Ed and all,
Awareness of this predicament we face isn't new. I first learned of it
via the dieoff.org site in 1999. (The site has recently changed; it used
to consist mainly of links to many articles. Still worth reading,
though.) A few thoughts:
* "Pessimism has negative survival value". Homo Sapiens is a tough,
adaptable species. Civilzations have come and gone, as ours will.
The human population will diminish significantly. Even without
global warming, we'd face an energy crisis -- we're very close to
hitting a maximum of economically extractable resources, with a
global economic system that can only operate smoothly with perpetual
exponential growth. The long-term carrying capacity of the global
ecosystem for humans is uncertain, but surely much less than 7
billion people.
All this said, there's likely to be humans living, with much simpler
lifestyles, for centuries to come.
* Speaking of pessimism/optimism:
http://www.humanity.org/voices/commencements/paul-hawken-university-portland-speech-2009
* I recommend reading John Michael Greer's blog
thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com, and his books, especially "The Long
Descent" and "The Ecotechnic Future". For a near-term look at the
U.S. in particular, "Decline and Fall" provides a useful
perspective. (You mentioned "disciplined magical thinking". Greer
is a good resource there too; see galabes.blogspot.com.)
* The Transition Initiatives movement is worth getting to know. Start
with http://transitionus.org/transition-101, and look on that site
for initiatives in your area.
* I think you'll find "Low-Tech Magazine" interesting; given the
orientation of folks on this list,
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/10/how-to-build-a-low-tech-internet.html
might be a good place to start.
* Develop resilience. Small, local communities of people who
understand each other and naturally work well together toward common
goals are well placed to be able to adapt to rapidly changing
circumstances.
* Get to know Gaia. Learn to think in terms of complex dynamic
adaptive systems, and appreciate the many gifts she gives us, even
in her disturbed state (I recommend Donella Meadows' "Thinking in
Systems" for an introduction). Learn to appreciate the long view.
"The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the next best time
is now." I'd like to think that, if Homo Sapiens is doomed to
extinction, the last few humans will plant a grove. (Of course, we
will become extinct, given enough time. Gaia moves on.)
* Native American societies' spiritual stories feature the coyote as
the "trickster". Coyotes are among the most adaptable animals, and
are making themselves at home, even in the middle of the biggest
cities. What can we learn from them?
Hope this helps,
Don Dwiggins
Northridge, CA
On 9/13/16 11:06 AM, Edward K. Ream wrote:
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Edward K. Ream
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Bracevich is a well-respected commentator, and I agree with what
he says. Alas, he is talking to the wind.
One alternative to talking to the wind is talking to oneself ;-) At
least that way I have some chance of convincing my interlocutor. Hehe.
One reason why doing something about global warming or mass extinction
is hard is that there /way /too many constraints. For example,
economists typically consider growth to be essential. Alas, growth
compounds CO2 emissions and stress on species.
One way forward is to use disciplined magical thinking. This may
reveal goals.
As I see it, the world would be better off with maybe only a billion
people. If all lived at the standard of living of the US, then
perhaps the goals of E. O. Wilson's Half Earth
<https://www.amazon.com/Half-Earth-Our-Planets-Fight-Life/dp/1631490826>
might come to pass and the stress on species would be reduced. We may
as well assume little or no CO2 emissions.
But this is pure magic. By definition, the seven+ billion people
alive today can be expected to live, on average, their typical
lifespan. Events may drastically reduce that lifespan, but absent such
horrors it would take 50 or more years of a /global /one-child policy
to get the world back to 1 billion people. That isn't going to happen.
Furthermore, as John Mauldin
<http://www.mauldineconomics.com/about-us/john-mauldin> points out,
declining populations create serious economic consequences, at least
for present societies. Reducing population will face huge resistance
from politicians and business leaders.
Aside: There is a howling mistake in Bill McKibben's otherwise
excellent piece
<https://newrepublic.com/article/135684/declare-war-climate-change-mobilize-wwii>
in the New Republic.
"But would the Stanford plan be enough to slow global warming? Yes,
says [Mark Z.] Jacobson: If we move quickly enough to meet the goal of
80 percent clean power by 2030, then the world’s carbon dioxide levels
would fall below the relative safety of 350 parts per million by the
end of the century."
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This is a bathtub problem mistake. Reducing the
rate at which water flows /into/ a bathtub does not /lower /the level
of the water! CO2 is removed from the atmosphere by weathering of
rock, and iirc that process takes on the order of 10,000 years. See
this page <http://www.skepticalscience.com/weathering.html> for more.
Which just goes to show that people are notoriously bad at
understanding rates of change. To do it properly requires calculus,
and that's not a real strong suit among business leaders and
politicians. Or with Bill McKibben, apparently.
We won't get even to 400 ppm unless we learn how to /remove/ CO2 from
the atmosphere. That can be done, but it would take a huge amount of
green energy. Only governments could fund such a project. It's not
going to happen with climate deniers in control.
In short, disciplined magical thinking (aka thought experiments) shows
just how difficult the problems are.
Edward
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"leo-editor" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
