd mentality dynamics of episodically erroneous scientific consensi in the past may be in a similar manner affecting the present scientific consensus in the present, the question remains: by what demonstrable in-situ, overriding rationale or logic or information do you continue to object to humanity erring (at least in hypothesis consensus) on the side of caution?
Try to separate any answer to this last question, from the entirely other question of What Humanity Can or Should Try Do, given the established-as-probable causality.
The two questions are not the same, clearly; but you continue to conflate them.
In doing so, your make the more socially abstract question about the viability of potential human abatement strategies become a bogus ground for contesting, a priori, the sufficiently, already scientifically-probalized, cautionary answer regarding causality.
Why would you want to risk the probalized effects of global warming on humanity by maintaining such irresolvable-till-absolutely-proved epistemological semantic argument?
By one measure, it seems that you're doing so just for the ego sake of being seen as the virtuous Thomas More-like outsider, nobly standing by science's minority report simply to avoid running with main herd. Which of course makes no sense in this case (since sometimes the main herd also runs in a survival-oriented direction while the dissenting herd runs oppositely.)
Lack of any hunch by which to answer this question is why I suggested above that your position could be explained by an emotionally driven mindless right wing ideological loyalty, underneath and however unconscious.
I agree with you that this issue should not be political.
But when otherwise smart and honest people, like you, persistently maintain absurd positions about it, one gropes to explain the mystery.