It’s commentary like this which confirms my own stance of: yes, things will change, but we don’t, and will never, know enough to be able to predict exactly how. Just accept that they will change drastically within a human lifetime starting now, and sort out a sober way to prepare:
2 Likes
Pretty good article, and pretty close to the view I posted here just a couple days ago I think.
I’m not sure I agree that the take away is that we don’t know the broad strokes of how things are about to change. I think JMG is pretty clear on some of the coming problems. I think, if anything, he’s somewhat underestimating the extent of some of the coming issues, but he makes several straightforward predictions of what is to come. He waxes lyrical on the warming climate of Siberia, for example, but fails to mention the giga-tonnes of methane locked into the permafrost there that would then be released, triggering a huge chain of climate tipping points as a result.
What seems pretty clear is that we’re talking about a civilisation ending event and that a huge number of people are likely to die as a result. And unlike the Younger Dryas, this was no act of God - we made this mess all on our own.
Anyway. Lots of good info and pointers there. JMG is always worth having a good think about.
Cheers
1 Like
No question in my mind that we are facing a civilisation-destroying crisis. That’s why I keep hammering the idea of the Long Descent, back into much simpler, lower-tech local survivor-remnant communities for some generations - an idea (the Long Descent) that I half-inched from JMG, incidentally.
He often cites historical examples of regional civilisations which have gone through this self-annihilating process, which he sees as a repeating, and apparently inevitable phenomenon in human history.
I would say further that this doleful cycling is a consequence of certain basics of hom-sap’s animal psychology: after the previous crash, and the subsequent - multi-generational - Dark Age period whilst the Earth heals itself from the crashed empire’s depredations, and - typically - re-grows its forests that the empire had used up, a whole new generation of historically-innocent pioneers starts all over again the wearisome process of bouyant-initial-growth/violent theft of neighbours’ resources/fascistic-imperialism/over-reach/crash. Acting like standard-issue instinctive animals, in short; but with this lamentable complication of meddlesome hands controlled by inventive brains, which throws us right back into the nightmare of the (re)growth of the Technosphere all over again. Following Douglas Adams’ assertion, we have to admit that dolphins do it better: the same clever brains, but without the meddling; just Joe-Cooling it perennially in the waves…
Having lived a long time with the basic premise that humans are imperfect but perfectible, I now find myself retreating from the socialist/communist/fascist doctrine that these imperfections can be cured in a generation or two by means of radical authoritarian politics. Thus, I have to fall back on the much longer-term view that Tom Campbell promotes: that we are creatures of a vast Big Mind, which finds itself fated with an inherent tendency built-in to reality that faces it with a stark choice: either to ignore always-growing entropy, and thus get destroyed by it eventually; or alternatively to organise holodeck virtual realities where un-detached outgrowths of itself - we individual souls - can pursue free-will-endowed Karma games, which - done right - can drive down and keep down the entropy tide, and thus allow inevitable, automatic evolution to follow its (non-goal-directed) meanderings, whilst we constantly re-incarnated souls serve this Great Purpose of Big Mind, by living in ways that grow our own souls - and thus the whole of this evolving reality - towards a kindly, cooperative, love-based manifestation. Something that likely will take quite of few more than just one or two generations. But then, time seems to be in open-ended supply! And - as one of the just two axiomatic foundations of Tom’s Big TOE posits: Evolution happens. 
1 Like
PS: The other axiom is: Consciousness exists.
On just those two assumptions, the whole of Tom Campbell’s Big Theory Of Everything is built! That elegant parsimony, which addicts of science so prize…
Hi folks,
from JMGreer’s recent post :
that the vast majority of the greenhouse gas pollution released by multinational corporations comes from producing and distributing goods and services for ordinary consumers. I don’t recommend mentioning this to climate activists, much less suggesting that they could help the planet no end by cutting their own indirect carbon footprints by, you know, buying fewer products and using less energy.
I suspected that corporates would make this claim not JMG. But is the history of near monopoly production and distribution the result of demand or supply and modern sales techniques. I would suggest the latter. Clearly for goods and services that are essential demand is inelastic and will remain so irrespective of global impacts on climate - the one thing that does make a difference and can be changed is the proximity of supply to consumers.
For goods and services less essential or even inessential do consumers control the market place or are they under the influence of the hidden persuaders as Vance Packard termed them. I think he nailed it and this was before all and sundry had access to the techniques of 21st century psychotic techniques. If he was right then demand was created by the suppliers whose sole purpose was the pursuit of profit and the maintenance of corporates to continue to be able to do so. Corporates are in the business of outsourcing costs and not taking responsibility for social and environmental impacts their production methods and localities create.
So sure in a perfect world consumers would not be influenced by psychological persuasion, addiction (which rides roughshod over all the niceties of supply and demand ) would not be rampant and price would not be the main deterrent to purchases.
Corporates have retained the power in this game and this is particularly true for monopolistic or cartel type arrangements. So I beg to differ with him here but his other points are strangely the same as comments I have also made recently without any knowledge of this post, go figure!
And just in from TCW , a different view from the Lake District:
cheers
1 Like
This guy Dave at TCW is a text-book example of the ‘Everything’s fine, the greeny stuff is just a political scam’ faction, over on the right of the political spectrum, as described by John. As such, I wouldn’t expect him to find the - actually realistic - middle ground between his faction and its left mirror image, which John also describes. Unrealism rampant on both wings: ‘Everything’s fine!’ versus ‘We’re all gonna die!’ Er - no, and no.
Also, Dave C seems rather obsessed with keeping the roads well tarmaced, and safe for mass motoring - as if that’s a blessing; or even destined to persist for much longer: Tarmaced roads going back spontaneously to gravel is the future for most of the roads in countries like Britain; already happening noticeably in rural USAmerica; and for the same underlying reasons.
Anyone who really believes that trees are bad is up that creek without a paddle, I’m afraid. Sure, tree monocultures are just as stupid as wheat or rape monocultures. Mixed trees, otoh, are major contributors to the entirely wise and healthy suitability of forest permaculture for climates like ours. When there’s this amount of rainfall (and no permafrost), labouring perennially to keep the landscape tree-free is a complete idiots’ game. And anyway, keeping that scouring going requires either huge fossil-hydrocarbon energy inputs; or alternatively the muscle power of axe-swinging serfs.
I reckon that spare energy for idiot motorised lawn-mowing and tree killing is about to become a thing of the past, for good. And, since we seem now to have baked into our near future a period when the human population goes quite steeply down again, I wouldn’t count on being able to find the labour power to keep serfs futilely striving to keep the land clear of forests; not when their true best interest is so patently in the opposite - forest permaculture - direction:
Let - indeed help - the forests grow. Re-stock with bears, wolves, big cats, as well as all the other missing biota - including plenty of beavers; they. in cahoots with the apex predators, are the true forest masters (see what happened to explosive spontaneous tree regrowth, when beavers and wolves were reintroduced into Yosemite…). Encourage farmers to keep livestock that will stay in balance with the forest growth; but ensure that part of that state encouragement is a requirement for them to keep at least two shepherd dogs - livestock guarding dogs - if they keep any vulnerable stock.
This sort of kaleidoscopic mingling of forest and pasture, with all the essential species, both vegetable and animal, combining into a climax ecosystem, produces a virtually self-sustaining lifescape, rich in all sorts of both vegetable and animal products, and requiring only limited, and if necessary entirely hand-tool accomplished, work input by the human community sharing the land with the rest. And by god it doesn’t half harvest solar energy efficiently…!
It ain’t ‘either/or’; it’s ‘Altogether now!’
2 Likes
Hugely important point @CJ1. I would also add that even for essential goods, consumers can only realistically choose from the options available to them. What incentives do corporations have to make sure their offerings are low impact or low energy or non-gmo etc? None. In this case the consumers are faced with only bad choices. Add in economic factors and the choices that consumers face are even more restricted.
Quite correct. Realistic change has to be enforced primarily at this level first.
Cheers
1 Like
Hi @PontiusPrimate , I should also have mentioned Packards other bestseller - the Waste Makers - a detailed survey of the vast threat posed by surplus production—or, in Packard’s words, "the pressures to make us more wasteful, imprudent, and carefree in our consuming habits”
cheers
Hi @RhisiartGwilym , lots of strange opinions on TCW post Covid, I agree with a lot of what you say for the medium and long term ( although not personally into bears and wolves for the UK) but I still maintain that we must triage the policies to prioritise the protection of the vulnerable in this current government inflicted crisis.
cheers
Wolves are absolutely no problem for humans, despite their - false - reputation. The do everything they can to avoid us - unless they’ve learned, cautiously, that we’re friends. Bears are indeed a bit more problematic. Lynxes and cougars, not really. Bears can be managed to keep them from being troublesome. Shepherd dogs, in country settings, are effective stand-off minder-muscle to keep all these predators at sufficient distance from our livestock - including our small children!
And big predators are always the necessary fine-tuners of any fully healthy climax ecosystem. Quoting a famous Inuit saying: “The wolves are doctors to the caribou, and keep them strong.”
The world can’t be humankind’s private island. That’s never going to work. We have to share it with all our essential kindred. Just for survival’s sake…