A Note On Politics And "Is The Earth F**cked?"

There are some points I'd like to clarify regarding my Monday post Is The Earth F**ked? Here's part of what I wrote—

Let us disambiguate [Brad] Werner's question. The Earth is not "fucked" intrinsically in the sense that our planet is a fucked place and always has been. This beautiful planet is a paradise in a cold, inhospitable Universe. Instead, the Earth is "fucked" in the sense that some agent of change is fucking it up. And that agent is Homo sapiens. And even if humans do succeed in fucking up the habitability of the planet, and there seems to be little doubt on this score, in a few millions of years the Earth will recover, once again playing host to a thriving biosphere full of life.

Therefore we are necessarily led to the following conclusion—

The Earth is not "fucked' in any sense. It is the humans who are fucked (in every sense).

And our inescapable conclusion leads to a revised title for Werner's talk, which might have been called

Why are humans fucking up the Earth?

with the subtitle

And what, if anything, can be done about it?

In this passage, and throughout that post and all the others I have written, when I refer to "humans" I am referring to all humans, regardless of group affiliation. And while this may seem a trivial clarification, it is not. And when I say all humans, I am talking about almost every one of them. Among the 7-plus billion people on this planet, there are perhaps several thousand to whom the remarks I'm about to make do not apply.

Humans (all humans) like to divide the world up into "good guys" and "bad guys". That they do so automatically and ubiquitously suggests that doing so lies very deep in Human Nature. Dividing up people up into two (or more) warring camps is just another name for Politics in the most general sense. People often make the mistake of thinking that politics is issue-oriented, whereas it seems to me that the more fundamental observation says that politics is group-oriented. The political calculus on this level is simple: the people in my group are OK, the ones in your group are not. The beliefs (stances on issues) that give my group coherence are correct, the ones that give your group coherence are not. And so on. Good guys versus bad guys.

The longer term, overarching threats to the biosphere like anthropogenic climate change and the destruction of marine ecosystems are fundamentally apolitical—these are problems caused by all humans and will affect all humans, regardless of their specific political or national affiliations. But perhaps it would be better to describe these lamentable trends as supra-political—fixing these problems requires all humans everywhere to transcend characteristic group behaviors, aka. politics, and to examine their apparently instinctual behaviors toward the goal of working together to be good stewards of the Earth.

The first thing we notice when we state the issue so succinctly is the apparent inability of humans to rise above group (political) behavior, which strongly suggests that such behavior is an intrinsic part of who we humans are. We see that characteristic in the article I quoted in the original post—

Lately more and more scientists seem shaken enough by what their measurements and computer models are telling them (and not just about climate change but also about the global nitrogen cycle, extinction rates, fisheries depletion, etc.) to speak out and endorse specific actions. The most prominent example is NASA climatologist James Hansen, who was so freaked out by his own data that he began agitating several years ago for legislation to rein in carbon emissions. His combination of rigorous research and vigorous advocacy is becoming, if not quite mainstream, somewhat less exotic... Climate researchers Kevin Anderson and Alice Bows recently made an impassioned call on their colleagues to do a better job of communicating the urgency of their findings and to no longer cede the making of policy prescriptions entirely to economists and politicians...

[Image above: James Hansen protesting something]

[Jason] Box [of Ohio State] is a prime example. A veteran Arctic researcher, Box was arrested alongside more than 1,000 others in 2011 outside the White House while protesting the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would bring oil from Canadian tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico for export, thus facilitating the liberation of a vast quantity of climate-warming and ice-sheet-disintegrating carbon. “Taking that stand was arguably the most important thing I’ve done,” he told me, and that includes a highly regarded body of work on Greenland ice-sheet dynamics. “I’ve taken a number of perceived political risks. The groupthink was, ‘You’re wasting your time, you’re risking your career,’ ” he said. Such actions might one day keep him from membership in the National Academies of Science, he mused aloud, but he didn’t seem too concerned. As he sees it, he can pursue rigorous science and be an engaged, concerned citizen at the same time. “I have a 14-month-old daughter,” he explained simply...

I asked Werner what he sees as scientists’ role in contributing to this kind of resistance, the kind of direct action taken by researchers like Hansen and Box. Werner views his own advocacy as separate from his scientific work. “To some extent, [science is] a job, and a job I really like, and I have the good fortune and privilege to have,” he told me. “In my other life, I am an activist, but there’s a line. Both sides inform the other. And I think that that is healthy. But when I’m doing geophysics, I’m a geophysicist. When I’m doing activism, I’m an activist.”

Needless to say, the underlying, unconscious assumption behind the activism just described divides the world of humans into "good guys" and "bad guys". Activism per se is an attempt persuade policymakers to make "good" policy—don't approve the Keystone XL pipeline—but policy necessarily belongs to the realm of human politics. If some groups endorse a policy, there will always be groups opposed to it. That's just the way it is.

If you frame an issue which is apolitical and supra-political to begin with (global warming in this case) in political terms, you have already lost if your goal is to bring about concerted action to solve it or mitigate it. The key word in that last sentence is "concerted" because politics by its very nature fragments humans into opposing, competing groups. Indeed, that's what politics is.

The only assumption I'm making here is that it will take concerted (collective) human action to fix problems like global warming and degrading marine ecosystems. That assumption is surely uncontroversial. No one group of humans is going to be able to impose their will on all the rest, at least not for very long. And that leads us to the temporal dimension of all this. Political "solutions" to problems are necessarily temporary solutions which can change with the next shift in political power. But fixing the climate or the oceans requires concerted, consistent changes in human behavior lasting effectively forever.

In short, you can not solve problems like global warming within the political realm. Such problems are supra-political in the sense just described. If these scientists think activism is the road to climate salvation, they have lost the war before the first battle begins. And when I say concerted, I mean collective changes in behavior that transcend politics both within nations and across nations. I mean everybody, all seven billion, at least as represented by the political leadership in every nation on Earth. There are no good guys. There are no bad guys. There is the Earth and its biosphere, and there is humanity taken all together. That's all there is.

And that is what I meant when I said in the original post all the activism in the world is not going to change the outcome here on planet Earth. Political solutions are never universal, and they are always ephemeral.

At this point, you might be asking—but what can I do??? What can be done???

I don't know. You tell me.

Comments

[Ken Barrows]

Who are the blameless? The San (sp?) of the Kalahari? I think it's too exhausting to think of seven billion people or even 315 million (US population). We should think small when changing our behavior. OK, who's first?

[clyde]

We are, like all the great apes, social political animals.
We are this way due to our very DNA. This way of being has evolved to allow us to become the dominant species we now are.
We, therefore, cannot transcend politics because we are political by our very nature.
It will also be our downfall. There is nothing we can do about this.

[Ean Gray]

"At this point, you might be asking—but what can I do??? What can be done???

I don't know. You tell me."

You know Dave, I think the very answer to that question is something that goes against the longest held beliefs every nearly every culture int he history of the humans race: That when faced with a seemingly insurmountable challenge, humans are capable of producing an effective technical response. Well, the answer to your questions is that there is no effective technical response. There is nothing we can do, period. And I think that is something that is just too hard for us to accept.

[Greedy Human Who Knows Cheap Fossil Fuels Won't Last!]

"but what can I do??? What can be done???"

Live life to the fullest, burn as much fossil fuels in that enjoyment as possible. Since it's all going to be gone anyway, I want to enjoy it as much as possible right here and now. When the shit hits the fan, plane rides and all-inclusive cruises will be a thing of the past. (selfish, yes, but I think anyone who grasps what you're saying on this blog already realizes that the whole of humanity is selfish to the point of extinction. I want mine before there's nothing left to have!!!)

When nothing can be done, all that is left is to enjoy what is left in the time remaining.

[Diogenes]

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Dylan Thomas

[FJM]

The root of the division is me. The moment you say me, there`s you, the other. That`s dangerous, so you find securety in the group,we; but the other, (they) does exactly the same! Then there`s the danger the group throws you out and around the corner we see conformity (becoming a whistleblower is a very dangerous thing for example, something both groups know, so the other, they don`t like you either!)
You get the picture.
So the source of the problem is the me.
In that light you have to ask that question
And it`s the most profound question: can the "ego/me" ends the division which is rooted in the "ego/me", can the ego ends the ego.
Please, don`t make a mistake, this is not religion, not at all!
This is a simple question about the way humans function.
Now the answer :)

[Alexander Ač]

What can be done???

To summarize knowledge for future generations (with significantly reduced numbers compared to today) so that they can learn from history

/sarcasm

Alex

[Usman]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/modern_green_movement_eco_pragmatists_are_challenging_traditional_environmentalists.single.html

What do you think about this article, Dave?

[Aboc Zed]

Dave notes correctly that default human condition made of politics that is always one group interests against another with the whole continuing on automatic pilot to the eventual rebalancing.

FJM added a somewhat philosophical dimension to the same by pointing to the individual's inability to transcend ego and 'specialness' in favour of feeling and acting as integral part of organism-whole. In other words, homo sapiens is not eusocial and this means he will go extinct and give way to another variety of homo, the next stage in evolutionarey process. Of course this is a forward looking statement and as such is open to uncertainties that Thomas Homer Dixon calling "not knowing the unknowns".

Alexander mentioned carrying knowledge forward which is essential for the posterity to gain from the "mistakes" of homo sapiens sapiens.

I want to add the dimension of language. The fact that people when they enter into discussion rarely if ever take the time to make sure that they understand the axiomatic set of each other. In other words we think we understand but we don't and therefore anything we say turns out to be noise. This I call the issue of forensic integrity of the discussion. If it is not established at the outset the conversation is pointless and a waste of time.

I think if we all learn how to communicate in such a way as being able to establish forensic integrity of the discussion we will be able to creat the necessary environment in which further evolution of genus homo can take place.

That I would consider a valuble contribution.

[FJM]

Dave says: "I don't know", when he asks the question "what can I do??? What can be done???. He looked at all the options and he sees the trick of the scientific mind, that there`s always a solution. And you come along and says for example: "you have to learn how to communicate etc.", the solution! You take him for another ride ! The scientific ride/approach again.
The point, where you say: "i really don`t know" is the point where real discoveries are made. That`s the point where Einstein did his fabulous realisation of relativity. Don`t get me wrong, this is only the principle. We don`t need more, better knowledge! Again, don`t get me wrong, i`m not against knowledge, not at all.

[Aboc Zed]

I do not offer "solutions" because they do not exist at the scale of Human Condition.

I merely point out to the fact that like the fish in the water we are so are immersed in Human Condition that we don't see how it affects the way we think and who we are. Dave frequently talks about this point as well.

"I don't know" is in the lexicon of any person who remotely understands what science is and how scientific method operates. In fact the so called "knowledge" is defined as refinement of so-called "uknown".

The key is to be able to recognize opinion when it is peddled as fact and understand that when we believe something to be knowledge may turn out to be ignorant opinion when we do our homework.

But most of the people, if not all, are lazy bums. They don't like to do their homework. Even when they know that their life depends on it.

And when the issue is about quality of life for posterity we could not care less - such are the ways of homo sapiens sapiens.

So the question to you, FJM,

what do we actuall _need_? :)

[FJM]

I don`t give a sh*t what the lexicon says about his fenomenon :)
I`m talking about the factual situation, the state of mind so to say, when you have a burning question (like Dave has!)and you have searched for an answer,for 5 years, 25 years, your whole life, and you have studies all the answers given by others, 1 time, 10 times and you KNOW these are not the answers. I`m talking that: "I REALLY DON`T KNOW", that state of mind, the state of mind something new can happen, the state of mind Einstein was in for example.
If you are interested in that aspect too, you can "see" that knowledge by it`s very nature is limited. You can proof it too. Not easy, but the most brilliant logician and mathematician Kurt Gödel did it.
I don`t know, only a few have been there,, it`s not an easy thing, i can tell you, it s a "lonely place", the "place where miracles are made"
Dave knows what i`m talking about and if not, his cry isn`t worth a dime.

[Aboc Zed]

FJM, I don't know if your interpretation of Dave's state of mind is adequate. Only can comment on this if he cares.

I am familiar with Godel incompleteness theorems.

I agree that those are important to understand the nature of knowledge.

If you are so into Godel's work you should have no difficulties in understanding the material at www.condition.org which is an application of Godel's theorems to Human Condition.

And if you don't get it your words aren't worth a penny. :)

[Surfzombo13]

Well, I used to take the "There isn't shit that can be done, so live it up." tack as a previous commenter stated, but I'm beginning to think that maybe, just maybe, if a group of above ground and underground resisters began taking action that something might be done. This problem is not a human problem, but a life on Earth problem. As Dave said, it is ALL humans that are the problem. We are daily taking up to 200 species of plant and animal species to extinction, and I am not cool with that. I can not sit idly by as my species overgrazes the field, making the field unlivable for all other forms of life. The only way this can be stopped is by the dismantling of industrial civilization. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), a lot of people will have to suffer and die for that to happen. But, they're probably going to do that anyways, seeing the path we've laid out for ourselves. The choice is clear, if we humans are going to go extinct (or close to that edge), do we want to take the rest of the Earth's life with us?? Or do it in a way that life besides human will carry on and begin to thrive again? Hell, the Earth got along just fine before we came on the scene, it does not need us, but it is important that we do not let our narcissistic egos take it with us when we go. Question: Has anybody here heard of or read "Deep Green Resistance"???

[Dr.F.J.Mastenbroek]

Aboc, may i ask you one question. What does it mean when You say "i really don't know"?

[Aboc Zed]

FJM,

Here is your answer:

"I really don't know."

[Aboc Zed]

FJM,

I know that I will not deliver anything new to you when I give you below somethin that can be used to answer ANY and ALL questions. I know you will understand what I mean by that.

The statement is:

"The answer to this question is the following: "This question has no answer".

Cheers,
ZA

[FJM]

ZA,
i don`t know if Dave likes this kind of conversations on his blog.
So this is my last one.
If you read back my previous reactions you can see that i`m not interested in an intellectuel answer al all but in a factuel one. What`s going on or not going on "inside" of you?

BTW, that`s not my answer :)

[Aboc Zed]

FJM,
I think this exchange is going nowhere and there is no point to continue it. This one is my last one as well.

That was "factuel" answer for you while being "mine".

BTW, what's "inside" and what's "you"? :)