We’re Never Gonna Survive Unless…
-Copyright © 2008 Knocking on the Sky. This feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, or if you are reading it posted on a different site in its entirety other than on http://luminaria.wordpress.com, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. DMCA Complaints will be notified for immediate legal action.
How can we dance when our earth is turning;
How do we sleep when our beds are burning?
–Midnight Oil
Of all the torments that we’re enduring, of all the many crises that we face, the one that’s most critical is the inability of the planet to sustain human life, let alone any life, at the rate of destruction we are causing.
Pick-up line guaranteed to get you snubbed: “So, what’s your brand of argument on the economically/politically charged environmental debate?”
And how do you see yourself, honestly? (If you can even be honest with yourself, that is)
- Are you one of those who see everything “green” as a conspiracy whipped up by the UN, the Club of Rome, or other super-sinister secret organizations?
- Are you part of a corporation that greenwashes us into thinking we’re actually “helping the environment” if we buy your product or service?
- Are you one of those in flat-out denial who debunks anything to do with climate change because god is taking care of everything?
- Or maybe you’re one of those who sees the decimation of the planet as a means to gain profit and/or you have some political agenda to debunk the obvious; one who regards the planet as an endless slot machine, or a stupid whore to be beaten down?
Or, are you one of the distraught and questioning few who has simply looked around your world and seen what we’ve lost, what we’re losing, and you genuinely yearn to heal what has been so badly obliterated? Are you distraught at the extent that humans abuse the earth, oblivious to the consequences of their actions? Do you get that we’re all sitting on the evolutionary branch that we’re sawing off at the trunk?
Recently I touched on the subject of the Anthropocene, which is the epoch we see unfolding as the Holocene melts away. The prefix anthro- ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos), means “human.” The human epoch. But what does that mean, exactly? Judeo-Christianity has nitro-phied the anthropomorphism that humans have wrought on creation by pushing religious texts on us, principally with two old testament commands, supposedly made by an invisible deity. You know them well: “Go forth and multiply and subdue the earth.”
Anthropomorphism is the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings. This sense that everything is human-centered has been around since the earliest times, and its central idea is that human beings are “special.” It seems obvious to me that the attitudes spawned from anthropomorphism goes a long way to explain why human beings have done such a job destroying the earth, its creatures, and peoples who don’t count money as their principle measure of worth.
I remember watching Disney feature-length animation films and feeling disgusted by the way that forest animals, fish, even trees happily deferred to humans with adoring, helpful, self-sacrificing attitudes. “Humans are gods,” they seemed to say. Like Christianity stole from pagan traditions, like the right-wing sanitizes history, Disney stole from traditional fairy tales and sanitized them to suit warped Caucasian Christian values. The main characters are always Caucasians with Caucasian values. These fantasies speak in code and sit on an enormous underground vat of poison. All of these feature-length animations, to the extent that animals play roles, show animals soft-shoe-ing to support the humans. Yas massah! Yas massah!
Homo sapiens became the first species to stop living inside local ecosystems. All other species, including our ancestral hominid ancestors, all pre-agricultural humans, and remnant hunter-gatherer societies still extant exist as semi-isolated populations playing specific roles (i.e., have “niches”) in local ecosystems. This is not so with post-agricultural revolution humans, who in effect have stepped outside local ecosystems. Indeed, to develop agriculture is essentially to declare war on ecosystems – converting land to produce one or two food crops, with all other native plant species all now classified as unwanted “weeds” — and all but a few domesticated species of animals now considered as pests.–The Sixth Extinction
Here are some facts found on the Sixth Extinction site:
- About 30,000 species go extinct annually
- The previous mass extinctions were due to natural causes
- The current mass extinction is caused by humans
- We are bringing about the massive changes in the environment
- Human beings began disrupting the environment as soon as they appeared on earth
- Wherever early humans migrated, species became extinct
- The invention of agriculture accelerated the pace of the Sixth Extinction
- Humans don’t live with nature, but outside it
- Earth can’t sustain the trend in human population growth. It is reaching its limit in carrying capacity
- Overpopulation, invasive species, and overexploitation are fueling the extinction
- Only 10% of the world’s species survived the third mass extinction. Will any survive this one?
The total number of organisms within a species is limited by many factors-most crucial of which is the “carrying capacity” of the local ecosystem: given the energetic needs and energy-procuring adaptations of a given species, there are only so many squirrels, oak trees and hawks that can inhabit a given stretch of habitat. Agriculture had the effect of removing the natural local-ecosystem upper limit of the size of human populations. Though crops still fail regularly, and famine and disease still stalk the land, there is no doubt that agriculture in the main has had an enormous impact on human population size:
- Estimates vary, but range between 1 and 10 million people on earth 10,000 years ago.
- There are now over 6 billion people.
- The numbers continue to increase logarithmically — so that there will be 8 billion by 2020.
- There is presumably an upper limit to the carrying capacity of humans on earth — of the numbers that agriculture can support — and that number is usually estimated at between 13-15 billion, though some people think the ultimate numbers might be much higher.
I encourage you to read the data on the Sixth Extinction Site. Enlighten yourself. You may not be able to pick up a date with what you learn, but at least you won’t get sucked in to some bogus agenda fueled solely by callous self-interest.
Any shaman or healer will confirm what I’m about to write. We’re each going to have to remain tender, sensitive, and open, full of questions rather than answers if we’re ever going to turn our greed, fear, ignorance and callousness into kindness and caring for all of life.
The first step is finding a way to heal ourselves. Without that, we are stuck. With it, everything else can begin to heal. Good lord, that’s enough to freeze the brain all by itself. You ask, What do you mean, Heal Myself? How the hell am I supposed to heal myself? I’m glad you asked. That’s the first step. Keep asking. The way will open to you.
But remember, true healing can be extraordinarily painful. In alternative medicine, symptoms must often get worse before health can be restored. It’s past time to stop masking the pain with palliatives–especially distraction, rage, denial and oblivious ignorance. It’s time to undergo the agonizing process of undoing what we’ve done.
How does that Seal song go? No we’re never gonna survive, unless…
I cannot tell you how many times someone has killed an insect in my presence with this ridiculously overt pride that they have somehow done something great and wonderful. My horror at their actions being so apparent on my face only to be met with a quizzical expression of confusion from the other party. “No you idiot, I do not support the killing of creatures beyond what is necessitated for sustenance. I hope you come back in your next life as a mosquito.” It may seem small, but every time life is taken without regard, it further entrenches the belief that man has ‘dominion’ over all creatures and less thought is given the next time he chooses to take life, regardless of what form it is in.
auralfreq
July 26, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Not the first time I’ve said this but I feel like it won’t be the last.
Global Warming is an important subject that needs to be handled for a better future for both the human race and ecologies worldwide.
However, I’ll argue lowering population (in either a “hands off” or “hands on” fashion for governments) is not likely to help deal with this issue.
First of all, there is not a correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases and people in a nation. (possible response: What? I thought people contribute to global warming? More people more warming, right?) If having more people was key to increasing global warming gases than China and India would not have produced less greenhouse gases than the USA throughout the 20th century. Each of them had a much greater population than the US and polluted less. Now when China is finally overtaking the USA in terms of emissions. Ask why is it doing so? There has not been a sudden baby boom to ramp up population (the 1 child policy has actually been effective, despite corruption and loopholes, in the overall goal of lowering China’s birthrate.) China’s emissions rise has occurred alongside a birthrate drop because China is industrializing. China is building 1 new coal power plant per week because new factories are being built and a Chinese consumer class is rising that purchases electronic devices (as well as SUVs that have finally stopped selling in the USA).
It is even possible to have a population shrinkage and an increase in global warming gases-look at Europe with shrinking population in some nations, they haven’t stopped polluting. Many are still better than the USA on an emissions per person basis but their pollution went up despite a shortage of babies in some nations.
If you want to handle global warming I would encourage handling the direct sources of emissions. These (especially if you are talking about the carbon that has to be brought up from underground and then put in the air) are the devices we use.
This is why highly developed nations are generally much worse polluters than less developed nations-the latter have less in the way of automobiles or energy requiring devices.
To solve Global Warming (which is going to be with us for many years due to the damage already done) deal with the devices we like to have that add more greenhouse gases to the air. Either make them effectively carbon neutral or see if you can live without them.
The number of devices rather than humans is the real problem. You can actually lower the number of humans on the planet and see the number of devices they use rise through greater numbers per person/household. There once was a time when the average US household didn’t have 2 or more cars, more than 1 TV and so on.
The greatest irony of all is that the nations where the birthrate is highest are also tend to be those where the emissions per person rate is low. Global Warming is mostly caused by us in the developed world who already have low birthrates and high levels of device use.
There is absolutely no guarantee that lowering population levels will reduce global warming. With the possibility that some business may try to further mechanize (using devices run on energy from carbon emitting sources) to produce more with fewer workers there is even the theoretical possibility that the emissions problem will become worse.
I would argue that saying the number humans is the problem may sometimes occur from having a bit to much Malthus in one’s intellectual diet-and don’t forget that history has frequently proven wrong those who come up with ideas based on his theories.
Nathaniel
July 28, 2008 at 7:43 am
And one last thing about World Population. You are correct in that some have predicted the World could support more people. I’ve heard estimates that range from 30-40 billion.
But even with the possibility that it could only only support between 13 and 15 billion this is still above the 9-11 billion people that World population is projected to level off at.
What really worries me is that when a population levels off in terms of growth it is usually because it has become high development and high consumption (just look at western Europe as well as the USA without immigration).
The scary thing is just how high development/consumption will we be if population growth stagnates worldwide.
Nathaniel
July 28, 2008 at 7:51 am
Nathaniel, your build a strong case with your observations about the perceived and actual mechanisms behind global warming. I clearly lack the sophisticated and thoughtful research that you have obviously done on this matter. And I also admit to finger-pointing at Malthusian theory, specifically in connection with the so-called “green revolution,” as well as other theories. I would never pretend to be a systems analyst or anthropologist or any other sort of scientist. I’m not equipped to argue with anyone about global warming, one way or other.
Although everything is interconnected and interdependent, my deepest concerns aren’t limited to global warming, or climate change. They have to do with 1) the ability of the earth to sustain such a barrage of destruction for profit and 2) what unregulated consumption and production have done and continues to do to the human spirit.
I agree that overfishing the oceans, clear-cutting forests, poisoning rivers, lakes, and streams, decimating our precious wildlands, stripping our National Forsts, and wiping out entire species all for the almighty dollar is monolithic crime committed by wealthy, less-populated nations.
I agree that the poorer countries with the highest birthrates are hardly responsible for this blanket destruction. The nations with the most sophisticated technologies are responsible, yes, yes, yes. In this, overpopulation cannot be blamed.
Your point is precise and well-taken.
When I write about overpopulation, I come from a more personal, pragmatic, non-scientific, non-political angle.
I’m talking about the sense of being packed into small places with massive numbers of complete strangers that I will see for a second, or at most an hour or two, and never see again, let alone get to know.
I’m talking about being jammed in traffic, elevators, stores, on sidewalks, and other public places where human beings, instead of choosing to be in a community of familiar faces are herded like cattle to and from destinations carved out by the directives Consume, Work, Obey.
I’m talking about road rage, depression, ADD, addictions, homocide, suicide, infantacide (-cide = “poison”), and the general decimation of the human spirit.
I’m talking about waiting three months to see some doctor who doesnt’ know your name and spending fifteen minutes in that doctor’s office as a number on a medical claim.
I’m talking about a feeding frenzy of potential renters swooping down on a handful of available rentals in any given city and a growing number of homeless people.
I’m talking about everything made of or touched by petroleum as a means to efficiently dehumanize every human being on this earth. And the more efficient a system, the fewer slaves needed to work; conversely the less efficient a system, the more slaves needed to work.
I’m talking about the unprecedented mal-distribution of wealth generated by petroleum that causes overpopulation in the first place.
I’m talking about a growing sense of distrust, distaste, dislike, and even hatred of my fellow human beings who are as clueless as I am about how to disengage from this torment of overcrowded poverty of mind, body and spirit. Where is the kindness? Where is the empathy? Where is the ability to put others before self?
There are so many people on this planet that the quality of life on this planet is deteriorating at an alarming rate. The levels of denial, greed, callousness, rage and self-righteousnes are astonishing and crushing.
The sheer number of people on this planet grasping for wealth or merely grasping for survival is beyond my ability to comprehend. And the wealthy have no interest whatsoever in finding solutions to create a more just distrubution of that wealth. We live, in other words, in a claustrophobic sandbox dominated by a handful of childish bullies.
luminaria
July 28, 2008 at 10:48 am