Warning: More than a few of you will vehemently disagree with my POV. But see my challenge at the end.
What is developing politically and economically, especially in the United States, is not at all encouraging.
Politically, in the US, the Obama administration is beginning to make misstep after misstep. They started with a flawed view of economic reality in believing in the financial gurus and neo-classical economics, especially the notion of growth as the basis for prosperity. We now know, well those of us who are actually not blinded by ideological beliefs, that growth in the real economy is absolutely essential to maintaining the illusory wealth in the Ponzi scheme called banking and finance. Rich bankers and Wall Streeters get to take home fabulous bonuses on the backs of workers who produce real goods and services. Perpetual growth is not only impossible in theory, any growth is no longer physically possible because we are in decline with respect to the availability of net energy able to do economic work. The financial world is beginning to crumble. The short term ups that we see in the stock market, the slowing of decline in GDP (always suspect since the government decides just what numbers go into calculating GDP), and other so-called green shoots, are just part of the noisy, chaotic collapse. In fact, if you want a good model of how the economy is collapsing even when there are temporary supposed recoveries, look at the effects of global warming on climate variability. They are very similar non-linear, complex dynamic processes that have chaotic behavior. One thing you shouldn't do in a chaotic system is try to predict long-term trends from short-term observations.
An example of an Obama misstep is his handling of the health care reform process. Apparently he 'learned' a lesson from the Clinton experience and doesn't want to appear to be pushing his own design. He wants to leave it to Congress to come up with the plan. And he hopes it will be bi-partisan. Neither wish will be fulfilled and whatever does emerge will be, as typical these days, meaningless, ineffective, and a complete waste of everybody's time, including the press. Oh wait, they already waste their time, don't they. [Incidentally, my predictions are based on long-term observations!!!]
To be fair, Obama isn't a dictator. Maybe he would do things differently if he had any real power. The Congress, on the other hand, actually is in a position to do something useful with health care, energy, and regulating financial institutions (though only the second one is not a waste of time). But they won't. Between K-Street money and the partisan, ideological, and idiotic rhetoric, the Congress has proven itself completely incompetent. So, of course, they will not resign and let someone capable take over (see below about incompetent managers).
That leaves the electorate: The well-educated, knowledgeable, thoughtful, and conscientious electorate. Oh, right, I'm thinking of a different planet.
We should, but won't, face a reality. Representative democracy has failed, along with its co-conspirator capitalism. Virtually any form of democracy is likely to fail when the electorate gets too fat and lazy, and too ignorant to care or know that they need to care. The only way I can think to explain the failures of Congress and the White House is that we, the people, are incompetent to deal with the complexities of modern problems and governance. I don't just mean not knowledgeable enough, I mean not smart or wise enough. The average American, and I'm betting the average world citizen, does not have the brain capacity to handle what needs to be handled in order for any kind of citizen-influenced governance process to work. This includes the Communist Chinese and other autocratic regimes -- if you don't think their decision making isn't influenced by the wants and desires of the populace then you don't understand political power, or why revolutions happen.
OK, I realize I am trash talking my own species. I realize that people can and will call me a human hater (only proving my point since I'm actually trying to suggest something constructive AND feasible). I realize that this is NOT an uplifting message or hopeful encouragement to try harder. I am claiming that humankind has reached its evolutionary level of incompetence and most everyone is going to take offense at that. But I am compelled to tell the story as I honestly see it (and hope I am completely whacko). Because, if I am right, the only way we have a chance at some kind of future on this planet is to be brutally honest and open to reality as it is, not as we wish it were. If I am right, then I hope humans have just enough intelligence to use science to dig out the truth of the matter and the moral courage to face that truth. In other words, I hope we are sapient enough to realize an evolutionary truth.
Not only will Homo sapiens go extinct, but actually should do so!
I've been suggesting, throughout this blog space, that the evidence is adequate to show that Homo sapiens is not sufficiently competent in terms of managing its own cleverness. It does not possess a sufficient capacity for native wisdom (judgment) to guide either aggregate decision making (supposed democratic) or dictatorial (supposed benevolent) governance of the overly complex and now dangerous system we have created ourselves. As a species we simply have too little brain power when it comes to sapience relative to what is needed to manage our affairs. As a result we are ruining the planet for too many current living organisms and for ourselves.
Incompetent managers rarely resign when the first signs of incompetence (and failure of the enterprise) start to show up. Indeed most such managers keep making the same or worse mistakes until the whole thing blows up and they are forced out (remember Enron and other such examples? Imagine Ken Lay resigning early on and admitting he'd blown it?) That is probably what is going to happen to humanity. We are so taken with ourselves that we are incapable of admitting we've blown it and are making a huge mess of things. The more typical response, the one we are seeing from the Obama administration and cheered on by those not poisoned with right-wing ideology, is to ignore the warning signs and work desperately to restore the very processes that are at the root of our problems -- the so-called business as usual (BAU) -- and can readily be seen to be causing so much damage to our whole world. [Actually even the right-wingers hope BAU is restored, they just want it done their way, or they want Obama to fail so they can get back in power and really rev up the market solution to everything. Or so they claim.]
So it is with the whole human species. We cannot possibly admit to our own incompetence it seems. And that inability means that, like Enron (as a harbinger), our whole social structure will collapse and just as climate change along with global habitat failures, like adequate drinking water, put maximum stress on humanity. Though we might like to 'believe' that humans are resilient and adaptable, we cannot know that the world in the not-too-distant future will be one we can adapt to without our access to abundant high-grade energy sources. We humans, as de facto managers of the Ecos, will keep telling ourselves that we can fix this (with new technology) just like Ken Lay kept assuring everyone that Enron stocks would continue to climb (even while selling off his own shares!)
Virtually everyone on this planet (except, likely, those who have read this far!) believes that economic growth is the key to future happiness. They buy into something called 'sustainable growth' without even thinking what an oxymoron that is. They don't grasp the significance of population growth or the house of cards structure of modern banking and finance. The majority of people (living in cities now) don't have a clue where their food comes from, and even many who grow the food don't realize just how much fossil fuel goes into growing, processing, and delivering that food to the cities.
Our education systems, again especially in the US, but emulated by other countries unfortunately, do not teach understanding and promote wisdom. They teach rule systems within subject domains and test students to see how well they've incorporated the rules into their brains. They teach elementary facts and then test to see if students can use the rules, like logic, to derive simple relations between facts. They do not teach first principles and meaning, for the most part. There are those few who make brave attempts to do so; I've known a few. But they are rare and often not appreciated, especially since I'm not sure most students could actually learn this deeper form of knowledge anyway. The majority of students I have come in contact with (thankfully there are the happy minority) prefer learning rules and facts. Memorization is much easier than true critical thinking. And it is certainly easier to demonstrate competence on exams (and easier for teachers to construct exams and grade them!)
As I cast my gaze about I have to ask, in what realm of human endeavor do we find real competence? Where are the competent managers of Homo sapiens' affairs? If they don't exist (please, anybody, show them to me), then explain to me why a bumbling, dangerous species like ours deserves to continue?
Extinction of the species need not mean extinction of the genus. In many taxa, at the genus level, there are many species with reasonably wide distribution so that if calamity falls to one, the others survive and might even produce some new species to take the place of the old (fill an empty niche). In the case of Homo we are, unfortunately from an evolutionary standpoint, all there is. And we are the only symbolic reasoning, true language communicating, and sapient specimens in the whole Hominidae family. Neanderthals might have been a lot like us but they don't seem to be around any more. So we're it. If humanity is going to have a shot at a future in a world we have very little understanding of, we had better find a way to evolve into competent managers.
I wish I could say that we could 'learn' to be competent, and I know many of you sincerely believe we can, but I suggest that the preponderance of evidence is against this possibility. We've had a very long time to show that we are learning from our mistakes (and we've made so many over the millennia) but the current situation globally just seems to show that we've really learned very little. This, even though we have libraries full of history books documenting those mistakes in great detail. We've had many bright individuals who have analyzed and taken meaning from history. They have pointed to what we should learn from those mistakes and still we keep making them over and over again. We need to be better than we are as a whole population, not just as a few visionaries who are unable to move the masses. I am convinced that our current species is not able to do this by learning alone. We must evolve a better brain. And I think we can do this. As to how, that is something that we must pursue scientifically. There are several options. Unfortunately, the one option I think is most likely is that there will be no collective action in this direction, we will remain in denial right up to the end. But as in the semi-normal distribution of any physical/mental trait there are always exceptional (right tail for those of you familiar with statistical distributions) variants, in this case, of high sapience. Those who 'see' the future will prepare for it. The likelihood of a massive evolutionary bottleneck (population collapse) seems to grow higher with each passing day and every political/economic misstep. With some luck (a non-zero probability) those prepared for that collapse and what follows may get through the bottleneck, form a breeding population, and (again with luck) adapt to the changing world. In a sense this is just ordinary evolution at work. We, as a species, will not have intentionally done anything to affect the outcome.
To me that is sad because it can just as easily go bad for Homo. The most brutal minimally sapient versions could survive and humanity would end up devolving to some former less intelligent form. There are no guarantees in the evolution business. But it will be what it will be. I would prefer to see us face up to a moral responsibility thrust on us as the scientific species and take a proactive stance with regard to ensuring the survival of the genus.
I challenge humanity -- and all readers of this blog -- to prove me wrong! Do so by not letting what looks to be overwhelming human nature cause us to crash and burn. Note this is not an invitation for commentators to provide endless speculations about technology saving us, or pointing out companies that seem to be on the verge of a breakthrough in solar energy, or pointing at some bill in Congress that just might have some hope in it. We've all heard all the anecdotes, and claims, and ideologies, and beliefs, and exuberant hopefulness. No more of that here.
I want action. Actually demonstrate by doing. Show me how to move humanity toward substantive and scalable action. That last part is important. What needs to be done needs to be done now. We need to be sucking CO2 out of the air rather than talking about how we might slow down putting it into the air. We need to be reducing the population world-wide right now rather than projecting that one day, because more people will be richer (just how is that to happen exactly?) and women will get education that the population growth will slow down and then decline. We need to be conserving to extremes what fossil fuels we have left in order to bootstrap our future (much smaller) civilization into a truly sustainable energy flow rather than wasting what we have on trying to sustain an inherently unsustainable financed consumption-based economy. Show me how to get the vast majority of human beings working on this agenda within the next two to five years.
I sincerely hope someone out there can prove that I am wrong in my somewhat speculative (but evidence-based) conclusions about the most likely scenario for the future. But it cannot be a proof by idle chatter. I have all of history (not to mention the principles of physics, chemistry, biology, psychology, and sociology) to demonstrate that mankind is on a collision course with nature. You will need to come up with something pretty bloody brilliant to show how this course can be changed with this species effectively staying the same as it is now. Good luck.
Meanwhile I will continue to think about what we might be doing if we have to start over and have basically more sapient people taking charge!
"We must evolve a better brain."
Wouldn't the path to that better brain be a higher consciousness?
I don't want to pull New Age stuff into this discussion but I don't think a better brain would necessarily be a solution. There are things you can grasp only with your whole being, of which your brain is just a part.
I'm actually reading a book right now called "Can Humanity Change?" where modern mystic Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) enters a dialogue with buddhists and David Bohm. What I have understood from Krishnamurti's books and talks so far is that he can explain quite convincingly where things are going wrong on the personal, and thus the global, level.
If anyone is interested I could try to make a synopsis of hwat Krishnamurti is saying or put up quotes. But perhaps not. It's not very scientific, although I wouldn't put it under the header of New Age mumbo jumbo either!
It's devoid of all spiritual or occult terminology and very much to the point on a psychological level. Most New Age people I know find him a boring, which to me is a very good sign.
Posted by: Neven | August 03, 2009 at 03:00 PM
I'm afraid I cant offer any solutions that will cope with global mass sheeple George. Actually thats a bit unkind they are victims of 4 millena of civilisations (via technology) project of control and domination of nature under the fatal delusion of separation...the conquest of brute nature has unleashed a brutal 'megamachine' on the Earth more barbaric that anything nature could devise. So we're fcuked, totally and completly, its just a question of timing. I think this every day..as the tower of babel crumbles it feels like the first page of HG wells War of the Worlds...its not so much Aliens are among us as feeling alone among Aliens- millions of them!
Its the tragedy which overwhelms because individual Humans in the right kind of nurturing environment can produce symphonies and poetry and space telescopes we have that spark of the sacred and the eternity encoded in our genes...we are the consciousness of the universe dimly looking at itself in awe and wonder. How can that colossal potential be snuffed out on the alter of psychotropic anthropogenic consumerism?
Maybe it is meant to be...maybe the extremes of both separation and collapse are necessary- as they have in other geological transistion shifts- to provide the environment for the Earth to 'imply' a newer species... maybe sequences of the 'junk DNA' we all carry around will be switched on when these environmental signals reach sufficient intensity...maybe its started already.
Its perhaps the only real hope left........
Posted by: GaryA | August 03, 2009 at 03:20 PM
Neven,
I may have just given my thoughts on this question at my last blog. Briefly, it depends on what you mean by consciousness and what is its dependence on brain function. While I do believe we can develop better awareness and understanding as plain vanilla humans through various mental practices (which might include better education!!!), this isn't necessarily the same as developing better brain capacities through biological evolution. As I stated in my answer in the prior blog regarding Teilhard's views, these are not mutually exclusive processes. Every individual can be more conscious and the species can evolve to one that is more sapient to begin with.
George
Posted by: George Mobus | August 04, 2009 at 08:45 AM
GaryA,
I think your second paragraph captures it well. If that is the case, and there will be a cleaning of the slate, so to speak, then how can we prepare for it such that those better attributes of our species you allude to can be assured of making it through a bottleneck?
I think sapience is the key and that attention paid to ensuring the continuation of individuals in the far right tail of the distribution would be a kind of intentional intervention that works with natural evolution (selection). I suspect that this is preferable to genetic engineering, but I could be wrong. There have been some spectacular breakthroughs in the field of Evo-devo and epigenetic control mechanisms lately. Who knows what might come up along the lines of boosting sapience in future generations.
My only fear is that there just isn't enough time left for that latter approach to have the intended effect.
George
Posted by: George Mobus | August 04, 2009 at 08:57 AM
My idea: Let b/millions of hominids do small scale bio-char farming. (More elaboration tomorrow.)
Posted by: Florifulgurator | August 04, 2009 at 09:41 AM
George I dont have an easy answer....the dispersed nature of sapient folk, the white noise of the internet and ideological differences means agreeing a course of action, never mind carrying it out is difficult enough. Ideally a philospher-king who can knock heads together and overcome postmodernist paralysis.... Thinking more Colonel Kurtz than Obama!....
Posted by: GaryA | August 06, 2009 at 03:09 AM
***Show me how to get the vast majority of human beings working on this agenda within the next two to five years.***
Here comes my idea (actually a conclusion). I haven't yet managed to do a succinct write-up, and nobody wants to take it serious (it sounds like a hippie dream, and I even suggest growing hemp). One reason why I hoped to meet you during your vacation. So, *cough*,
Considering the state of the biosphere (which includes mankind), there are 2 inevitable logico-ethic conclusions for our species:
* Conclusion 1.: Live carbon negative.
* Conclusion 2.: Do not procreate.
These are not easy to live by (and verifiably so) on an individual level. Moreover to try alone would be not very effective and convincing and does not prepare the species for a possible evolutionary bottleneck:
* Conclusion 3.: Build a network of dedicated communities.
For sucking enough greenhouse gases out of the air there is only one technique known: Using char coal in agriculture. The char coal must of course be made of biomass that would anyhow decay within a few years. More technical details below.
Conclusions 1. and 2. sound like a parody of the classic monastic vows, poverty and chastity. So, what about setting up an epi-religious quasi-monastic order, engaged in carbon negative permaculture and education. Tentative name: "Earth's witnesses" or something. Perhaps a charismatic preacherman can fire it up and bootstrap the order's first habitations by turning abandoned suburban lawns back to productive life.
The order should be not about chastity and poverty, but about working for Earth (which includes humans) and having fun at it. The fun is indispensable to attract novices (e.g.: forget your SUV, enjoy the horse. Grab gratis food from your garden).
* Conclusion 4.: Have maximum fun with it.
I have not worked out a set of rules (e.g. decision finding, procreation exceptions) and neither done much maths (e.g. how many squaremeters of Miscanthus to char for one iron shovel). This needs some more expertise. One almost self-evident rule is to not engage in trade with carbon offsets. A funeral ritual reflecting the goal of the order would be composting.
-----------
On biochar: To get the picture quick, read Folke Günther's response to Monbiot's polemic [1].
I haven't yet managed to get an overview of the scientific literature, but I'm quite confident after 5y of "experimentation" in a temperate mountain climate (Bavarian Forest, springs of Kößnach, elev. 650m. There was no soil before, and char coal was of great help to stretch volume and fill the holes left by pulled-out boulders). Almost all literature focusses on the tropics, where biochar application seems trivial (add to soil and get amazing yield increase [2]). The research got started with Amazonian Terra Preta, an exceptionally fertile soil left over from pre-Columbian civilization. In temperate climates it can be detrimental [3] and some extra care is needed: Fresh char coal is water repellant and needs some temperature and humidity first, e.g. by flushing the hot fireplace. Then it should be mixed into steamy nitrogen rich compost and after a year is ready to go into soil.
[1] http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/2009/03/montbiots-rejection-of-biochar.html
[2] http://biocharcameroon.org/
[3] http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1755-1315/6/37/372052/ees9_6_372052.pdf
Posted by: Florifulgurator | August 06, 2009 at 04:39 AM
That 90% reduction in emissions over a period of 20 years is some 'Herculean effort' for the current rabble in control, Flor!
They are still fiddling (sic, the treaties)) while Rome burns....
Posted by: GaryA | August 06, 2009 at 05:39 AM
Yeah, it looks quite theoretical.
BUT, even if we are over the tipping point and the climate system is inevitably headed for the transition to the hot: If the order survives, hominids would have a repair tool at hand.
So, there's another conclusion. It gains even more weight from the Lovelock quote I plugged in a prior blog comment:
* Conclusion 5: It is worth to preserve some of the knowledge gathered by Homo S "Sapiens"
Posted by: Florifulgurator | August 06, 2009 at 07:53 AM
Florifulgurator wrote: "One reason why I hoped to meet you during your vacation."
Ah, so you also tried to lure George into coming to Niederbayern? We should have teamed up and gone to Munich, taking our sleeping bags with us and camp outside of George's hotel, waiting for an autograph. ;-)
BTW, I'd love to see some of your experimentation up close. I live only 85 km from where you are.
George wrote: "Show me how to get the vast majority of human beings working on this agenda within the next two to five years."
Impossible. Absolutely impossible, even if some kind of cataclysmic Pearl Harbor occured that could sweep the masses like 9/11 did for stirring a war (or two). I was hoping for the Arctic Sea Ice to hit a dramatic new low this September, but it looks like the melting stalled about a week ago. Perhaps 2010 will be the warmest year ever recorded due to a probable El Niño, but even that won't get too many people nervous for more than a day or two. No, in my opinion the only real hope is that the recession continues to exacerbate and that Peak Oil really is happening as we speak.
There are theoretical solutions (like the one Florifulgurator is mentioning) and thankfully these solutions also work and have their rewards on an individual scale. I'll try and go into that a bit more later today or tomorrow.
Posted by: Neven | August 08, 2009 at 08:51 AM
"Show me how to get the vast majority of human beings working on this agenda within the next two to five years." I Kinda agree with Neven...only when backs are truly against the wall will people be motivated to act..by which time its too late. The other possibility depends on finanial and social coercion directed from above and a transistion( town type) from below meeting in the middle and propelling us foward. transistion ideas well documentated:
http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4792
Less well know are scenarios from above, literally a motivated group of the enlightened and sapient taking over an area or even state.....
Sounds fantastical but it is theoretically possible (I was involved in spyware-avoidance 'Feralia and Omniv' moniker forum scenarios on a certain eco-radical website) This need not be overly violent either.... the key is getting committed individuals in nodes or points of leverage inside the infrastructure and using HERF guns/E-bombs at strategic moments/points and utilising this electronic achilees heel to 'takeover' advantage. The two greatest problems were (secondly) agreeing on a post attack stratagy and (firstly) the sheer lack of numbers of individuals willing to commit themselves.
Given these two seemigly insurmountable obstacles the whole idea began to resemble a adolescent fantasy game so I bowed out. I still believe in its basic strategic soundness but without greater recruits to the cause its a non-starter.
'Recruits' are potentially increasing as the endgame approaches...the vast majority are beyond hope but perhaps we should try to identify/communicate with sections who may be receptive to (more) radical ideas.
Posted by: GaryA | August 09, 2009 at 01:12 AM
George,
Is is possible that the sum of human knowledge can continue to increase? Even with failures of education and restrictions of a finite world, knowledge could continue to grow. Your thoughts?
Posted by: Phil Jonat | August 09, 2009 at 01:39 PM
Neven, you'd be very welcome for a visit in my little garden! I got no more time this month, it looks, but one weekend Sept./Oct. sure will work. I have not an Email address I would publish, but here's the cell phone: 0160 99619058 (best 18-24, else SMS).
Some photos (to be updated tomorrow) here: http://www.the-brights.net/forums/forum/index.php?showtopic=8605 (forum PM would be ersatz email).
Meanwhile I had a closer look at a famous guerilla garden on centuries old ground in a remnant of the moat of Regensburg (Ratisbon) http://amaro.voll.in -- Looks like lots of char coal! Perhaps most is from burnt remains after Napoleon's capture of Ratisbon, 1809? Will put a sample under someone's microscope next week.
Posted by: Florifulgurator | August 10, 2009 at 09:43 AM
Everyone,
Great comments and some beginning socialization! I love it.
On the main point of whether or not there is some 'plan' that could save mankind, the challenge was meant to dramatize the fact that the scale of changing minds, attitudes, beliefs, etc is simply too great to expect that we can save mankind (the current population/species) and that efforts to do so will only, at best, plant a few seeds that might germinate after the collapse of civilization -- as Flor says, "...hominids would have a repair tool at hand." One reason I have not gone into the book writing business (and doomsday books sell well these days) is that the underlying assumption of writing a book is that lots of people will buy it and understand the message and *change*. Evidence to date suggests the changers are in a really small minority.
I'm coming to the conclusion that it will be wiser to set up an enclave in a relatively climate stable location, preferably far from the madding crowds, and invite provably sapient breeding stock! The research in the neurobiology, and genetics of sapience is a key to how to select volunteers.
As with utopian colonies that have been organized in the past, this one would be predicated on low energy throughput (simple technology) but with care to preserve important technologies, such as health care. Unlike prior attempts, this one would not be based on any preconceived ideological framework (unless you want to call systems science an ideology!) The volunteers would be free to organize themselves as they see fit within the framework of hierarchical management. The only operating rule is that they are constantly working toward a distant future for grandchildren and beyond. They could even procreate to the limits of the available energy flow to attain strength in numbers. But no more.
Then let the crash commence and follow whatever course it will. It can't be prevented. And from an evolutionary standpoint I'm not sure one would want to perpetuate a species that had proven itself unfit.
In fact several such enclaves -- intentional communities -- might be set up in various locations throughout the world. The keys will be keeping out the lower sapient individuals and security of location wrt: water, soil, energy sources (which could be water or wind), and as stable a climate as one can find given the changes we expect in the not-too-distant future. None of these criteria would be easy to meet, but I don't think impossible. Besides, what real choices do we have.
Future blogs will address this basic idea as my (and your) thinking develops and the situation with the world unwinds.
George
Posted by: George Mobus | August 11, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Hi Phil.
You asked: "Is is possible that the sum of human knowledge can continue to increase?"
The way knowledge/information seem to act, there is nothing equivalent to the 1st Law of Thermo/Matter conservation in that both knowledge and information look to expand indefinitely, at least as long as energy flows through the system. I'm referring to all knowledge/information, not just human-based. See: http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2009/04/the-science-of-systems-5-.html my blog on information and knowledge as ontological forms.
But your question was about 'human' knowledge which I take to mean the cumulation of books and other media plus what is in the heads of all living people. My thought is that as long as there is a species of Homo with sufficient sentience and sapience, then I would expect knowledge to expand indefinitely. But if our species goes extinct without leaving an heir, or worse, leaves a devolved species, then that pretty much puts an end to it for this planet. As Eric Idle says in the Galaxy Song (Monty Python: The Meaning of Life), "...And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space,
'Cause there's bugger all down here on Earth."
George
Posted by: George Mobus | August 11, 2009 at 11:29 AM