From: Mark Jones
> >The idea that 'individual communities' (whatever they are: is there such
>a >thing
> >anywhere on the planet as a community which is independent of the whole,
> >which has
> >its own autonomouys culture, technology, history, etc? Don't think so.)
>can >survive
> >if the ecosphere as a whole is destroyed, is surely wrong. Also a
> >misreading of
> >bioregionalims, which is about the *interdpendence* of biomes and the
>need >to
> >preserve the whol ecosphere in order to preserve each species, locale
>etc, >and
> >vice-versa (that's called dialectics).
Replies Tom:
Yes, it is the "either-or" nature of the dialectic that ties you up, friend.
And don't hang up on semantics, either.
You are mistaking "interdependence" with finality and direct 1-1 ratios. Ian
Malcom's chaos theory notwithstanding, the storm on Manhattan Island is not
directly dependent upon the flap of the wings of the chinese butterfly.
What's involved here is NOT death of everything, NOT "the ecosphere as a
whole destroyed"; but CHANGE of everything. You must think continuums
(continua?), not "either-or"; bell curves and the right-wall curve of
evolution, not the total disappearance of the ecosphere. Worst case
scenario: there will be SOME ecosphere supporting bacteria and roaches,
despite us. (Biocentric viewpoints give us a handle to perhaps add to the
list.) Most likely some "individual communities" will survive.
> >For some years now I like many others have wasted my time arguing with
> >people about
> >the dangers of global warming, and I tried to show in an admittedly
> >amateurish way,
> >how anthropogenic climate forcing correlates with other fundamental
> >dynamics of
> >resource and energy use. Nothing I see happening makes me think that even
> >the most
> >apocalyptic forecasts of runaway warming, total ecosphere collapse and
>the
> >heat-death of the planet, were not actual probabilities, even if not the
> >only or
> >most likely outcome. In the circumstances, hoping to save *one's own*
> >grandchildren
> >is also just daydreaming. You can either save the totality, or you lose
> >everything.
> >
> >Mark
Nah. "Either-or", again Mark. You are arguing the "Perfect Storm" argument.
The crash will not be perfect, not all communities will be wiped from the
face of the planet. (It is a consequence-based argument in reality,
different bioregions suffer different consequences.)
You have also forgotten what you know about man's relation to nature and
also what you know about evolution. Think about the word "adaptation" a bit
and you will see both the problem and the solutions, ... locally ... one
community (perhaps even one grandchild) at a time.
We can NOT save the totality, but we will NOT lose "everything".
"Everything" will just CHANGE. Just as one small example, for the first time
in history the Inuit are seeing thunderstorms. This is not good for them
unless they adapt. But they can .. and they will. Better than Wall Street
will adapt.
The ecosphere is not going away, it is merely changing ... and destroying
civilization in the process. The more we understand about our
interdependence, the more chance each of us has in our bioregion to preserve
some part of humanity. NOT ALL humans are going to die, just most of them.
The Inuit understand their bioregion and the changes --, they stand a better
chance of adaptation and survival. As a matter of fact the closer to nature
you are, the better is your chance.
It is those who depend upon civilization to feed them who are most at risk.
The more you can focus on biocentric understanding, the better. The more you
liberate youself and your community from that dependence upon the abberant
culture we have constructed, the better. It will not be the Perfect Storm,
just a very very bad one.
Some consequences can be dealt with.
Some communities will benefit from climate change. (don't mistake that
statement for overall approval!)
Many will die. One does not have to be among the dead.
Saving what we can of the ecosphere is intrinsically good, plus it helps us
to perhaps save something of ourselves and restore the balance to status quo
ante. (of course there are other alternatives other status quo, such as
sitting back and watching it all fall down; but who wants a world with no
elephants, Siberian tigers and whales? .... even if it's less than a few
million of us there to witness.)
We now know approximately how long we have, so we can look past the bars of
our cage and save a bit of our culture, a positive bit, hopefully.
We have much to do.
Tom
PS I know it often looks as though I am Red-baiting, but really I do NOT
object to trying to establish class justice. I object to sticking one's head
in the sand and whining a demand for the revolution before acting to save
ANYthing, and I object to demanding class justice as a prerequisite to ...
uh ... "ecospheric justice". It's all gotta work together, non?
"You say you want a revolution, ... we'd all love to see the plan." -- John
Lennon, RIP 20 years ago yesterday. Damn what a long benighted time!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
