after cutting our consumption, it would have to be through a complete redesign of the economy.

The immediate shifting away from global commerce, and redistribution of capital to local economy that requires less transportation. A shift from centralized energy production and electric generation to point of use, while accepting some hours might require little or no power usage, other than residential heating. More multi family housing with shared commons for laundry, food preparation, and such. A partial conversion to a barter economy for local production and services, eliminating the middle man whenever possible.

This lists just a few of the changes needed of the economy. As well, responding changes would be needed in individual lifestyle, and individual perceptions of where and how true happiness is realized. If not happiness, then an acceptable level of contentment.

In fact, artificially stopping growth here in the West will only backfire on us in the end, especially if no emphasis is placed on new technology; Big Energy will just pack up and head for the 3rd World.

The best solution? Some limits may work well, but above all, we should focus on things like family planning and alternative fuel & power sources, hemp, solar, and geothermal are just a few that can be implemented with relative ease, at least in the U.S.

when consumption and growth were not suppressed by recession? If status quo could be maintained, 'Big Energy' would be leading the charge in a reduction of CO2 emissions, to protect their future.

The fact is, emissions have continued to rise with consumption except in times of economic crisis. New clean energies can't provide for the present demand, and now we are up against the clock which is running out of time. We need to cut back now, one more time,now, by more than ten times what has been considered before in discussion. International agreements have consistently failed when proposing just a one percent per year reduction, because any larger reduction guarantees an economy at best in stagnation, but more likely in crisis. We don't have the luxury of gradual development of clean energy, and now, the technology is not close to the scale needed.

Joe you seem to be caught up in a desire to maintain your consumption and addressing the cooking of the planet at the same time. The avenues for your success unfortunately do not exist at this time, and we are out of time. Cut back consumption now, or pay the price of 4-6 degrees C, probably more by the end of the century.

Right now we are feeling the effects of less than 2 degrees rise with more already baked in. And you want to continue to do, what has provided the heat, status quo and rising, c-o-n-s-u-m-p-t-i-o-n.

I wish you luck.

Can you point to one program or event that has reduced global CO2 emissions, ...
when consumption and growth were not suppressed by recession?

Not personally, at the moment, but they are out there.

If status quo could be maintained, 'Big Energy' would be leading the charge in a reduction of CO2 emissions, to protect their future.

Really? Last time I checked, they were trying to keep expanding oil exploitation in the Arctic.

The fact is, emissions have continued to rise with consumption except in times of economic crisis. New clean energies can't provide for the present demand, and now we are up against the clock which is running out of time. We need to cut back now, one more time,now, by more than ten times what has been considered before in discussion.

They could if we really tried. And running out of time for what, exactly?

International agreements have consistently failed when proposing just a one percent per year reduction, because any larger reduction guarantees an economy at best in stagnation, but more likely in crisis. We don't have the luxury of gradual development of clean energy, and now, the technology is not close to the scale needed.

The economy would only stagnate because certain forces would make it happen. For God's sakes, man, don't you realize that you are starting to echo a few 'skeptic' talking points here? Christopher Booker and many of the others keep claiming that majorly reducing emissions will harm the economy, too:

"The fact is that there is no one in the world who can explain how we could cut our emissions by four fifths without shutting down virtually all our existing economy. What carries this even further into the higher realms of lunacy is that such a Quixotic gesture would do nothing to halt the world’s fast-rising CO2 emissions, already up 40 per cent since 1990. There is no way for us to prevent the world’s CO2 emissions from doubling by 2100"

And that's just Booker.

Joe you seem to be caught up in a desire to maintain your consumption and addressing the cooking of the planet at the same time. The avenues for your success unfortunately do not exist at this time, and we are out of time. Cut back consumption now, or pay the price of 4-6 degrees C, probably more by the end of the century.

You yourself seem to be caught up in the fantasy that if everybody in the West just consumed less, we'd be okay. No, CRH, my avenues of success are not only existent, but doable. And not only will just less consumption be not nearly enough to be helpful without alternative energy implementation, but there will definitely be ways for TPTB to exploit that to their advantage.

Right now we are feeling the effects of less than 2 degrees rise with more already baked in.

No, nothing more than 2 degrees is baked in yet.

And you want to continue to do, what has provided the heat, status quo and rising, c-o-n-s-u-m-p-t-i-o-n.

No, because the status quo will be just fine with nothing more than less consumption. In fact, it just gives the 1% more a carte-blanche to do what they want......including more wars for oil.

Perhaps you haven't seen this yet, but an excellent article by Skeptical Science not only debunks the "emissions reductions will kill the economy!" garbage but it also provides examples of JUST a few things we can do here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm

C'mon man, wake up, please.

1. I am not Booker, so discard your straw man.
2. Running out of time, hell yes look at the tipping points we have already passed.
3. In the last 45 years how much progress have you seen in moving toward a carbon free civilization? Hell politically we can't even pass a 1% global annual emissions reduction, socially we can't get the majority to recycle, use mass transit, or buy less toys.
4. Renewables cannot come close to supporting industry, and without industry your precious growth crumbles.
5. The economy most certainly would stagnate with only a 2 -3 % annual reduction in CO2 emissions, it is why governments refuse to pass any binding resolutions providing limits.
6. It is not me who is caught up in the fantasy our problems are solved if the West reduces consumption. That is total bullshit and you know it from what I have posted before. It tells me you are playing a game, and that very soon you will be playing alone. It has always been my position since long before your first post on this forum, that we are in for a die back from the population over shoot of the planet's carrying capacity, and that situation is exacerbated by climate change from anthropogenic GHGs. Nothing will ever again be the same for humans on this planet. It is you who consistently infers, incorrectly, that all will be well if we only shift our priorities and develop green energy in the coming decades. Your claims of my fantasy are a very weak straw man that misrepresents all the posts I have written, and destroys your own credibility.
7. You consistently blame the 1% for all the problems while sticking your head in the sand about the other 99% consuming and polluting without regard. These are your relatives, your neighbors, and your country men, yet you can no more change what they are doing than change your own consuming reality. But instead of admitting your situation, you want to invent your way out of your reality. So, don't tell me I need to wake up.
8. Baked in emissions have already past 2% an will continue to rise as the tipping points already past continue to influence warming. Get used to it.
9. Save your booker and other spam, you are sure to need it with the future you most certainly have helped to create, and help to sustain. Chow down. Talk about living a fairy tale.

1. I am not Booker, so discard your straw man.

Didn't say you were. What I'm trying to say, though, is that we gotta stop falling into these traps because it really does hurt us in the long run.

2. Running out of time, hell yes look at the tipping points we have already passed.

And?

3. In the last 45 years how much progress have you seen in moving toward a carbon free civilization? Hell politically we can't even pass a 1% global annual emissions reduction, socially we can't get the majority to recycle, use mass transit, or buy less toys.

4. Renewables cannot come close to supporting industry, and without industry your precious growth crumbles.

I'd like to refer back to the S.S. article.

5. The economy most certainly would stagnate with only a 2 -3 % annual reduction in CO2 emissions, it is why governments refuse to pass any binding resolutions providing limits.

See what I mean? These are traps we have to avoid falling into.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-too-hard.htm

6.It is you who consistently infers, incorrectly, that all will be well if we only shift our priorities and develop green energy in the coming decades. Your claims of my fantasy are a very weak straw man that misrepresents all the posts I have written, and destroys your own credibility.

No. I have stated, in fact, that we do need to permanently shift away from dirty energy & towards clean energy. All I have said is that less consumption just won't do much good by itself, as noble as such efforts may be.

7. You consistently blame the 1% for all the problems while sticking your head in the sand about the other 99% consuming and polluting without regard. These are your relatives, your neighbors, and your country men, yet you can no more change what they are doing than change your own consuming reality. But instead of admitting your situation, you want to invent your way out of your reality. So, don't tell me I need to wake up.

I'm not really trying to deflect ALL blame from people. There are some people who really are ignorant enough to remain inefficient just to stick it to "dem librulz", etc. And frankly, many of them can't be helped much. But many people simply aren't informed enough about the issues, and once they are, most will do what they can to make their lives more efficient, such as trying to use less gas, less electricity, etc.

But more than anything, we DO face a conspiracy in the form of Big Oil/Coal/Gas lobbyists, and people like the Koch Bros. who are just so obsessed with their profits that they'll do anything to keep the cash flowing. And once we get that out of the way, it will be significantly less difficult to move towards a better world. We will have jumped a major hurdle.

8. Baked in emissions have already past 2% an will continue to rise as the tipping points already past continue to influence warming. Get used to it.

TBH, we really don't know that at this point. Could it happen? Yes. But is it? As far as the evidence says, around 2*C is probably baked in at this point barring carbon sequestration, but not really much more than that.

9. Save your booker and other spam, you are sure to need it with the future you most certainly have helped to create, and help to sustain.

I'm sorry you think that.

OK, I dunno. It's very possible we may have misunderstood each other here, and if so, perhaps I should apologize, though I think any further discussion is probably best relegated to PMs and such.

Life could be simpler, more resilient, healthier, and more joyful. But Growth is the new God

If we do that, then those who are causing the problems for the 99% of us will just move elsewhere.

Every person is using too much energy. In fact, when the 1% hoards, it tends to reduce overall energy consumption of a population. The more autonomous individuals in a population with the ability to command energy seems to increase the amount of energy commanded (rather than fewer individuals with higher concentrations of it, known as supply side economics).

Our entire society needs to learn to live with less, in a less complex and more locally dependent system.

Our entire society needs to learn to live with less, in a less complex and more locally dependent system.

It doesn't have necessarily to be that way. I'm sure the Republicans would love that, though. Less for the 99% and more for the 1% and the oil companies(and the military industrial complex, I might add!).

Its disproven and completely bullshit. When there are a few individuals with high concentrations of wealth, they cannot and will not spend it (commanding energy) at the same velocity as many autonomous actors with low concentrations of wealth. We have shown this time and time again.

The wealthier and larger the middle-class is the faster the GDP will grow (and technology for that matter); and GDP is an abstract measurement of energy commanded in a population.

Climate change is where traditional 20th Neo-Classical economics gets really muddy and really depressing. You wake up and realize one day that everything you've spent years advocating for is killing the planet at an incredibly fast rate, and a decrepit world of economic injustice actually gives us just a couple more years. Its bizarre.

The arguments of the 20th century was about disparity vs equality, civil rights vs totalitarianism, the commons vs private enterprise. Right now, we are in a crisis and everyone is still seeing the world through these noble, but irrelevant, shades. The question of the 21st Century is survival vs extinction.

Why did you even bring this up?

"The question of the 21st Century is survival vs extinction."

Not quite for us humans(though sadly true for many other lifeforms, though). Here's a better way of framing it: It's a question of how difficult life, and it will depend on what we do; if we do nothing, feedbacks will ensure that we hit at least 5-6, maybe 7*C by 2100, and maybe a few more another few centuries after that. And even if we do do our best, we could still hit somewhere around 3-4*C by 2100 if most or all the worst case feedbacks come to light, but it wouldn't be quite as disastrous as 6*C.

Thats basically supply-side economics; the notion that large, but few, concentrations of wealth result in a greater velocity of wealth (iow energy) amongst a population (thereby raising the wealth of the entire population).

In reality, more hoarding and disparity throttles economic growth and energy consumption, thereby creating a bizarre contradiction among liberals who fight for climate change.

Im not saying economic justice and energy conservation cannot occur in tandem, but showing that current economic models put the two at odds when examining just the notion of disparity.

BTW, I think life would be pretty damn hard with these predicted temperatures. When droughts set in and rivers become too warm to incubate fish (that bring in nutrients from the oceans), there will be nothing to eat for at least half the worlds population; ecosystems are beginning to breakdown already. It is not going to be pretty.

It's very possible that you could be right about the 1% hoarding energy actually resulting in less usage overall. I would actually hope so, but TBH, I'm not at all optimistic about that, especially not if the Military-Industrial Complex is still alive and well mid-century or so.

Im not saying economic justice and energy conservation cannot occur in tandem, but showing that current economic models put the two at odds when examining just the notion of disparity.

The problem is, which ones? There's still some good stuff to read, but there's also lots of crap flooding out there, too. And when somebody like Christopher Booker, just another anti-AGW skeptic keeps claiming that reducing Co2 emissions will necessarily virtually shut down the global economy, I gotta be honest with you man, that sets off some red flags in my mind.

It is indeed possible that there may be a few negative short-term economic effects, particularly in regions where dirty energy dominates, but the long-term benefits will be enormous.

BTW, I think life would be pretty damn hard with these predicted temperatures. When droughts set in and rivers become too warm to incubate fish (that bring in nutrients from the oceans), there will be nothing to eat for at least half the worlds population; ecosystems are beginning to breakdown already. It is not going to be pretty.

I probably wouldn't quite go that far, but yeah, we can both agree that it doesn't paint a pretty picture regardless.

Why is shutting down the global economy such a terrible thing? There are other ways to live that do not involve buying plastic shit from Wal-Mart.

I probably wouldn't quite go that far

Why not? Do you think crops will handle this mess forever, even when drought pushes temperatures past the levels at which photosynthesis works? Do you think there is good topsoil under the tundra? As for the fish...checkout http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/arctic99/reports/salmon.html In 15-25 years, the salmon (the main deliverers of nitrogen to my local forests) will no longer run. No more. Right now I could eat for a year off of a week of work on my little creek-like river, and in two decades there will be almost no life there. This is not science fiction.

Honestly, there are probably those that can explain why far better than I can, but for one thing, it'd be guaranteed to catalyze a shitload of wars, particularly in places like Central Africa and the Middle East. And not to mention China, whose economy would begin imploding within weeks of a total loss of U.S. trade.

Do you think crops will handle this mess forever, even when drought pushes temperatures past the levels at which photosynthesis works?

Not well in that scenario, I'd imagine, but then again, the Great Plains was once largely desert anyway. And the summers of 1934 & 1936 were about on the level of 2012 in terms of heat alone, and crops didn't undergo a major die-off then. But we are indeed at great risk of seeing a repeat of the Dust Bowl era and nobody wants that.

And as for the fate of the salmon? Nobody can say for certain. The Greenpeace scenario could happen, or maybe not.

It will either be organized or force. We need to get our shit together now if we have any hope (besides greenie false hope).

As for the fish, it just isn't Greenpeace's scenario; its science and studies are included there. Eggs do not incubate if water gets to hot! That is a fact. With even modest rises in global temperature, its still over. In addition we have loss of habitat from acidifaction and and lower oxygen content in the water from warming. As I said, this isn't science fiction and extinction is already underway for these fish due to climate change.

Even now my local populations are threatened. We used to have 5 species run, and now only 4 forever. This year it was 3 due to the drought destroying the run of a 5-year cycle species (another 4 years of drought, and this species will be gone as well).

Sorry to say, but organized economic decline absolutely won't work. In fact, I don't think many would want to know what could possibly go wrong so I'll spare you the details.

If there's any one type of organized decline that will work for sure, it'll be population management.

And for your rather unprovable statement regarding 'false hopes'; I betcha this is what Rachel Carson had to hear when she hoped for better air quality and more regulations on pesticides. And it's certainly what people like Pacala, Sokolow, and Sinclair have to deal with whenever they offer viable ways to mitigate climate change today.

We didn't make progress by needless handwringing, NoOneMan. And that's what some around here are doing, sadly.

I, personally, don't have much of an ability to effect things right now, given my situation. But there are many people out there, whether scientific minds like Peter Sinclair, or average people, you know, guys like our very own A Geek Named Bob, who are doing whatever they can to help contribute to a better world and I applaud them for this.

There are other viable options to choosing to die in a Hummer or a Prius

If we don't do it voluntarily, it will happen anyway. And since there isn't a chance in hell we will do it voluntarily, we'll get our chance in hell.

More people are having their "Oh shit!" moments in public now. A little late, but it is nice to see people waking the fuck up.

Although emissions reduction is a highly noble project, it won't be enough these days. We are going to NEED to consider & implement a permanent switchover to alternative fuels such as hemp, and power sources like solar, geothermal, etc., as well as carbon sequestration.

And the sad truth is, just consuming less will not only not do nearly as well as some might hope in the short term, but will come to naught in the long term, especially under a business-as-usual scenario, and possibly even if emissions reductions are successful.

We didn't even do it on purpose and it had a large short-term impact. Yes, consuming less will in fact help in the short term, and the very point is that smart people are seeking to abandon the "business-as-usual" scenario (which is a precedent to organized decline).

In a normal situation, a lack of consumption wouldn't have done much at all in the short term and will do SQUAT in the long term. Because all Exxon, Chevron, etc. have to do is just move their energy out of the West and into China, India, etc. where nobody wants to THINK about such. Sad but it's very, very true.












'

As I try to reiterate, the only way to organize decline is to ensure that all of humanity abandons infinite growth. Not all societies have shared this common value among industrial civilization.

If you think this is a pipe dream, quit. Kiss your ass goodbye. Its the only way. If you cannot convince the world to give up an unattainable, impossible dream of accomplishing infinite growth, we will be extinct sooner than later. Its no more realistic that we will develop magic green energy to fuel infinite growth, stop deforestation and never touch the black stuff again.

To grow infinitely, with no bounds or road map in sight. Nothing has ever been pre-defined as "enough". Production cannot end without collapsing civilization and its economic system.

On a very basic scale, for every few joules of work you do, you are issued a note of debt. In order to redeem this note of debt, an equal reciprocal amount of work must be done to honor it somewhere in the world (or you would have fewer products to buy, leading to inflation).

Hence, up until this point in civilization, all previously work must be matched with an equal amount of work done at sometime in the future. As we have more energy and technology, we can match previous work fast and faster. So at that future point, we then must match all previous work plus that reciprocal work again (resulting in 4X the work done to honor it all). This ingrained system demands perpetual exponential growth forever or it will lead to a collapse.

There can be no end, no satisfaction, no roadmap because very basically, the mathematic fundamentals of our economy do not allow us to say: "alright, we are done producing and advancing. Take all your money and go home."

The assessment of our physical situation is realistic. The flaw is that everyone is talking about solutions while being utterly unrealistic about the potential.

The first comment following the article on Resilience.org says this:

From what I've read, this is a realistic assessment of the situation we are now in. There is no backing out of it, except for some small proportion of the 0.6C that will be brought about by our continued BAU emissions to 2050. Given the magnitude of the problem, the tiny difference that even draconian action would make, and the uncertainties involved, the only sure bet is that almost nothing will be done within the next 40 years. Politics and human nature will simply not support anything even remotely resembling a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem.

So we're looking at 3.8 to 5.0C of warming, even before the methane feedbacks get underway for real. When they do, we're looking at what - 6.0 to 10.0?

All this talk of solutions is hopeless twaddle. We're so done it's really not funny any more.

Sure we are fucked by 2050 in terms of the environment, food production and the global economy. But if we did undergo an organized decline NOW, then at least local communities would have the funds and direction to begin to develop regional resilience. If governments directed (and funded) municipalities to strengthen local dependence and prepare for independent sustenance in a 10C warmer world, the world will be a whole lot more pleasant when the shit really hits the fan. Otherwise, we face famine and chaos going forward.

Right now we are told to keep our noses to the grindstone and keep working for a future that isn't going to happen (creating existential issues among those that see it). Every person is wasting energy and time they cannot get back, which is not building a future for the planet and humanity. The main reason is that people will not give up on the notion of modern civilization until it is plucked from them.

The people in charge must know the truth. Where is the leadership and vision? Why can't we talk about resilience and quality of life instead of ipads?

Even if an organized decline does not immediately avert disaster, it could potentially make humans more resilient in the face of disaster. It can help them produce food when it will no longer be shipped from the breadbasket.

We are facing both a breakdown in the environment and in modern civilization. Why are we whistling past the graveyard? Why are we doing nothing, promising everything, and wasting time? Why not transition immediately to a sustainable way of life that one day, if not by 2050, will actually be in balance with nature?

We need to begin to live each day like the next will be without power and food rolling in.

Every realistic idea I've seen so far founders on the rocks of political impossibility. In democracies leaders need the consent of the governed. Any leader that proposes a realistic solution will lose that consent. Leaders who promise pie in the sky will gain consent instead, and will be given power.

The only way such draconian policies could be implemented is by a strong, authoritarian, central government. Unfortunately, that kind of government tends to be adamantly opposed to the wholesale distribution of power to local levels.

We will not give up hope, no matter how unrealistic it may be - it must be snatched away from us first. Ultimately, that's why we're screwed.

If the next few years are far worse than the last few, in terms of natural disasters, people may be far more willing to "sacrifice" their illusionary wealth (that provides no happiness) for a shot at existence. One thing that must be done in the meantime is to chip away at the cornucopian green promise of absolute infinite growth and environmental balance (its just bullshit). People need to be bold with the idea that a new (not worse or better) way of life needs to be adapted immediately or there is no shot.

I am not sure if its likely to change or not. Normally Im quite the pessimist. And honestly, Im pretty well set whether it does or not (completely sustenance is easy for me & my family). The earth will bounce back regardless. Its so strange how we have this instinct to reach out to other humans, even knowing that our own ability to thrive thus far is what endangers our own future ability to exist.

Social change generally happens in response to impacts, not in anticipation of them. There will be impacts, so there will be change. What direction will the change be in? I hope we will suddenly become a wise, aware, forward-looking, altruistic species, but I'm not very optimistic on that score. Our track record from the past 10,000 years is not encouraging. We're far more likely to fragment into a large number of regions, provinces, principalities and city-states, each playing a more and more vicious form of beggar thy neighbor.

Something very strange happened to the human species when we developed agriculture.

Behaviorally speaking, humans appear to be essentially two different species pre-ag and post-ag. It appears that before agriculture we lived within limits, accommodated ourselves to our environment, and didn't apply much innovative horsepower to our way of life. Then in the blink of an eye, we became what looks like another species entirely - one that rejects limits, molds the environment to our own needs, treats everything but us as a resource, and innovates like crazy.

The more I look at the period around the development of "totalitarian agriculture" the stranger it seems. Our behaviour changed so radically the shift feels more genetic than cultural. So much so that that people like Jay Hansen can say our current behaviour is genetically mediated. He can even retroactively edit pre-agricultural human history to accord with that view - and very few people object.

What the hell happened to cause such an enormous break in our behavior? It seems to be wrapped up in the mystery of why we developed agriculture - maybe it's even the same question. But I have yet to see a satisfactory explanation of either why we did it or for the drastic break in values and behavior that went along with it.

A decent answer to that question would seem to be at the heart of the conundrum, and might give us some clues as to how to approach the coming shift.

Without agriculture wealth could not be accumulated except within a tribe. Migration to summer and winter locations of comfort and bounty was needed, and only wealth that could be carried could be maintained. Then someone realizes through cultivation migration can be minimized, and later territory is claimed, eventually leading to private property, and on and on.

Agriculture was a solution to the accumulation of wealth that could not be carried on the person.

Got to go, I'll check back later to see how crazy this was perceived.

That brings up more questions, though:

• Where did the idea of "wealth" come from? We got along without it fine for 200,000+ years.
  
• Why did we decide that the accumulation of wealth was a good thing?
  
• Why, after 200,000+ years, did we finally get tired of migrating? Did our feet just get sore?
  
• Why did this shift happen nearly simultaneously (within a 1,000 to 2,000 year span, anyway) in virtually every part of the world no matter how widely separated? Travelling agriculture salesmen?

The reason I'm asking is that without the transformation of values and behaviour that agriculture precipitated, we wouldn't be in this mess today. Further, if agriculture dies out as a means of subsistence (due to climate change and resource exhaustion) , will we drop back to our older, more humane values? Or will we bring our more recent values (aggression, competition, selfishness and alienation) with us into a resource-poor world? If it's the latter, what does that imply for the long-term prospects of our species (and all the others with whom we share the joint)?

Ask some pre-agriculturists what wealth is, and they might respond:

A healthy stream
A freshly killed animal
Many sons
Good weather

How can some people value the accumulation of stuff if their way of life excludes accumulation as necessary or even good?

Some theories state the first "wealth" was really just seeds, and giving them out to new farmers was the first debt that in turned drove the accumulation of more seeds for the following year. This is the most satisfactory answer I have seen for the foundation of economics, as well as civilization IMO. If this is the case, wealth was only created once agriculture practices were in place and the granary was created.

Firstly, it is clear that humans have instincts that promote beneficial behaviors that help them survive. We instinctually eat to store energy (creating minor euphoria) and breed to spread genetics (creating large euphoria), even in the absence of culture. Likewise, we have negative instinctual reactions to make us not engage in certain behaviors. Studies have shown that newborns avoid heights and have negative reactions to pictures of mutilation. There are simply residual feelings we have that show us how to live from birth.

I posit that there is distinct, common forgotten instinct that we have stopped listening to (but its still there); an instinct that tells humans how to belong to nature and live sustainably in harmony with the natural systems. Perhaps its the same instinct that governs how animals behave, as we can observe that they only take what they need to survive efficiently and propagate (if they did not, they would die off--thereby showing how this basic drive could be evolutionarily selected). In fact, it would follow that any animal that is alive would have this instinct or their overshoot and habit destruction would have eliminated them.

Now, it is proven the viewing nature scenes (or being in nature) elicits euphoric responses in the human brain and encourages feelings of harmony and community. This is also labeled, in studies, as a "spiritual" feeling for lack of a better description; whatever we call "it", most humans feel it in nature--being there elicits a unique neurological response that can induce behavior. You can also easily induce this same "spiritual" type of neurological response with LSD and psilocybin: you as an individual fades, and you belong in harmony to a whole, which you wish to promote and revel in. It is this great positive reinforcing response to being in nature that promotes us to act beneficially to it, as a member of it.

Now, to bring this back to human development, we didn't just decide to stop listening to an instinct (as that is nearly impossible). Instead, I believe that at some point in human development something manifested that hijacked this instinct and dictated to humans that it didn't mean what they thought it did; namely, religion. Religion has systematically tried to destroy many human instincts in an attempt to edify our "souls" and abandon our natural, limiting bodies. Just a single look at ascetic behaviors that have had humans fasting, refusing sex and embracing pain clearly illustrate this tendency. Then it is no great leap to suggest that the neurological response we call "spritiality" has been reinterpreted by religion so that humans no longer act on this instinct to be in harmony with nature; instead, it is now viewed as a powerful human signal used to transcend the very bounds of nature.

We know that the original agriculturalists were not simply farmers; they were also zealous warriors and priests. But their religious practices were distinctive in that they were not pantheists or animists, but rather, they were monotheists. Agriculturalists not only demonstrated a mastery of nature (rather than being confined by it), they developed a new-found belief system that solved any cognitive dissonance a harmonious "spiritual" instinct would have caused. To be an agriculturalist, you have to not only cultivate nature, but the very nature of mankind. And as history has shown, those who refused to embrace the very notion that *they* owned the earth were systematically destroyed.

Humans didn't change genetically. Controlling nature allowed a few assholes with a bad idea to spread it or kill everyone who refused, so that they could obtain more energy today to fuel their growth tomorrow (forever). It wasn't the moment they planted that first seed (as native Americans were agro-forestry farmers too), but rather, it was the moment they abandoned their instinctual feelings in order to reconcile their cognitive dissonance (they wanted to know why they were an exception and the explanation of God giving the earth to them seemed like the best answer). Once the early agriculturalists realized they controlled nature, a belief system manifested to allow them to continue and control the sustainability instinct that would have stopped them. From there, its history.

So you speak of moving forward, and my answer to that is for humanity to once again get in touch with their instincts to live sustainably, in harmony with nature. If we can accomplish this (which involves a mass rejection of modern religion & culture, and perhaps even a resistance to atheism which can repudiate a necessary Pantheistic outlook), we are one step close to accepting a simpler world and seeing the value of nature without iPads. Humans must embrace their instinctual feelings of harmony with the natural system and begin to see themselves as a part of an incredible and awesome universe that we are not the center of. Even if there isn't more in the sense of the "divine", our brains are prime to see the universe in this manner so we should embrace it in the name of existence.

Or perhaps I've jumped down the rabbit hole one too many times on my drugged-up outdoor fishing excursions. I've just transitioned to a mental state where everything I have need & enjoy is out there and not a part of this artificial system of unnatural growth, and these are the conclusions I've come to in a few years of getting back in touch

Nice post!

I agree with the basic idea that instinctual behaviour got overwritten by cultural behaviour. That's the premise that Daniel Quinn explores in his novels "Ishmael" and "The Story of B".

However I will take some convincing on the idea that religion did it. The reason for my skepticism is that monotheistic religion post-dated agriculture by 7,000 years or so. The spread of religion was the same sort of "all at once, everywhere" event as the origin of agriculture, that happened only about 2500 years ago. Before that most farmers, warriors and rulers were happily polytheistic or pantheistic. Most religions were either divine gender partnerships or even centered on the feminine, representing the procreative aspect of the universe - the Earth Mother that brought forth all those wonderful plants they were farming. Riane Eisler's book "The Chalice and the Blade" goes into this, and how and when the shift happened to patriarchal monotheism.

And I completely agree about acid and mushrooms. I'm a bit of a '60s chauvinist - I firmly believe that some acquaintance with those magical substances is necessary in order to fully "get it".

I was always under the impression that the agriculturalist movement that evolved into civilization (the domination of nature) occurred at relatively the same time and place as early monotheism. Do you have any quick links about earlier agriculturalists who were expansionists (and yet also pantheistsic)?

I don't exclude polytheism as being part of the problem, or even all forms of animism. Basically, its how religion answers the fundamental human question of "where is our place in the universe"? Do we belong to the universe or does it belong to us? Pantheism provides a single answer to this, which promotes harmony and sustainability, where as there is some variability in other early belief systems.

It isn't that I think religion "did" it entirely, as religion is a manifestation of how people live (and we see religions are changed to congrue with society as it develops). It think that people dominated nature and lived out of sync with their instincts, and naturally belief systems evolve to "fix" these problems and explain them, and in turn, fuel them. And it needs some explaining, because once you "feel" and recognize this instinct, its hard moving forward, along with the unnatural world.

Thanks for the book rec! Im a young guy but trying to figure out as much as I can these days.

The Turkish town of Çatalhöyük flourished between 7500 and 5700 BC, for about 2,000 years after the invention of agriculture in the area. Here's a description of the religious archaeology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_religion#Religion_at_the_neolithic_revolution

a little later on the article says,


My take on it is that the rise of what we think of as "religion" was completely independent of the development of agriculture. No doubt religious and spiritual practices became more organized as people settled in larger groups, but the appearance of monolithic, hierarchical organizations and especially monotheism came much later. Rome after all was still polytheistic at the dawn of Christianity.

The organizational aspects of modern religion make it a fearsome imperial force, but those tendencies were already visible in agrarian societies like Assyria, Rome and even the Aztecs who survived as an agrarian empire with an essentially pantheistic religion until the God-fearing Spaniards arrived on the scene.

Oh, and I'm an old guy who is also just now trying to figure it out. You've sure made a good start!

were great stimulation for the mind. Pure brain food. Thank You both.

I guess I may have come off as a bit abrasive at times, and I apologize for that. At least it was somewhat productive, though.

But if we allow it to overtake us then we will surely fail because nothing will get done and the worst-case scenarios are far more likely to come to light.

The earth will bounce back regardless.

Yes, and possibly far quicker than many would suspect. This old planet's far more resilient than we give her credit for sometimes; after all, disasters appreciably worse than global warming have happened before. Hell, the K/T event practically dwarfed AGW on the scale of Armageddon. And even after a 7-mile wide asteroid caused enormous destruction, life bounced back.

or civilization for that matter.

BTW, its incredible to think that after billions of years of evolution, so many of these highly efficient, specialized, remarkable (from a human standpoint) genetic creations will be wiped out forever because humans wanted iPads

AGW, even in the worst plausible scenarios, by itself, won't be enough to wipe out humanity. Remember, our ancestors did survive an event whose effects were not only worse but rather sudden as well, leaving no time to prepare for possible impacts. It was Toba, 72k years ago: It hit us something terrible but we lived thru it, about 100,000 strong(though out of something like 20 million).

The question is, how well will civilization fare and how much rebuilding and restructuring will need to be done to cope with the damage?

The resources of the planet were entirely undepleted. So once we got out feet under us in the next 50 or 60,000 years, we had all these raw materials waiting for us. Not so the next time around. The rebuild will be very, very slow in comparison to the post-Toba period. Once we have finished eating the last songbird and burning all the furniture, there will be very little to rebuild with. No coal, no oil, no concentrated copper, mined-out ore deposits. Basically there will be wood and rocks. Fortunately the next stone age won't end because we run out of stones...

And? That may be true to a point, but it doesn't change the fact that we lost all but 100,000 of our ancestors, and the change was so totally sudden and so severe, on top of that, that few had any time or means to prepare.

We are pretty darn fortunate these days, all things considered. It took human society thousands and thousands of years to rebuild after Toba. One thing we can be grateful for is that that won't be the case for AGW. That does not, btw, undercut by any means the unfortunate seriousness of what we face.

But if we allow hype & hysteria to overtake us, then guess what? We risk getting nothing done. Our enemies will be able to screw us over even more; they will be able to use the self-appointed climate Cassandras as scapegoats to tar the rest of us and in fact, that has already happened to an extent(before you accuse me of throwing out blame, in this case, I'm not).

You say, "One thing we can be grateful for is that that won't be the case for AGW." Since the next 40 years are going to see the collision of a lot of human-caused calamities of which AGW is just one, how do you know we'll be able to rebuild faster than we did after Toba? You don't. You have made a statement of personal faith.

We are facing the possibility that the planet will lose its ability to produce food in significant quantities. The oil is pretty much gone. The minerals are mined out. The oceans are turning acidic. The weather is becoming progressively more inhospitable. We are losing the global economy.

In the face if this reality, the dream of rebuilding civilization like a Six Million Dollar Man - "Better ... stronger ... faster" - faces a hurdle or two. I have no problem if people still want to try and leap the hurdles, but minimizing their size and number doesn't help anything as far as I can see. There may be other things some people want to do, and having you talk them into your dream is at least as bad as them trying to talk you out of it.

You don't. You have made a statement of personal faith.

Well, no offense meant, but you kinda did too. Only thing is, though, at least mine is far more realistic.

We are facing the possibility that the planet will lose its ability to produce food in significant quantities. The oil is pretty much gone. The minerals are mined out. The oceans are turning acidic. The weather is becoming progressively more inhospitable.

Yes, we are facing trouble. But let's not go too far here. Things may not get much better in many of our lifetimes, that is true, but this is really only on a human timescale. Civilization may need to fundamentally restructure but it isn't going to die out altogether, at least not thanks to AGW alone, even in the worst case scenario.

And, Paul, you did say that, if I may quote you directly: "What may look like collapse can also be seen as the sweeping away of what is here now in order to make room for the emergence of the new." At least that we can agree on.

(or avert disaster), and yet they cannot even organize a slight reduction in green house gases after decades of working on it at the pinnacle of their development. You are a classic cornucopiasts, and a large impediment to moving on to a resilient, sustainable world after this cancer is violently removed (forgive the hyperbole).

Our enemies will be able to screw us over even more

That is the 20th Century mentally peaking through. Its dinosaur thinking. What enemies? Billions of lives hang in the balance facing very probable famine, and you want to motivate us with war talk? "Enemies" are a very tough sell when civilization is destroying the planet.

"and yet they cannot even organize a slight reduction in green house gases after decades of working on it at the pinnacle of their development."

Unfortunately, we can thank decades of corruption, and Big Energy agitprop, amongst other things.

"That is the 20th Century mentally peaking through. Its dinosaur thinking. What enemies? Billions of lives hang in the balance facing very probable famine, and you want to motivate us with war talk? "Enemies" are a very tough sell when civilization is destroying the planet."

Of course, it's true that our problems are significantly more complex than just black-and-white. Of course, I haven't ever denied this. But we do face the obstruction of those who wish to impede progress, such as the Koch Bros., and those who aid them like the Watts Up With That guy, "Lord" Monckton, Christopher "We can't act on global warming because it'd kill the economy!" Booker, etc. Remove that obstacle, and it'll make our problems at least somewhat less difficult. And there are many good people working to make our hopes reality as much as possible; just look at our very own A Geek Named Bob, who's devoted much of his spare time to helping mitigate the problem, for example.

"We can't act on global warming because it'd kill the economy!"

"We will act on global warming without killing the economy!"

Guess which one is short-sighted and which one is lying. Either way, both promote endless planet killing growth, so their petty little arguments bore me.

Growth isn't killing the planet by itself, though. Guess what is, though? Inefficiency. Yes, that's right.....inefficiency.

And if we can couple both increased efficiency and more managed population growth, then we will have solved an important part of the puzzle.

If it wasn't for these two problems, economic growth wouldn't be much of an issue at all.

More resources tends to end up with civilization increasing exploitation. Regardless, increasing efficiency has thermodynamic limits and requires great human innovation as well as investment, perhaps to the point of diminishing returns. But nevermind all that. The horn has plenty.

The first is that this view isn't necessarily pessimism. For me it's more like hoping for something better but entirely different. What may look like collapse can also be seen as the sweeping away of what is here now in order to make room for the emergence of the new.

The second thought is that pessimism can be very, very valuable - but only if you dive deeply enough into it, and work through it completely so as to arrive at my first thought - the awareness that collapse of the old is identical with renewal. It's called "The Dark Night of the Soul".

Realistic? No. Certainly, we could hit somewhere around 6-7*C under a business-as-usual, nothing-gets-done scenario by 2100, with ALL feedbacks mind you, and maybe 9-10*C in another century or two, which would itself be disastrous. But 10*C by 2100 in the best scenario, in this universe? Not gonna happen.

Politics.....will simply not support anything even remotely resembling a solution commensurate with the scale of the problem.

Only if we allow it to be so.

and even if we maintain in the 6-7*C range, it will no longer be civilization, but rather roaming migration for sustenance. Agriculture can not perform at those levels, the seas are dead of all that is useful to humans, and climates have changed so fast the specie extinction is rampant, especially in regards to locales. Look what is happening to the ash in europe. Now the ash tree won't be extinct just yet, but they won't be growing where they were just a generation ago.

Bank on the business as usual scenario, ...

I won't(not the gambling type anyhow; in this case, it's kinda like betting Romney fairly wins 300 EVs this year, get what I'm saying? ). Too many people are starting to become truly aware of the problems that we face. A little late? Probably, yeah, depending on one's point of view. But certainly better a tad late than never at all, and Big Energy can't B.S. their way out of things forever. Another thing that many people don't seem to take into account is the near-certainty that the Chinese bubble will explode sometime in the near future, possibly as early as this next decade, and when that happens, bye-bye old Chinese elite and industries! Same thing could happen in India as well.

and even if we maintain in the 6-7*C range, it will no longer be civilization, but rather roaming migration for sustenance. Agriculture can not perform at those levels, the seas are dead of all that is useful to humans, and climates have changed so fast the specie extinction is rampant, especially in regards to locales.

A bit of an exaggeration in parts, don't you think? Should also probably mention that no living creature on Earth even thought of agriculture until we humans tried it.

No I don't think that is an exaggeration, and you are wearing very thin in credibility at this point, so I bid you farewell tonight, good luck.

Thanks for a fascinating discussion - backwards & forwards but remaining polite & interesting!

That was a very pleasant interlude to my usually depressing DU catchup this morning!