Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
A Horizontal World? Occupy Can't Win with Utopian Impossibilities
Listen to conversations within the Occupy movement and you will hear an emerging vision of the world’s future.
Listen to conversations within the Occupy movement and you will hear an emerging vision of the world’s future.
It is a world where power is “horizontal” and local. Where populations have organized into true communities that provide increasingly for their own needs and trade with each other for that which they cannot produce. It is a world much better suited, physically and socially, to the creatures that we are built to be, than is the cruel and self-destabilizing world we currently inhabit.
It is a world that, were it possible, I would embrace.
Unfortunately, this vast imagined world of sustainable and interconnected farming communities is not possible – not within our foreseeable future.
Even if the Occupy movement were to win whatever power it required to remake the world, even if we could snap our fingers and set the proposed world instantly in motion, and at the same time magically and instantly educate everyone with the cultural knowledge they would need to participate in that world, the new world would descend immediately into a chaos as bad or worse than the unimaginably bad fate to which we are presently hurtling.
On hearing about this locally driven future, one should ask this question: What powers this imagined horizontal world?
The stunning fact is that the industrial world we all know is made of fossil fuel. One hundred fifty years ago, before large-scale exploitation of petroleum, the population of the world was one billion people, and the number was not skyrocketing as it is now. It was powered by renewable if not always sustainable sources of energy.
We can’t say for sure how many people could sustainably coexist on the Earth, but the Earth’s population before the influx of oil serves as our best guide. And even if that approximation were somehow off by 100 percent, and two billion could indefinitely share the planet, we know with certainty there is no way to feed, clothe and house a population of seven billion people in a local and horizontal world.
Six of seven people alive today couldn’t exist without fossil fuel. If we cut the flow off – even if we first reduced everyone’s consumption of resources back to the 1850 average (which would feel like sudden poverty to all but the hardiest souls among us) – the population would crash from something like seven billion to something like two billion in a rapid, global, Malthusian meltdown.
If we attempted instead to wean the world from fossil fuels, we would necessarily see the same reduction in population over a longer period – which would be a big improvement over the first scenario, but not big enough.
Maybe we could get there within 100 years through some brilliantly compassionate scheme that incentivizes people to consume at global average rates for 1850, and at the same time to produce an average (across the entire world) of 1.5 children per couple – for 100 years – without a rebellion against that plan taking hold somewhere on Earth and triggering a global race to the bottom.
But even if that plan could somehow work, and even if individuals accept its implications for themselves, it is not likely to be popular, even amongst the intrepid souls who currently demand change with their tents and courage. And that plan certainly won’t organically arise in a beautifully horizontal world. On the contrary, it would require a draconian, and very vertical world – one we would have to endure in order for our great-great-grandchildren to live in a sustainable, horizontal one.
Unfortunately, though humanity could have seen our global predicament coming (as my maternal grandparents did back in the 1950s and 1960s), the world has waited a long time to wake up to the giant time bomb we have constructed beneath our feet.
Our system is built on an architecture that is truly global. It is bigger than nations. And the profits from it have ended up concentrated in the hands of a tiny and foolish few – a micro-minority that can clearly send gargantuan armies into battle on simultaneous fronts just to keep the fundamental instability of our system hidden for another decade.
Our bloody financial and agricultural systems stand at the shore of this torrent of energy and materials that we have so recklessly borrowed from the Earth’s distant past.
It does not have to be this way. There are rational courses of action to take. There is time to save ourselves – just barely if our best understanding of emerging climate patterns are within the ballpark. But we will miss our chance if we don’t manage to resist, in our desperation, grasping at straws, and rushing toward utopian mirages.
Real solutions to our present predicament will necessarily involve at least enough centralization of power to wrest control of the world’s fate from the hands of the multinational agribusiness, energy-extraction and financial industries, and to stand down the vast military-industrial-law-enforcement complex that presently guards the world against meaningful change.
Setting such a course is going to involve leadership, vision, luck and determination. It further requires the Occupy movement to outwit its enemies and to evolve faster than they can adapt to it.
It is time to morph. Dig deep. God speed.
- Posted in
187 Comments so far
Show AllFinally, a realist.
Bret Weinstein's thinking is beset by the need for centralized control. His mind is uncomfortable with local people making decisions for themselves. He does not comprehend that decentralization will form widely differing models of success based upon place. He simply lacks faith in people. Decentralized change will bring greater efficiency, not less. He speaks as if there is a choice, there is not. The principal reason decentralized change models are in existence is that they encourage processes that are designed to succeed in times of rapid change. The old centralized process have failed when confronted with the speed of change. Decentralized processes allow the open engagement of vast numbers of people working together to solve common problems. The more creative input the more order that will emerge from the chaos brought by rapid change. People have the common sense to know how to structure their 21st Century communities, based upon place, to generate the kind of world they wish to live in. The realities of modern life require decentralized solutions. No method of change is perfect, and change will often be difficult;, but, the transcendence to a new system will only occur through decentralized methods.
I agree with your argument, although I agree with Weinstein's to some extent. Economically, I see no reason for control NOT to be decentralized: indeed, wasn't that the promise of REAL free-market capitalism in the first place? Furthermore, Weinstein posits (correctly) that the problem is our oil-based economy. But, as we are forced to replace this (by the lack of oil itself if for no other pressing reason) can you think of an energy source more attuned to distributed economics than local, alternative energy? Wind, wave, solar, geothermal, hydro, and even small-scale fossils are by nature perfect for the kinds of economies the OWS crowd is imagining in our future: and THAT is why the 1% is fighting their development so hard. However, politically, Weinstein may be all too correct. Centralized political power is, shortly, about who controls the military. It may be difficult to get the laws passed that support decentralized decisionmaking and local control without 'taking over' the Federal government in some way, so as to make the military 'stand down' and not be controlled by the 1%. And THAT is why the OWS crowd, and the rest of us, need to push for campaign finance reform. Take back the democracy means taking back the system of laws and the military FROM the 1% that now control it. Without that, although decentralized economics works just fine, they will use their political hegemony to prevent or delay its coming.
Every single day that the global financial plutocracy refuses to dismantle their ecocidal system of privilege, the more catastrophic the collapse of that system will be. Every day, not only are tremendous resources wasted and pollution generated - think of the waste of US global military operations per annum! - but humanity gets poorer and poorer due to general entropic degeneration of the biosphere, the continual lose of natural capital. The more they hold on to their system of Privilege, the less natural wealth we will have to work with to build that sustainable world.
______________________________________________________________
Also, it isnt really "99%" because many identify ideologically with the 1% even though they aint in the Big Club. The adolescent ego in general balks at the idea that it has to restrain its wants and needs, and I think that is why many dont "believe" in climate change or Peak Oil, or actually Peak Everything, not to mention that, for many, the idea that humans can screw up their god's creation is heresy. The changes needed to made require as a prerequisite that we transcend the stand alone ego and return to a more socialistic and communal way of life, and we all know how many here in the US oppose the very notion. As I have mentioned here before, I have perused the reader's comments on Glenn Beck's website, and there is a vicious hatred for progressives and OWS that is deep, and a refusal to face the ecological situation that is fanatical
Excellent post, Kitaj... and very well-written. It's a sad testament to right wing radio that views have been ideologically twisted for so long, that these individuals salivate at the idea that Progresives/the left/liberals are to blame for their problems. The sickening "fact" that Newt Gingrich can dress Obama up as a Progressive appears as some kind of jointly devised slick marketing scam intended to grant yet more credence to so-called conservative policies. The labels are so far removed from the actual nature of the policies, themselves! And those taught to believe Newt Gingrich is "really smart" aren't about to question why he labels accordingly.
People don't just wake up from decades, if not centuries of conditioning, especially when they've been trained to consider those with viable solutions as their natural enemy. Along with actual war has been an ongoing war of ideas, and we know who controls the pulpits in spite of the glaring lie that it's been in the hands of radical and/or liberal thinkers. Orwell, were he alive today, would wake up to this nightmare and think he was just dreaming!
re: "However, politically, Weinstein may be all too correct. Centralized political power is, shortly, about who controls the military. It may be difficult to get the laws passed that support decentralized decisionmaking and local control without 'taking over' the Federal government in some way"
Thank you for stating what I think is a necessary consideration for OWS. There will be argument over this for a while I'm sure — and that needs to happen (actually it would be great if it didn't need to). But in the end, I think there's no getting around that some luminaries/exemplaries/heroes MUST emerge and get involved, and not just with kind endorsements on AM radio. I'm talking money-where-their-mouths-are, get-your-ass-out-there and make some real noise involved. I'm also talking endorsing some sympathetic, or even directly associated candidates to run for local, state and national political office, under the banner of the 99%.
Of course, this can't distract from Occupy's greatest strength. The actual occupation of the 99%, using tactics such as tent cities, guerrilla art and protests, must not only continue unabated, it must grow exponentially. Personally, I think we need more large-scale marches, with 3, 4, 6 months advanced planning on all kinds of symbolic locations... and when we arrive, we need those who can best speak for us all, to come to the podiums and make our voices heard by the unawakened, to capture the imagination and sympathy of the masses... for this, we should put forward our best and brightest, and most clearly spoken, with no shame for what that might mean about the rest of us.
Am I saying we need set leaders? No... Am I saying we need those who will light the path for us, and declare what we each believe? No... Do we need a Gandhi, an MLK, or even a Lennon or FDR? I don't know about 'need', but I'd have no problem saying we could use more of them. The point is, I am as wary of as anyone here about powerful, charismatic leaders holding any official office.
But a weekly set of official OWS representatives, all subject to direct democratic selection and censure, and acting merely as temporary (or not depending on popular opinion) spokespersons for the movement seems like a potential place to begin building a viable front.
Long-distance marches by small groups of people, about 10 people per march is optimal if you have a strong-willed group, will personally reach out to lots and lots of 99% folks who otherwise won't be reached, and we won't be the 99% without outreach to our supposed political "enemies". Sounds like an idea.
However, such a march runs better with lots of organization ahead of time (and things always get messed up with the organization!) so some faithful souls have to do the drudge work, people are going to be living quite poor on the marches, and you'll need money for lots and lots of leaflets to hand out, maybe 100,000 leaflets every 3 months. Get a double-sided laser printer and learn how to fill the ink cartridges yourselves.
The hard part is talking to social conservatives and to veterans. It needs to be done. Social conservatives are occasionally too stupid (or too led around by a ring through their noses) to realize that their God specifically and at length commands them to be one with the poor. Just talk to the rational social conservatives, and maybe they can break through to the serious doofuses among them. Vets and active duty soldiers believe in following someone else's political orders because bad things happen to people with even slight thoughts in their heads. Talk to the vets already in your camp to get an angle on how to approach these folks.
re: "Long-distance marches by small groups of people, about 10 people per march is optimal if you have a strong-willed group, will personally reach out to lots and lots of 99% folks who otherwise won't be reached, and we won't be the 99% without outreach to our supposed political "enemies".
Though my idea was essentially the opposite — short marches on symbolic locales, with huge swaths of folks getting involved as a critical mass — I think the idea of long marches where dedicated occupiers really reach out to more rural communities, and yes, social conservatives and moderates, is crucial.
Good organization is key to either approach. I can't emphasize this enough to #OWS: Organize, organize, organize!!
We do need to coordinate the intelligent use and management of planetary resources on a global scale, and global cooperation is needed for dealing with climate change, and this is what I think he is alluding to. It is not an either/or situation, it entails both global cooperation and localization.
Agree 100% Stone decentralization is like multi core processing, it's more people addressing a problem which necessarily makes for better quicker solutions in the same way that a multicore processor computer is faster than a single core.
And anyway this author talks about is quite literally impossible the centralization the author demands requires a large infrastructure to support it so it would just be a continuation of the status quo.
He in essence makes the exact same mistake the Bolsheviks made that enlightened top down leadership is possible, but it isn't it has NEVER happened once have people have unlimited power they ALWAYS use to enrich themselves and their close associates, that's why Lord Acton correctly said "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
Good analogy. As the multi core generates better processing, the single core confronting additional high speed challenges will break down.
Bullseye regarding centralization being utilized for personal enrichment. No doubt there will be economic losers in a decentralized system and it is those losers that are making the strongest argument for centralization. Greater numbers of people benefit from decentralization. Watch who the supporters of centralization are and a pattern will likely emerge.
"Bret Weinstein's thinking is beset by the need for centralized control...He simply lacks faith in people."
You're quite right. As one of those who have been preaching (and living) the OWS gospel since the 1960s, it is frightening that an evolutionary biologist (who should know that all natural order occurs through dispersed chaos) still clings to the self-destructive paradigm of central control.
The power of non-violent revolution is in psychologically disarming fellow citizens within the ranks of the police and military. Once the minions wake up, they will no longer blindly follow the orders of their masters - and central command will realize its own impotence.
"Movements are like this. They are grassroots, often underground, and they start with crazy people who are willing to believe in the impossible. Movements never start in corporate offices with executives drawing up a master plan...if we truly want to see the world changed, we must begin as a band of madmen, welcoming other crazy people who want to be a part of something bigger than themselves."
- Neil Cole
OK--the author may have a point. But really--the irony is so inescapable that I can't resist chuckling: What else could we expect sheepherder to say? (Talk about a name that exemplifies the "vertical" power structure.) No offense meant, Sheepherder, but I think the sheep are sick and tired of being herded altogether. One sheep one vote! Go free-range!
If the idea of one sheep one vote catches on, the fleecing would stop, as would the slaughter. Unless, of course, they are corralled by watching too much UTV.
In my community, so many people are without work that the 'utopian' world has already begun to form. The world doesn't run on oil, it runs on money and when people don't have any they go back to survival methods that actually work.
The author also tries to tie us to the falacy that things have to all change instantly and in the same way rather than different areas focusing on what they do best (ah, the ghost of Ricardo!).
"Our system is built on an architecture that is truly global. It is bigger than nations. And the profits from it have ended up concentrated in the hands of a tiny and foolish few – a micro-minority that can clearly send gargantuan armies into battle on simultaneous fronts just to keep the fundamental instability of our system hidden for another decade."
And profit is more the problem than consumption. Utopias can exist when individual profit is removed from the equation. Multiple societies and tribes existed for centruies before individual and corporate profit was made the ultimate goal.
"Multiple societies and tribes existed for centruies before individual and corporate profit was made the ultimate goal."
They consumed resources at a much lower rate and were less populous than modern humans. Besides the author notes this fact. You do not address the challenge of getting to sustainable numbers and consumption levels..
Those "multiple societies and tribes" routinely attacked, stole and killed. The word "utopia" does not belong in the same paragraph with human history.
There have been and are societies and tribes who do no harm to others.
Utopia is a concept, like heaven and hell, that is unachievable. Nature gives us glimpses of heaven; beauty, joy, harmony, Love. But, hell is part of the equation; disease, starvation, climatic disasters, violence, hatred.
The goal is to bring the world as close to heaven as is possible.
It is unwise to write off the species so glibly.
It is my experience and belief that the vast majority of people, all people, are good. It is the few who make it look otherwise.
Surely you aren't contending that there is any possibility that the world will revert to pre enlightenment society? Serfs and slaves?
That is what some people want. A pre-enlightenment world. Some serfs did have some rights in some countries. And the wealthy had more. Guess who's pushing for this particular utopia.
At the rate wealth is being transferred from the 99% into the hands of the 1%, the 1% are doing more than "pushing for this particular utopia", they are rapidly constructing their pre-enlightenment utopia.
If Newt Gingrich had his way, the desired new social order would indeed have serfs and slaves.
No matter what leaders appear in the near future, the current social and economic state of the human population is headed for a horrendous collaps with all the horrific trappings one can possibly imagine. In my opinion, it is already too late for the species to adapt in any planed or controlled way.
The writer of this article is correct in practically every prediction. If anything, he's being too gentle with his readers.
RrisX and Leftoff, Why do you seem so shocked? The question at hand is not so much what we want, but rather what will nature tolerate. Ancient Rome and Medieval Europe were sustainable societies, ours is not, so, can we honestly say that we have 'improved' things?
The enlightenment and progressive movements, with their emphasis on materialism and unbounded faith in human reason, have played a role in getting us into the mess we are in.
Not all pre enlightenment societies were full of serfs and slaves if you can look beyond European ethnocentrism, Native Americans like the Iraqis Natives in the U.S. Really I think out best bet is retaining some level of enlightenment philosophy like a pursuit of science but in a more tribal setting as imagined by writers like Ursula Le Guinn:
http://www.oneidaindiannation.com/history/27822404.html
http://www.ursulakleguin.com/ACH/Index.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Always_Coming_Home
Modernity will never go back to feudalism. That is an impossibility, an irrational fear some chicken littles may have, but not possible in our modern, technologically advanced world. If some militias will defend OWS, as I've seen, the movement will change things. This author is wrong, horizontalism will happen in our lifetimes, it makes sense, we have the technology to create real, direct, democracy for the first time in global human history. Then power will be distributed equally like it was meant to be.
What part of Native American tribalism does not equal feudalism do you fail to understand? How ethnocentric and dense are you really?
Native Americans are the ruling elites? It was very hard to get the tribes to cooperate, even after the white man came and mutually threatened all the tribes.
Now that mentality is gone. Native American tribalism does not describe the mentality or culture, or default civilization of the European conquerors who dominate this land. Medieval feudalism is what we iron wielding, industrialist war-mongers are more familiar with.
As Kropotkin observed, the West tends to be far more swayed by ideas of bloody Darwinian competition and Malthusian dilemmas than ideas of mutual cooperation and organic synergistic relationships. Our notions of healing are based on radical surgery as a preventative to death, instead of long term, balanced life-styles as a preventative to illness.
If only the Native American mindset was more prevalent here, instead of being a lost whisper on the wind.
SS, While I'm in alignment with the concepts you describe, I wish people would stop muddying Darwin's name by transposing it into a pseudo definition of capitalism. I know you meant no disrespect by its use.
Darwin was a lifelong observer of Nature, a naturalist, and worked through the mechanisms of "western" science. His contribution was to bring science one step closer to confirming that which the Early Peoples already knew; the oneness of the Universe and the common ancestry of all Life.
As example;
Early Peoples referred to animals as different types of people, relatives. Birds were considered close relatives due to their bipedal construction, the two leggeds.
Hi Buck,
Thank you for the clarification, it deserves being pointed out. My comment was by no means intended to reflect Darwin, his life's work, or my own perspective on it (nor Kropotkin's, as he saw in Darwin quite a different lesson also), so much as I meant to point out the West's reaction and standard interpretations of his invaluable contributions.
"Darwin was a lifelong observer of Nature, a naturalist, and worked through the mechanisms of "western" science [...] confirming the oneness of the Universe and the common ancestry of all Life.
I consider him high up there among my personal heroes, in no small part for what you have just stated.
Cheers
"His contribution was to bring science one step closer to confirming that which the Early Peoples already knew; the oneness of the Universe and the common ancestry of all Life."
I think this would be much closer to Wallace's point of view, but I'm pretty sure that Darwin himself didn't think this way at all (his reaction to the spiritualist seance that Wallace took him to tells a lot imo). Their theory is in fact a very important way of allowing description of the development of complex systems in completely reductionist terms. Basically, it was the first idea that allowed a mostly "mechanical" explanation of how complex systems emerge (by applying selection to a semi-random variety). It gave the first idea and a most important tool for extending the applicability of reductionist thinking to living systems and we have to thank it for everything that reductionist science uses for trying to understand emergence of complex systems.
(Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying that reductionism is the "truth" or whatever, just that one of our better and definitely most powerful tools of gaining knowledge, the scientific method, has a hard time accomodating holism and the idea that "everything is one", to say the least.)
The debate about how his views relate to social Darwinism (although of course he was incomparably more intelligent than most social Darwinists) is I think pretty valid, there are quite a few quotes in Descent of Man that support it, the most famous being this:
"Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations.- I have hitherto only considered the advancement of man from a semi-human condition to that of the modern savage. But some remarks on the action of natural selection on civilised nations may be worth adding. This subject has been ably discussed by Mr. W. R. Greg,* and previously by Mr. Wallace and Mr. Galton.*(2) Most of my remarks are taken from these three authors. With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." (Descent of Man, Chapter 5, "On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties")
He was a great scientist and in a lot of respects a nice person, but in a lot of respects he also was a British imperialist too. But of course quite a few of the greatest minds were like this at the time, and it doesn't mean that his books (Beagle, Origin and Ascent of Man are all up on gutenberg) aren't awesome. (Just like Sir Richard Burton's books, who is much more obviously one.) He lived before Nazism and I think in a lot of respects he was a pretty nice person and I think of this as more of a mistake that was very easy to make at the time. I'm also pretty sure that he would have opposed fascism, like a lot of philosophers and scientists who actually quite unintentionally contributed to fascist "philosophy". I think it's just way too difficult to understand exactly how these kinds of very radical thoughts will influence society, what conclusions and misunderstandings they will lead to. It takes a lot of time to understand these things.
Thank you very much Atomsk for that well nuanced, informative and relevant addition to the topic. You inspire me to brush up and more deeply expand my current knowledge of this great man and his contemporaries.
Khm. I just noticed that I made a mistake: of course I was talking about Descent of Man :-D Ascent of Man is something different: it is a fantastic BBC series (from the beginning of the '70s iirc) by Jacob Bronowski about the history of (natural) science. Probably the best TV series about this topic. There is of course an episode on evolution and it's also an excellent one. I really recommend it, it's brilliant.
Atomsk, Another thing often unspoken concerning Decent was Darwin's repeated referrals to a creator. Clearly, he didn't think evolution and creationism were mutually exclusive.
I don't really know, I only read a few of his books (although I love Origin and reread it quite often, it's just such an incredible read), but I'm quite sure that he realised that even if they aren't mutually exclusive, the theory of evolution does in fact explain a class of phenomena that previously were not thought to be explainable in a "mechanical" way and basically makes thinking of Creation as a historical event and a part of the explanation of certain aspects of the material world unnecessary. He quite obviously saw this and that this would be a problem for religious people (which is at least part of the reason he didn't publish his idea immediately after it came to him but was forced to by Wallace).
What I think was happening was that natural sciences explained an ever growing subset of natural phenomena - even if people didn't understand a particular one, they knew in a lot of cases that they'd be able to form a theory and, on a large scale, what that would look like. This meant that the (fake) explanatory "power" of religion kept shrinking: ie. it was losing its material connection to reality. What remained as heuristic "proof" of the existence and influence of God was the Creation of Life - and regardless of what Darwin thought individually, evolution made this unnecessary. It provided a new way of thought, a new approach, a new kind of mechanism that was "mechanical" but still created unpredictable and organic results, one that allowed a deterministic, mechanical world (as we're still before the question of whether God likes to throw dice even appears) to produce complex, unpredictable, organic results. People didn't know how it could be done and thus they thought it obvious that it couldn't be. The breakthrough was this simple idea that allowed incredible unplanned and unintentional complexity to emerge.
So religion lost one of its last remaining connections to reality, and its most important and apparently safest one to boot. All of observable reality, including life and its development, became the dominion of science. There remained nothing in the material world whose explanation "clearly" demonstrated or needed a connection to God. Which meant that from this point on, religion could only coexist with science if it gave up *all* of its meaningful explanations for the material world. Some of the moral domain still remains, and of course the question of individual human life and "internal" consciousness may never be explained by science - but of course that looks like an unobservable phenomenon (it may never be possible to understand whether one can be completely sure that someone they're talking to exists or not (as opposed to just behaving as if they existed)) and thus outside the scope of science anyway. Behaviour and material structure, on the other hand, are scientifically observable. This is of course an incredibly large blow and intelligent people saw it.
Finally a more philosophical explanation: creationism can be "compatible" with evolution only because creationism is not science: you can not falsify it, you cannot provide a (series of) statements whose truth can be decided in reality and which would falsify creationism. This of course means that from creationism, nothing follows. It is meaningless. It explains everything and the opposite of everything. It eventually boils down to a tautology. Of course it can be compatible with anything - because nothing follows from it. But - it's unnecessary. A needless add-on, with no predictive or explanatory value. And I believe Darwin would have fought against every single actual attempt to mix this stuff into his theory.
So what I'm saying is this: as long as it means nothing, feel free to believe in creationism. As soon as you draw testable conclusions from it about the material world, expect science to approach it using the scientific method - to which it simply can not stand up in my opinion.
Great post!
American cosmetic history is loath to admit the extent to which the founders borrowed from Native History including the Iroquois Indians among others. The sin's of the last half millennium are beginning to surface as people struggle to learn the truth as the healthy process of unity grows.
Most of our fossil resources are consumed to keep us on a permanent war footing,
and to keep us dazed enough not to question it. The highest yield agriculture was beautifully demonstrated at the integral urban house decades ago. I think we are dealing more with ignorance than realism reflected in this article.
"Most of our fossil resources are consumed to keep us on a permanent war footing,"
Prove that! I think that you are wrong. A very large amount of petro is used for military purposes, but it is much less than 50% of total consumption. the author's argument will not be disproven by glib assertions and references to decades old "model" agricultural projects. .
Thanks for calling this one out, dreamjoehill. The military juggernaut is incredibly wasteful and energy-consuming, but it's far less than 50% of the problem. Our population problems and consumption addictions are too fundamentally ingrained and institutionalized to be blamed on only the military-industrial complex and the one-percenters. We are all part of the problem, and (potentially) all part of the solution.
Donny said:
"We are all part of the problem, and (potentially) all part of the solution." That's the ultimate smokescreen, isn't it. It suggests that everyone is in the same place of influence to be part of the (problem or) solution. It makes no mention of the hierarchies involved, from those which compare developed nations to undeveloped nations, to those that indicate who holds the political muscle to make real policy changes happen.
This kind of broad brush thinking is pure pabulum. It gives industrial "leaders," along with their paid-for political counterparts a free pass. It turns the matter over to the illusion of what "consumers" want, without mentioning the way advertising molds tastes, or the way modern American townships (outside of city limits) have been designed. It also seems to skate right over the huge military footprint with casual adroitness.
One might also mention MEAT eaters since modern ranching is apparently a big factor in emissions of methane and other global warming gasses. There are statistics on this (which I don't have right in front of me), and they are pretty amazing for what they reveal.
Ultimately, there are MANY factors and facets to this issue. Some would like to see population numbers dominate the discourse, and yet that, too, is somewhat inaccurate given the different ecological footprints enacted by wealthy Westerners versus impoverished 3rd world Natives. The best arguments take ALL of these factors FAIRLY into account. The easiest, most libertarian-friendly, is to instead make it just about what American consumers consume... as if THAT is the be all, end all deciding factor. In truth, it is DESIGNED to shift blame away from those who DESIGN policies and mold advertising campaigns and limit choices. The big energy companies have done their best to IMPEDE solar power investments in major infrastructure, and they've impeded anything that would take profits away from the old trio: big oil, big nuke & big coal. So your idea of "choice" and it's all about the consumer is about as authentic as the posters who make the state of this nation the net result of how people voted... as if there's choice there, either.
50% of the people on this planet get by on an income of less than $2 a day. I'm not one of those people. What about you?
"We are all part of the problem, and (potentially) all part of the solution."
This is absolutely right. The evil advertisers didn't make people buy Silly String, drive over sized vehicles, record collections, cassette collections, vcr's, dvd's, etc., etc., etc. Just because a snake oil salesman comes to town doesn't mean people have to buy it. The fabled and pitied middle class bought the whole enchilada. To deny it is to deny one's responsibility in life to Life. Accepting the responsibility is the first step towards being part of the solution.
Think large, live small.
It's a New day, time to find a New way.
Is it even possible to get by on that little in North America and still have a place to call home? I would suspect that of the 50% that get by on an income of less than $2 a day that the majority of them have homes and families. I do not envy much of their lifestyle. Correct me if I am wrong about this. I am curious how much money per day would be required for one to live here in a lifestyle equivalent to one that lived elsewhere for $2 a day.
"One might also mention MEAT eaters... There are statistics on this (which I don't have right in front of me)..."
Interesting reading is the report "Livestock and Climate Change" -- available as a free PDF from the Worldwatch Institute (http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294). It was written as a reply to the "Livestock's Long Shadow" report from the FAO, which pegged the meat industry's contribution to greenhouse gasses at the oft-quoted 18%. The newer report shows where the FAO underestimated or completely disregarded many sources of emissions from livestock, and puts the number at 51% (!) of emissions.
That said, I am also aware that my longtime vegetarianism does little more than assuage my own conscience -- since according to supply-and-demand, my refraining from eating meat simply makes it cheaper (and therefore more attractive) for someone else to eat more...
War for oil is not a glib assertion but a fact.
I think you are misinterpreting what he said... I don’t think he is trying to disprove what the author is saying, but I could be wrong.
No doubt war for oil is a fact and the first step towards a sustainable system is a 90% or more downsizing of the US military.
Still even with that, the US corporate capitlaist system would still be an unsustainable model for the world.
I looked up the stats on this last year and the entire government including the military uses around 600,000 barrel a day. The total US consumption is around 23 million barrels per day. I actually thought the military component would be much higher..but 300 million people consuming 23 million barrels daily.. WOW
Yes, there is a lot of room to cut back on our consumption of energy.
That is a barrel per person every twelve days or about thirty barrels a year. There are 42 US gallons per barrel, so that is about 3 1/2 gallons per day on average.
I expect that if everyone got the year's first two barrels of oil free and then paid for additional oil at a rate higher than we do currently, that you would soon observe that large numbers of people would begin to live quite comfortably on two barrels of oil a year. (I am not ignoring the oil needed for manufacturing and distribution and retail of the products and food that we buy. The cost of that additional oil would be included in the purchase price. The cost of the oil used in producing and getting the product to the store could be made visible much as the VAT tax is displayed in the price when you make a purchase in the UK. Carrots and sticks can then be used to encourage people to chose the food and products that use less oil.)
How much more interconnected can farming get when Monsanto is calling all the shots.