Baltimorei

[Gregg]

From Wikipedia, "Jared Diamond proposes five interconnected causes of collapse that may reinforce each other: non-sustainable exploitation of resources, climate changes, diminishing support from friendly societies, hostile neighbors, and inappropriate attitudes for change." I've always thought Diamond's theory on collapse made a lot of sense. If true, the USA is hitting on four of five and possibly only saved from the fifth thanks to the favorable geography that gives us only two actual neighbors.

As far as tribes that survived for hundreds or even thousands of years, I think they came to appreciate the value of everything on that list. Climate change is perhaps the biggest stretch there since humankind has only recently developed the ability to either cause or exacerbate large scale climate shifts. Indigenous people from around the world knew the value of preserving resources and establishing mutually beneficial relationships (even if that meant nothing more than not killing each other off). They would never have anguished over catherine's 'last salmon' because they would have never knowingly been in that position. We know better, but still insist on charging forward and maintaining the status quo. We are far too egocentric to see that we are part of a larger whole and instead act as though everything on Earth exists just for us. At some point we will be reminded it doesn't work that way.

[catherine]

Unbelievable, Jane: money that has no purpose other than to accumulate, while your "family" (fellow citizens) fallow in the sun. So much for trickle-down economics.

[catherine]

From Wikipedia, "Jared Diamond proposes five interconnected causes of collapse that may reinforce each other: non-sustainable exploitation of resources, climate changes, diminishing support from friendly societies, hostile neighbors, and inappropriate attitudes for change." I've always thought Diamond's theory on collapse made a lot of sense. If true, the USA is hitting on four of five and possibly only saved from the fifth thanks to the favorable geography that gives us only two actual neighbors.

As far as tribes that survived for hundreds or even thousands of years, I think they came to appreciate the value of everything on that list. Climate change is perhaps the biggest stretch there since humankind has only recently developed the ability to either cause or exacerbate large scale climate shifts. Indigenous people from around the world knew the value of preserving resources and establishing mutually beneficial relationships (even if that meant nothing more than not killing each other off). They would never have anguished over catherine's 'last salmon' because they would have never knowingly been in that position. We know better, but still insist on charging forward and maintaining the status quo. We are far too egocentric to see that we are part of a larger whole and instead act as though everything on Earth exists just for us. At some point we will be reminded it doesn't work that way.

+1, Gregg. And the authors of Why Nations Fail also stated that "extractive" systems are most likely to fail. Are we still an inclusive political system? Or or we extractive?

[catherine]

can we have an economy the doesn't destroy the biosphere?….
An economy based on such a framework almost certainly wouldn't be the existing economic system.

Derrick Jensen maintains that we ultimately, and inevitably, will go back to a primitive way of life and "reset" our impact on the environment. Not sure I'm that extreme--that's why I think we can modify our values, and figure out how to meld the best of both worlds. Maybe highly localized, community-centric villages, bound together with high-tech communication capabilities? Production based on needs, and value based on contribution to the local quality of life? Not just consumption for the sake of "bigger and better"? Maybe make greed and envy as odious as gluttony and sloth are now? Think about it--who are more vilified in this culture: the people who slave away to accumulate more, or the "fat and lazy" of our society? We make heroes out of the former and pariahs out of the latter.

[Alan]

Think about it--who are more vilified in this culture: the people who slave away to accumulate more, or the "fat and lazy" of our society? We make heroes out of the former and pariahs out of the latter.

Now which forum do we do that in? I can't seem to put my finger on it.

[kib]

I have a question. Maybe it should be a separate thread. On another forum I posted something in a conversation about sustainability, and I used "everything is connected" as the premise from which I started. Several people told me I was an idiot, everything is obviously not connected, that's ridiculous. I have a feeling a lot of them are young, but I was still taken aback, it's the given from which I base every idea i have.

Is that, maybe, putting a finger on the real center of the problem? That if you don't stand far enough back to connect the dots, then you probably feel your actions, or a country's action's, or a corporation's actions, are some stand alone issue that make no difference to the overall well being of, well, of everything?

[catherine]

Now which forum do we do that in? I can't seem to put my finger on it.

Haha! That's a conundrum, Alan.

kib, I agree, maybe we finally take this piece of the thread elsewhere: Alan, maybe you come up with a new forum like New Cultural Revolution or something like that

So, kib, bottom line: I agree with you: everything is connected. To be continued…

[Gregg]

First things first, yes, everything is connected. I had to get a few years under my belt or at least needed a chance to see life from a few different angles before I got that. The kids I know who are coming up now have a better grasp on the spirituality of that than I did. I'm guessing the intellectual aspect won't be too far behind.

Derrick Jensen maintains that we ultimately, and inevitably, will go back to a primitive way of life and "reset" our impact on the environment.

I like Jensen, but IMO that's horse hockey. My guess is that we will either burn/gas/wash ourselves out in large degree because the rest of the world will try to emulate our consumptive western lifestyle -OR- our emerging technology will blossom just enough and will coincide with a giant "oh $#!+" moment and those of us who survived environmental catastrophe will carry on a little wiser and a lot more humble. It would be lovely if that happened before the big slap was necessary, but we don't seem to be on that course yet.

[ApatheticNoMore]

I have a question. Maybe it should be a separate thread. On another forum I posted something in a conversation about sustainability, and I used "everything is connected" as the premise from which I started. Several people told me I was an idiot, everything is obviously not connected, that's ridiculous. I have a feeling a lot of them are young, but I was still taken aback, it's the given from which I base every idea i have.

the push back may have been about the connotations of the statements. Many people think it's the same as saying "all things are one", which is a religious/spiritual idea that people may or may not believe (calling to mind certain eastern tinged ideas: there is no self, no identity, you are one with everything etc.). And they're like: meh, I'm not a Buddhist or whatever, and I am a separate organism. Good luck arguing religion, and if it's something that takes years of meditation or spiritual practice to see then good luck convincing many of that either.

SO ...... I suppose the western rationalized type approach to this is systems thinking. Things are complex interacting systems that interact and reinforce each other. Ecosystems are such a system. Some systems may objectively not interact much, they certainly didn't in a less global less populated time, so say you and a subsistence farmer in Africa now may be systems without much interaction, but it's possible there are connections that could be seen with more information. It's probably you having a negative impact - haha

Is that, maybe, putting a finger on the real center of the problem? That if you don't stand far enough back to connect the dots, then you probably feel your actions, or a country's action's, or a corporation's actions, are some stand alone issue that make no difference to the overall well being of, well, of everything?

as in individual alone they might not. I mean I'm all for individual moral action for moral actions sake, because it's the right thing to do, but that's different that saying it's changing anything (different moral theories). I sometimes think that thinking too much that it does change things, is wanting, being deluded, wishful thinking, thinking we have power we don't have, because we wish we had it, or we should have it, we ought to have it have it, etc. (but the universe doesn't care about these oughts). And we were always told we do have it, that is was our birthright. We ought to be able to put the world right, to save the world by our individual actions. And probably we believe we are entitled to this at no risk to self (oh really? MLK clearly wasn't able to and he had a movement) I suppose you come closest to trying to do this if your putting your body in front of the pipelines and stuff, but even that's collective (often of a fairly small group) not individual action, the only thing that ever could work, and there are no guarantees.

[kib]

It's probably you having a negative impact - haha

Lol, no doubt. My influence is massive and horrible!

Yes I see what you mean about misinterpreting it as spiritual dogma. I have no idea if we're all spiritually connected or one or whatever ... in modeling my idea of spirituality after a pattern of living things I would guess we might be, but I'm willing to wait and see.

I see personal action not so much as having a great impact, but that if a large number of people make a small change in their ways or even just their thinking, they pave the way for acceptance of a bigger change, and that acceptance makes it possible. Prius. Early Adopters bought a Prius. I bought a Prius. Half the people in Tucson seem to have bought a Prius. Will owning a Prius save the world or even make a dent? No, in fact it might just encourage the production of more automobiles. However, what I see is that now a lot more manufacturers are focusing on better gas mileage. (Still crappy, but better). Slowly, the country is apparently coming around to say well, if better gas mileage is a possibility, I want that. So ... in the tiniest little way, perhaps I did have an effect. We're all butterfly wings.