If I asked people about the situation with climate change and similar questions I am sure I'd get 2 answers, apathy and denial.
What I will show is that these 2 conditions come from factors of our biology that make us poorly equipped or indeed almost entirely unable to react with any power to slow threats unless we first understand the nature of our limitation! Apathy comes from the belief that anything you are willing to do won't work, and anything you could do that would work isn't morally or ethically justified. Denial comes not so much from a lack of evidence but because we do not feel the emotions or take the actions we would surely take if the threat was real which make us believe the threat is not authentic, and besides as a slow threat the damage is slow and we get acclimated to it. A slow threat is not necessarily not an urgent threat, given the time it takes to research, get the word out, find alternatives and get into action. And by the time it really hurts and is proven beyond any doubt it will be far too late. But before I explain why we fail to take action, let's examine a situation in which we take extreme action for a lesser threat (because really compared to extinction everything is a lesser threat). If a would-be killer attacked you or another you would be instinctively in action and if required you would be suddenly psychologically prepared to kill the attacker. You would be legally and morally justified. Indeed failure to take action would bring condemnation. But if we propose the attack was to knowingly poison you killing you over about a decade, and the law washed their hands of the matter and if you couldn't get away (just go with it) so the only way you will survive is to kill your attacker. Well I'd probably be putting flowers on most people's graves in a decade. But if I asked people why they wouldn't take action I suspect I'd get some answer around morals, aversion to violence, 2 rights not making a right and belief of either supernatural forces to the rescue or even possibly deserving it. But the real reason we don't take action against the slow threat is because of our biology! In the violent attack our pulse races, our mind focuses, we breathe faster and experience a huge surge of adrenaline while our brain is an electrical storm of intense electrical activity on our neural pathways for taking action, synapses firing for taking action motivated by mortal terror. In the case of the slow threat your brain does not focus instead you think lots of thoughts, there is no mortal terror as your death isn't imminent so your synapses for action aren't firing, no adrenaline surge and no dramatic raise in your pulse or breathing. It is the mismatch between what we know we should feel, and what we actually feel, and what we know we should do, and what we actually do that creates either the sense that the the threat isn't real, or the perception that reasons against taking action must actually eclipse the reasons to take action, which is patently ridiculous! Averting extinction of the only life we can be entirely sure exists in the entire universe (not to mention the time scale life has existed for) will logically always win in a tug-of-war against reasons not to! If the world would end in 2 days unless you took massive action, and if running around like a crazy person telling everyone to spread the word and seeking the largest audiences to hear your message would save the world, damn it you'd do it! And if the only solution was to take a gun and pick off some CEO's of Oil companies and some bankers, you' do your level best if you thought you had any shot! Forgive the pun. But these threats don't motivate us and because we have been unclear what's been going on in our own head we have not been able to debunk the misperceptions and take action anyway. This has created a cycle of learned helplessness! indeed even a perception that if we won't save ourselves we aren't worth saving! Humanity, get up off your knees! But solutions are EASILY created now we see what has been going wrong! The really LONG version of this message that includes solutions and a more complete argument for what's going on below my signature. John I have an extraordinary claim to make, and the reaction I have had from readers backs up my claim, that I have found the cause behind Humanity's evident inability to avoid destruction of the natural world and with it our own demise, AND I have found a solution! There is however one tricky aspect to this, even with the background subject of extinction I would rather keep this message otherwise positive but I have not found any way to explain this powerfully without going to extremes in "thought experiments" to clearly illustrate the truth. Indeed if I could find a more readily palatable way to explain it I would leave violence out all together from this message. I am not a person given to violence. Though it is worth noting that our leaders are happy to use those of us who swore to protect our people to invade foreign lands to kill people for oil under transparent pretenses. So while the examples will be about killing in self defense and defense of others the message is not about killing. This is about why we do not take lesser necessary actions against these threats in either powerful enough ways or in great enough number to effect change. We are created & or evolved to respond to certain types of threats with strong and resounding action. If someone were to attack you (or another person) with a knife, and the only way you could be reasonably assured of saving your (or their) life is to kill the would-be murderer you would be legally & morally justified to do so. Indeed no one would argue that you should have let yourself or another be killed rather than take necessary lethal action. Indeed not taking that action would be deemed to be wrong. Even more so if you didn't act to save the life of others. But if the threat was slow, if someone was poisoning you slowly so that you would die in a decade and if there was no other effective action open to you (it's certainly possible) then would you feel just as right about killing the person poisoning you and perhaps your loved ones? It is highly probable I'd be laying flowers on your grave. So why is there such a difference? We tend to think that the reason we don't act in the second case is because we are taking the moral high ground, acting in love and light only, recalling what our mothers told us, that 2 wrongs don't make a right. We suddenly becomes steadfast believers that we must protect our "Good Karma" convinced that it will eventually save us, though it hasn't yet, it must save us! Even though we might not usually have so much extreme blind faith in mystical forces coming to our rescue when we choose not to save ourselves. But NOT acting in the second case to save yourself and others you should be protecting is just as wrong as it would be in the first example. And while high moral ideals are great, the real reason we wouldn't and don't take necessary action against the slow threat is for reasons of our biology. The moral arguments and other explanations for our reluctance are NOT the real cause of our inaction! In the first case the violence and immediacy of the attack creates a huge Adrenaline surge, your higher brain functions shut down as your pulse races and you enter the state of "Fight or Flight". Additionally all actions we take are because of neurons firing and the rate of their firing depends on the voltage to those neural circuits in the brain, and things we say are emotionally charged are literally also lead to a higher electrical charge on our neurons! We act when the electrical charge on synapses in neural circuits for taking an action is higher than the charge on the synapses for not taking that action, we have all seen the TV Brain Surgeon touches a voltage probe to parts of the patient's Brain and suddenly they have memories, smells or muscle movements based on the placement of the probe. The charge on your synapses calling for immediate action is huge from the intensity of the violent assault as mortal terror kinks in. In the second case however you don't have any of that, no Adrenaline, no racing pulse, no immediacy, your higher brain function is just fine which brings lots of thoughts distracting from action (AKA Analysis Paralysis), the charge on your synapses for taking action is far far lower for these reasons than the threat demands, and is now overpowered by the charge of our natural highly charged disgust for violence and killing that discourages action and the fear of being imprisoned on synapses opposing action. The danger of the slow threat (of which humanity faces many) is not as visceral and is more logical/conceptual however clearly real (although attempts to cloud the reality of threats is also ongoing and well funded and more comfortable to believe). Indeed we don't really believe in the threat on an emotional level as it feels almost false due to the disconnect with how we should be in action but we observe ourselves taking a few symbolic measures at best. The threat is a 11 out of 10 but we are acting like it's a 0.5 at most. But wait, there is more. The threats to humanity (largely environmental and health, but also effective enslavement under Pseudo-Democratic Dictatorships etc.) requires intelligence and sensitivity to pick up on often (and judge) and many would rather put their head in the sand. So the people that realize that things are seriously wrong are sensitive and thoughtful types who are also more sensitive to their revulsion towards violence or taking any action that goes against their ethics without confronting that they become an accomplice to a murder Billions of times or even infinitely worse as failure to take or condone necessary actions to save the world. Not only at the cost of human and animals lives of all present on Earth but the end of all that ever will be and the demise of progress (societal, and evolutionary?) up to this point that took stretches of time so immensely long to get to this stage we cannot even fathom. On top of this it is worth noting that we must kill to live every day, primarily we kill animals. But as few of us kill the animals ourselves or even harvest vegetables, we have managed to disconnect with the necessities of life and constructed morals so absolute they would not let us eat. We have washed the blood off our hands even though the practices in factory farming become increasingly horrific and inhumane. Indeed we have made lives that increasingly protect us from doing anything uncomfortable except live with a future that seems to grow relentlessly darker. This is why out of BILLIONS of people there is essentially not ONE SINGLE PERSON who will take a gun and deal to those threatening to bring about the extinction of life on planet earth. And with the number of ways to kill at a distance leaving little evidence and the number of terminal, suicidal and violent people in society, with at least some idea of how they could contribute, we must conclude that fear of repercussions, aversion to violence and high ethical standards aren't the real or valid reasons but mere rationalizations and side factors to explain why we don't feel as compelled to act as we should. No one killed Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Saddam or for that matter the Rothschilds or the board of Monsanto (or America's increasingly unpopular & dangerous Presidents). And with the exception of some apparent plots to kill Hitler no one AFAIK really tried either. Indeed I am unaware of any attempt made on the lives of those in power who are valid threats to humanity! This is infinitely MORE justified than killing in self defense from a violent attack. But no the point of this increasingly long message is NOT a proposition to kill those killing and enslaving humanity at an increasing rate, I am using that as an example because it is the highly empowering method that makes a clarifying example because no one tries this despite the fact that it allows one person to essentially save us all. It removes the otherwise dominant arguments that we are powerless as the politicians/corporations have all the power and that we can't do anything because "the sheep" or sleepwalking masses won't wake up to the threat. So how does this apply to saving the world without killing people? Firstly the reason "they" can get away with killing, poisoning etc.. is because they have seen that because of the reasons above they are pretty close to perfectly safe. They know that we have a philosophy of letting them do absolutely anything to us as without doing anything to stop them. We have wrongly believed it moral to sacrifice the world and our lives for ideals that wouldn't allow us to feed ourselves, but makes us all lambs to the slaughter. BUT wouldn't the lives of innocent animals have more intrinsic value than that of a predatory (charming?) psychopath greedily bringing death and misery to people to gain more money and power? They have been safe provided that they did not move too fast in their actions raising our Adrenaline and increasing the "charge" on the reasons for taking action, giving rise to either lone gunmen or a popular uprising. That is why they have moved slowly, very very gradually over more than 100 years because if they pushed too hard and fast they know it would cost them their lives! They ARE afraid of us and that is why they have moved at a slow pace and kept us distracted with the likes of sports, music, TV and movies. They know we have the power and we can take control back. Reading and sharing this message lowers the threshold level a threat must reach to trigger action, action to reassert control over our world and protect it from destruction! You see violence is not needed as long as they know that we have rejected the philosophies that used to protect the and seen the flaw in our biology that let them get away with so much, we won't let them kill and endanger life on earth anymore without us taking taking obviously needful actions. And killing IS a last resort, first there are plenty of non-violent methods that we COULD be using but don't, that are far more effective than traditional protests, but that will be explored in another message. We just need to make it clear to them that we are now willing to take necessary actions that previously we were not! We just have to demonstrate seriousness upping the ante till they take heed! So to restate, the reason we take very little action against slow threats and less visceral threats is because it does not drive us as powerfully because of our biology. However instead we misattribute out reluctance to take the actions we know we should take against these enormous threats by giving more relevance to the reasons not to take action even if reason is patently ridiculous! That doesn't make any sense. It's not that the impulse in opposition to, for instance violence is invalid, but when weighed up it is clear the objection is tiny when put in perspective, when weighed against the alternative! So what are some of the justifications that we blow out of proportion to not take action? Problems with Extreme action (where necessary): The proposed action seems out of balance in immediacy (extreme by comparison) with the slow & low degree of immediacy of the threat. The solution is to realize that this is only the case because Governments are corrupted and won't take needful action, and in fact the real imbalance is that only a few lives would need to be taken to save the lives of Millions or Billions who would otherwise perish. Diffusion of responsibility; why should I be the one? We don't want everyone to respond to we? Diffusion of responsibility is a phenomena where the larger the number of people that are able to respond the number of people who do respond tends to go down not up as everyone overcompensates presuming someone else will take responsibility and increasing no one does! The solution is to realize that we really do need drastic action and yes it would be brilliant if there was an overabundance of people grabbing guns and pitchforks and running these people out of town! note: This is an example presuming that more peaceful methods failed, of course a protest with guns and pitch forks (an old fashioned image) could actually be a non-violent but a powerful show of force! The more people opposing them the less violence is needed. Scared of their own power, why should I have the right to do this? Well why shouldn't you! What a crappy reason for inaction! As long as you are not the only one concerned about the issue, especially if there are millions of others who share that concern then you are not alone in appreciating the act is justified, again this is a variation of diffusion of responsibility. Regular action: Lack of unity, not enough will stand with me. I don't want to upset my friends & neighbours if they disagree or aren't interested or are scared by the information, I think they are busy. I don't like talking to strangers. The Government/Corporations won't listen, there is nothing we can do. I'm busy. It's too late to do anything (this argument often occurs shortly after someone stops thinking it is too soon to be bothered) One over-blown reason for not taking regular action is that it doesn't work, but actually I have seen it work time and time again. But it is true that "they" try not to listen and protests of this type are never assured to work because it is somewhat insubstantial. But if people got properly busy in gaining support as they would do if the threat was more immediate, telling everyone they could with urgency it would be the kind of growing movement they seldom dare to defy. Additionally the action not taken might be changing the brand of some product you buy to a more environmentally responsible brand or recycling etc.. But because the threat occurs as a mismatch for us we still don't feel strongly enough to take action. Of course you could say that the more powerful the action the harder it is to take, but there are people used to killing creatures far more noble than the an a greedy executive or corrupt politician and they do that for sport! Firing a gun is not that terribly hard. But in all cases the mismatch between the seriousness of the issue and our low motivation for action is the primary cause for inaction and these other concerns while naturally impacting the equation it is mistaken to think that they weigh up high enough to justify sitting back as the end of the world comes! It is not the strength of the reasons not to take action that is at issue but the the fact that our survival instincts (due to our biology) are not over-ruling these pitiful excuses for inaction! There is also a dark conclusion which can also become it's own 'reason' not to take action. As we become disgusted with humanity's inability to avoid a clear and certain demise it can lead us to conclude that humanity is a failed creature that does not even deserve to live as an explanation for why it cannot act on an individual or unified level powerfully enough to stop the coming destruction. However when the reason shines a light on what we have been unconscious about we can suddenly correct the issue! If we don't get these slow threats sorted soon it will be too late, indeed some threats are apparently already beyond stopping or will cause us much pain, including the melting of Arctic ice and Fukushima. By the time the pain from these slow threats bites it is generally far too late to stop it! How to overcome our biological shortfall: Set a time to act by to avoid procrastination, set a date for unified action. Realize how long it could take to entirely stop the problem and the damage that will be done in that time to create urgency for action! Immerse yourself in the necessity to take action, the evidence you have been uncomfortable to fully absorb because it was too scary when you seemed powerless to stop it. Get MAD at what has been done to the environment and to us! Connect to all the wonders of all the sacred things in this world that need protecting from the destruction and abuses of corporations and governments. Use will power now that you know your feelings aren't telling you the truth! But number 1: Kill the philosophies that tell you not to take action, they have been vastly overplayed to explain the mismatch between what you needed to do and your relatively low drive to action, philosophies such as morality that would see the world end (or presuming we will be saved by God, Aliens or good Karmic energy out of desperation more that solid belief), or devaluing humanities value, entertaining disempowering thoughts, and questioning your right to act in powerful ways when others don't. And finally merely understanding the problem allows us to act in spite of our biological shortfall and recognize that we will have to either take action without emotions driving us or drive our emotional energies to empower us to take action! We have advanced in many ways as a society beyond the state of primitive man and to overcome other such limitations. But on this one point we have been stalled and it has cost us our freedom and it has almost cost us all our very lives and the earth! And our new found willingness to act means relatively little action should be necessary! If this has moved you, struck a chord, it is shining new hope in into your soul, the truth shall set you free! Prove the power of this revolution, have your first action to save the world be to share this message powerfully with others! If you're thinking this is a dangerous idea, that is true only for those few at the top hurting humanity and only if they don't stop. The dangerous idea is that there can be any justification for not acting to save humanity and the other life on this earth and that such a concept could be moral as opposed to the greatest possible immorality and inhumanity conceivable. If some of the people are to act like sheep and of others are going to act like wolves, we need to be Shepherds! It is worth noting that at the start of 2015 Oxfam released a report that based on current trends 1% of the world would be wealthier than the other 99% And that at the time 85 people in the world had more money than half the worlds population! Finally while the major problem is not the regular people but the 1% of the 1% and so on, this discovery applies to taking action in any area including people doing their own part. So while corporations are responsible for MOST of the destruction to the planet people do have their impact too. But at this moment it seems more timely to address the threat that Bankers, Corporations and Politicians pose. The world is not over-populated, the entire world population could fit quite on with good planning in the state of Texas! It is that we have too many destructive corporations! We are going to have to take power into our own hands because while the money isn't actually even real it is what gives them power and having little of it is what keeps us challenged to put anything right. Money besides being a fiat debt based means of exchange, it is just a tool to unify peoples efforts under their control without actually having to inspire them. And Authority and corporations are just more structures to make people work together often against their own interest. The media is bought, the US Government is totally bought, see represent.us videos (both) and National is clearly bought and ready to sell the country out to Corperate interests with the TPP. The world can be wonderful, we have all we need for abundance but the wolves have been having a field day for so long it now is not really a slow threat! And all we need to do is take over control of the systems and while putting in safeguards will be effective no control will be as strong as citizens protecting our country and our world from abuse of power by whatever means necessary.
