RE: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize; Publication of "Fit For A Better World"
Guy Salmon | Ecologic
Like Ashley, I’ve been impressed with the power of ‘experiential learning and doing’ at the local community level – in my case, through my governance role in the New Zealand Landcare Trust. In this role I have visited with many catchment groups in rural areas. And like John, I have no doubt about the importance of simple language to reach communities and the general public.
Nonetheless a strategy based on experiential learning will in the end have to be justified on its empirical results. It’s often been difficult to show (other than in exceptional cases) that such approaches are making a measurable difference. Retrospective evaluations of the Decade of Landcare in Australia, and of dairying best practice catchments in New Zealand, both show evidence of good farmer engagement, uptake of more sustainable practices and investments, and of well-motivated voluntary actions, but they fall short of showing any change in environmental outcomes. There are evidently larger forces at work which are driving environmental degradation, and which it is proving difficult to modify.
In New Zealand’s case (which might also apply in Uruguay), there is a cultural attachment to livestock farming; and capitalist drivers in livestock farming are constantly increasing the intensity of land use. Since 1990, there has been a dramatic decline in national water quality associated with land use intensification. Emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane from NZ agriculture together constitute more than half our national total of greenhouse gas emissions, and they are growing. These outcomes and trends have been aided by a highly devolved system of environmental regulation, along with perceived or often regulator-created entitlements to pollute, which I have recently written about in NZ’s Policy Quarterly: https://ojs.victoria.ac.nz/pq/article/view/5682
However there is a hopeful new development here, which I would like to share with this list. A group called the Primary Sector Council has produced a Vision and Strategy document entitled Fit For A Better World. This is explicitly and squarely based on the adoption of a relational world view of people’s connection to nature (‘Te Taiao’) borrowed from the traditional culture of the indigenous Maori people (about 15% of NZ population). It should be said that the Council, despite its name, does not represent NZ’s main livestock industry groups nor processors like Fonterra – rather it is a group of more innovative and progressive figures from the primary sector, appointed by Jacinda Ardern’s current government. Its report is short, easy to read, whole-hearted and provocative; and it can be downloaded from the bottom of the page on this link: https://fitforabetterworld.org.nz/taiao/
Overall the document seems to clearly recognise that a paradigm shift is needed. But it also reinforces an important point: that a good public strategy needs to be grounded in, and consistent with, a core philosophy. The document is striking (and perhaps even ‘wise, integral and meta-reflexive’) in borrowing its core philosophy from a non-Western culture, and in setting out to persuade NZ’s farmers that adopting this philosophy is ‘critical and urgent’…
Guy
From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF
Sent: Thursday, 9 July 2020 11:08 am
To: ruben...@shaw.ca; Ashley Colby <ash...@rizomafieldschool.com>
Cc: SCORAI Group <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize
Like Ashley, I had trouble understanding you as well, Ruben. I think you might want to consider how to make your writing more clear. I find that all the new terms and the abstractions actually tend to prevent understanding. Perhaps I am simply not smart enough, but I've been working on these issues of sustainable consumption for 50 years and if I am having trouble understanding, it's likely to be even more of a problem for readers outside academic circles. I will not say anything more as I realize some may see me as a thorn in the side and anti-intellectual to boot, but I hope we will learn to simplify our language and find better ways to reach the general public, Ashley clearly is doing. I made the same points in my conference workshop so I'll stop now.
thanks,
John
John de Graaf
On 07/08/2020 1:01 PM Ruben Nelson <ruben...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Ashley,
Once again, I agree with your assertions, except for your assertion about what I am saying. You see differences between us that only appear if I am actually saying what you say I am saying. But I am not.
To get it out of the way, I agree with you on embodied (experiential) learning and living. No quarrel there. And I am not wedded to “thinking” in the way you suggest. Among other things, such a disembodied view of thinking is a very MTI understanding. As I suspect you know, its roots are in the 1st Enlightenment. (Aristotle would be appalled by such a fragmented sense of human experience.) I have invested much of my life wiggling my way out from under my formation as a brighter than average successful MTI male as I stumble towards a 2nd Enlightenment. I have come to see the need of the latter not only for me, but for all MTI persons and cultures.
And, I did not say, “we should tend to work with those who are wise, integral, and meta-reflexive in that struggle.”
Rather, my strategy has long been to find, connect with and nurture those who are willing to become “Wise, integral and meta-reflexive.” This transformative quest is a very different proposition. Ultimately, it leads us out of the mess of messes we who are MTI are in.
Ruben
Ruben Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
From: Ashley Colby [mailto:ash...@rizomafieldschool.com]
Sent: July 8, 2020 12:27 PM
To: Ruben Nelson <ruben...@shaw.ca>
Cc: SCORAI Group <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize
Ruben,
Excellent and thoughtful response, as always. I think now I understand better where we might differ. I agree with your points *philosophically* entirely. I believe where we disagree is on the level of *strategy*.
Yes, philosophically, we need to get out of the culture/mindset of tech society in order to develop something new. Yes, philosophically, we should tend to work with those who are wise, integral, and meta-reflexive in that struggle.
But, I think hidden beneath your well-constructed argument is something insidious that can (and has) hurt our chances of getting where we want to go: and that is leaning on the idea that it is fundamentally a project of thinking in the right ways ("expanding our consciousness", if you please, in 1960's parlance) that will get us quickly where we want to go. The project I propose is not in the mind at all. Or at least that's not where it starts.
I also agree with you that we have little time to mitigate damages. That's why it's even more important to give up on this dead end strategy of a 'social movement of thoughts' and start doing and building infrastructure.
Have you ever been in a classroom, or read a book, about a place or culture and then went to visit that place? A book can tell you about what it's like to be in Rome. That people drink wine at business lunches. And the cobblestone streets. And the slant of light in the ancient Roman forum in the late afternoon. But until you see it, experience it, you won't know it with your body, and you also won't be changed by it.
I've seen this kind of experiential learning take place and it is absolutely remarkable the amount of information a human can take in through new experiences, and how much it changes them. When I bring students here to Uruguay, they see an 'ecology of the poor' in a way I could never describe to them in their classrooms in North America. They see sharing, partnership, care for the earth, parenting, alternative technologies, an entirely different way of thinking and living and being. This experience changes them, in a deep way. Many of them return to their lives and start doing things differently.
What I've seen is the process of *doing* actually changes our minds in ways we never could guess in advance. It is a virtuous cycle wherein we are building infrastructure, and *at the same time* changing how we think/who we are which then helps us to *do* better things. I research people who do this and I am finding the same thing over and over: action/changed behavior changes culture/ideas, not the other way around.
Ashley
Ashley Colby Fitzgerald
PhD, Environmental Sociology
Co-founder Rizoma Field School
Colonia, Uruguay
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 3:04 PM Ruben Nelson <ruben...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Ashley,
The issue you raise is one dear to my head and heart. Thank you.
Allow me to try to sharpen the issue:
(I think that broadly we agree on the following, but please set me straight where you would differ. I affirm what you have written, other than the sense that you appear to feel/think that I am arguing for what you are arguing against. I do not. I agree with you. I do not wish to be heard as suggesting what you are arguing against.)
1. Today, we (7.7 billion of us) share a common need. We need those who live by and within an MTI frame of reference to learn to live into new ways of being and living that are beyond (transcend) the MTI ways of being and living that they now unconsciously take for granted. In my language, we need a new form of civilization to emerge within and among MTI persons and cultures.
2. Up to now the emergence of new forms of civilization have been very slow, local/regional, unconscious and optional processes.
3. Even if I am right that it the case that the next form of human civilization is already coming to life within and among us, it is unlikely that there is enough time to allow normal historical processes to work their way out. I think we both agree that such a strategy is too high risk to seriously consider. (In saying this, I acknowledge that as I read human history the “normal” unconscious processes of the emergence of a new form of civilization have taken one or more millennia. And, as I read our present situation, it dynamics and its major trends, even if the roots of the next form of civilization can be found in the early 19th Century, it is unreasonable to assume that MTI cultures will remain tolerably stable and the Earth will remain tolerably inhabitable for another 500 years under the domination of MTI peoples and cultures.)
4. Therefore, something must be done. Something that has not been done before in human history. The question is, what?
5. You have pointed out that any attempt to imagine and think our way into a new future will almost certainly fail. You imply that the reason this is the likely outcome is that up to now such “imagining of a new future” has been undertaken well within the MTI framework. On this point you and I entirely agree. Every attempt to utilize MTI ways of knowing, imagining, thinking through and responding to reality, including our own as persons, will fail. As Einstein noted, we cannot use the level of thinking that caused our messes to get us out of the messes.
6. What, then, is left for us to do?
7. My short answer is this. First, develop and fine tune a radar-like capacity to sense, see, name, explore and render harmless every move of every kind that reflects and reinforces our MTI aspirations, identities and habits of body, heart, mind and spirit. (This implies that, among other things, we need to take to new levels some of the skills developed by those who have engaged in liberation struggles.) Second, develop into persons, groups and cultures that are wise, integral and meta-reflexive. (Wise = no important dimension has been left out. Integral = we experience, work with and nurture a relational sense of reality. Meta-reflexive = we are as focussed on our own presuppositions and presumption as we are on those of others.) Third, work with ourselves and others as if the first two actually matter. (Pun intended.) For example, develop a second form of radar that sniffs out, names and nurtures the presence of the next form of civilization, even if only in embryonic form. For example, tread gently and hesitantly since none of us have any experience in the work of nurturing a new form of civilization into life, in ourselves, let alone in whole cultures.
Respectfully and with deep gratitude,
Ruben
Ruben Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
From: sco...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sco...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ashley Colby
Sent: July 8, 2020 8:44 AM
To: SCORAI Group <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize
Ruben,
Your points, attention to detail, as well as your humor and wit never cease to captivate my readership. I'd like to use as a point of debate one definition you provided, that I think can illustrate some larger assumptions a lot of us make. You define:
“Civilizational Transcendence” is the process by which a new form of civilization emerges from/within the cultures that exemplify an existing form of civilization. So the Settled Agricultural form first emerged from the Indigenous form some 13,000 years ago as the Earth warmed with the Holocene. And, the Modern Techno-industrial (MTI) form has emerged over the last one thousand years. Up to now, the emergence of a new form of civilization in history has been optional, local/regional in scale, unconscious and over a very long period of time – centuries. (Note: we now face the challenge of nurturing a new form of civilization into being as a requirement for the survival of our species and as a conscious and meta-reflexive endeavour. What is more, it must be done rapidly by any historical standard and in a manner that is scalable at a meta-level. This is a wholly new challenge in human history.)
(underline, bold added by me)
For me, this is the main point with which I have ever disagreed with anything you've written, and I think it's at the core of a problem I see with a lot of solutions thinking put forth by the educated class. There is no evidence that any civilization has ever made a conscious, meta-reflexive effort to develop a new form of civilization. Up until this point it has always happened unconsciously, as a result of myriad social/environmental/climate/geographic/whatever factors. Not to be deterministic, but I suggest that the thinking that we can just consciously, reflectively imagine the civilization we want to become is extremely hubristic and a result of the (in my opinion) worst part of enlightenment thinking that basically goes: the human brain is the best, most complex thing in the universe and can solve any problem, including the control of and dominion over nature.
I bring up this point because I think the assumption that we can use our brains to imagine/think our way into a new civilization pervades many of our conversations, to very little avail. The idea that we can invent new words or use science to convince people to optionally change their material reality I think has no basis in the evidence. We continue commissioning reports and then collectively rage and scratch our heads as to why people aren't following our Very Good Advice. If someone has some evidence to the contrary (that shows a civilization actively planning their next iteration and then implementing that plan) I'd love to see it. But my sense is that after all the years spent on this project trying to think our way out, we are in a worse place now than we've ever been.
Recently I saw a talk on youtube of Indian Activist Dr. Vandana Shiva who claimed we need to get out of our heads, out of the imaginary space, because the models we create about what could be don't end up playing out in the messy world that already is. Instead, she suggests, we actually get out there and start making the material world as we'd like to see it. She works on fighting for the rights of peasant farmers to stay on their land, and she teaches others about the ecological knowledge of this population so they can take those principles to their farms. This also reminds me of a paper I read in grad school about scientists engaged in studying salmon populations. One group of scientists made a complex computer model inside an office. Another group went out and counted the salmon. The second group was much, much more accurate.
I do not denounce the importance of science as a tool for better understanding, but it needs to be part of a larger toolkit that makes actual material changes in the world. In other words, it is not "imagine the future -> enact that imaginary" but instead "enact changes -> note successes and failures in the real world -> adapt." This second way is the way it has always been done in civilizational transitions. My sense is that our collective goal should be to have these on-the-ground, material projects in process so that when our current civilization fully collapses we don't say "here's my scientifically-proven computer model about how to move forward" instead we can say "here's our ground-tested infrastructure that we know works in x, y, and z circumstances. See if it works for you."
Warmly,
Ashley
Ashley Colby Fitzgerald
PhD, Environmental Sociology
Co-founder Rizoma Field School
Colonia, Uruguay
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 9:09 PM Ruben Nelson <ruben...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Jean,
Of course my language is puzzling. It is newish and not yet in the literature. I shall define the key terms and show how they interrelate to answer your very good question: (I acknowledge that given how ‘civilization’ is usually used in Modern cultures, my usage does not readily make sense. This is a clue that I am using the language in a new way. For example, you speak of “a civilization” as if there is such a thing as “a civilization.” I reject that notion and the common usages of “Western/Eastern/Chinese/Greek/ civilization. Rather, as you will see, I speak of human cultures, which by definition will exemplify a “form of civilization.” The difference is substantial.)
“Overshoot,” in human terms, occurs when we continue to behave in ways that that have been successful for us in the past when the situation we are in has changed enough so that our once successful behaviors are no longer successful; to the contrary, they are now somewhat (mildly to totally) destructive. (The “we” in the prior sentence can occur at any scale from a single person to a whole culture or even to all of the cultures that exemplify a given “form of civilization.”) By this definition, overshoot is a function of “context insensitivity.” We get into overshoot when simply do not notice, pay attention to, digest and act on the signals that the situation we were in is changing enough in fundamental ways that it requires us to learn new behaviours, and possibly even new ways of thinking, imagining and knowing. I assume you will recognize that being in overshoot is a fairly common human experience. Happily, most of the time it is only mildly painful and can be seen as “just another learning experience.” But, of course, it can be very painful, even lethal at any scale.
“Civilizational overshoot” occurs when the behaviours that are consistent with the “core paradigm” that defines a given “form of civilization,” behaviours that in the past were seen to be successful, now lead to the disintegration and collapse of all cultures that exemplify the “core paradigm” of that “form of civilization.” (Note that this is a strong statement. It implies that any culture that exemplifies a “form of civilization” that is in civilizational overshoot cannot avoid disintegration and collapse as long as it maintains its identity on the basis of its established “core paradigm”. In such cases, the only possibilities are (1) eventual collapse and (2) “civilizational transcendence”, i.e. the culture intentionally and successfully develops/evolves ways of knowing, imagining, thinking things through and acting that exemplify a new and more reliable form of civilization. Such a new “form of civilization” will necessarily exemplify a new and more reliable “core paradigm”.) By this definition, both “cultural overshoot” and “civilizational overshoot,” are logical possibilities in human history. “Cultural overshoot” occurs when the behaviours of a given culture lead it to collapse, and when other cultures which exemplify the same form of civilization do not collapse. That is, the fault lies with the culture that collapses, not with the core paradigm of its form of civilization. “Civilizational overshoot” occurs when all cultures which exemplify a given form of civilization go into overshoot and collapse. That is, the fault lies with the core paradigm of the form of civilization.
I have come to the conclusion, in order to make reliable sense of human history, our present and our futures, that we need to distinguish a “culture” from the “form of civilization” it exemplifies at a given time and place. This distinction is somewhat akin to the genus/species distinction with which we are all familiar. Just as a grape is one example of fruit, so the Stoney-Nakoda, my neighbours, are one example of the Indigenous form of civilization. This bi-level distinction allows me to read human history as involving both (1) the evolution of given cultures within a given “form of civilization,” and (2) the occasional emergence in history of a new “form of civilization.” This way I can distinguish between (1) changes/evolutions that may disturb or enhance a given culture but do not affect or disturb the core paradigm of the “form of civilization” the culture exemplifies, and (2) changes/evolutions that affect not only the culture, but the core paradigm of its form of civilization. The latter, of course, are far more significant. The “forms of civilization that have been exemplified to date in history are: (1) Indigenous. (2) Settled agriculture-based. (3) Modern Techno-industrial. Since you have seen the presentation I did last week you know that I have models that allow me to define these three forms of civilization and distinguish among them. You also know that a Post-Modern way of knowing does not result in a fourth form of civilization since that way of knowing cannot be exemplified in an ongoing culture. (I note again that when I speak of a “form of civilization” I am not using the concept of either ‘civilization’ or ‘a civilization’ in the common ways these concepts are now used.)
The “Core Paradigm” of a form of civilization is found in the way the following are known, imagined, thought through and responded to: (a) the nature of reality, (b) the nature and power of persons and (c) the relationship of persons to reality. A new form of civilization begins to emerge when a critical mass of a people openly embrace new ways to know and be known by reality and respond to it as persons. (note: If this be at all the case, then the search for a humane and sustainable form of civilization that is focussed on the primacy of the ecology on which supports our life is understandable, but wrongheaded.) If you want more see: Civilizational Paradigm Change: The Modern-Industrial Case.
“Civilizational Transcendence” is the process by which a new form of civilization emerges from/within the cultures that exemplify an existing form of civilization. So the Settled Agricultural form first emerged from the Indigenous form some 13,000 years ago as the Earth warmed with the Holocene. And, the Modern Techno-industrial (MTI) form has emerged over the last one thousand years. Up to now, the emergence of a new form of civilization in history has been optional, local/regional in scale, unconscious and over a very long period of time – centuries. (Note: we now face the challenge of nurturing a new form of civilization into being as a requirement for the survival of our species and as a conscious and meta-reflexive endeavour. What is more, it must be done rapidly by any historical standard and in a manner that is scalable at a meta-level. This is a wholly new challenge in human history.)
“Double Overshoot” is the view that today we in MTI cultures face two forms of overshoot, rather than only one. Double overshoot refers to both ecological and civilizational overshoot. My observation is that, by and large, as MTI cultures it has not yet dawned on us that we are in Double Overshoot. Yes, we know about ecological overshoot. This is where almost all of the time, energy and money of the sustainability industry is focussed. To the extent that we also focus on things human and personal, our attention is derived from our major concern with ecological overshoot. Things social are attended to in order to lessen our impacts on the ecology. However, all of this activity is well within the framing (core paradigm) of our MTI cultures. It is virtually unthinkable to us that we can, let alone must, transcend the MTI ways of knowing about which we have been, and still are, so proud since the 1st Enlightenment. However, the Double Overshoot/Civilizational Transcendence hypothesis takes the view that we in MTI cultures are in ecological overshoot because we are in civilizational overshoot, i.e. the latter is the root cause of the former. Should this be at all the case, then we will have to learn to come to terms with the reasons why the MTI form of civilization has become both unstable and lethal. What is more, we have to embrace either disorder and death or civilizational transcendence. Given this choice, civilizational transcendence appears to me to be preferable.
Given the above, it is reasonable to suggest that a whole “form of civilization” can go into overshoot (become lethal to life). The question then becomes, which forms of civilization, if any, have become lethal? The answer to this question appears to be that it is clearly not the case that either Indigenous or Settled Agricultural forms of civilization have become lethal. This leaves us with only one possibility – that in the 20th and 21st Centuries our MTI form of civilization has become lethal.
I acknowledge that I have not yet made the case that this is so; that all I have done to date is open, what is to me, the interesting possibility – that there is a case to be made and that if it amounts to anything at all, then it is a case we need to learn to explore, understand and live into. Our future may hang on the outcome.
Thank you for being patient.
Ruben
Ruben Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
From: Jean Boucher [mailto:jlb...@gmail.com]
Sent: July 6, 2020 6:30 PM
To: Ruben Nelson <ruben...@shaw.ca>
Cc: Tom Abeles <tab...@gmail.com>; Noel Gerard Keough <nke...@ucalgary.ca>; Rees, William <wr...@mail.ubc.ca>; sal...@alum.mit.edu; SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com>; Benjamin Sovacool <b.sov...@sussex.ac.uk>; Megan Seibert <megan....@realgnd.org>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize
Hi Ruben,
I've seen you use and define "Civilizational overshoot" before and now the double overshoot, but I don't get the application... could you breakdown how a civilization, of its own, goes into overshoot? Don't we just have the MTI cultural trance leading us ecological overshoot?
Nice video, last week, by the way!
Jean
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 5:21 PM Ruben Nelson <ruben...@shaw.ca> wrote:
Tom,
We both know that we cannot pre-state which set of actions may well lead a very different future of the complex living mess of mess of messes in which we now live. And complexity theory suggests that on a rugged landscape (which we do) try all of the options that you can afford. DO NOT put all your eggs in one basket. And, when crises emerge that take us off known territory, those who have explored adjacent spaces beyond today’s normal often have an opportunity to make significant differences.
Given these insights, I see the following as fruitful avenues to encourage (and I cheer folks who choose quite different avenues):
1. Developing a not too large jurisdiction into a living learning laboratory dedicated to probing this question: “Just what does it take, by every measure, for a population that is owned by its inherited MTI culture to become conscious enough to become committed to the utterly new project of transcending its inherited MTI culture as it seeks to nurture into robust being the next form of civilization?’ The reality today is that no such learning lab exists today. No one more than vague response to this question. I have my eye on such a place. Very early days as yet.
2. Nurturing any person or set of persons who appear to have the curiosity, depth and willingness to adventure beyond known horizons that our times require.
3. Developing my own understanding of the fact and importance of “Double Overshoot” and the need for and fact of “Civilizational Transcendence” -- the emergence of the next form of civilization.
All of these help me make somewhat reliable sense of our times and increase the chances that my own efforts are somewhat better than random.
So, yes, as of today, an “Equitable Contraction” is not happening or even on the agendas of any organization with serious power. And, yes, this implies that the next few decades will we far worse to live in/through than any population now anticipates. And, we agree that until death is certain, we must clean up, suit up and show up.
My best,
Ruben
Ruben Nelson
Executive Director
Foresight Canada
From: Tom Abeles [mailto:tab...@gmail.com]
Sent: July 6, 2020 4:07 PM
To: rubennelson <ruben...@shaw.ca>
Cc: Noel Gerard Keough <nke...@ucalgary.ca>; Rees, William <wr...@mail.ubc.ca>; sal...@alum.mit.edu; SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com>; Benjamin Sovacool <b.sov...@sussex.ac.uk>; Megan Seibert <megan....@realgnd.org>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize
Hi Ruben
"Equitable Contraction"?
How does one explain, much less implement, this in a world where the growing disparity, particularly in the US, is growing. Or how does one explain this to those in the developing countries which are striving for some form of parity. In the US we have seen such communities split by the Interstate system, lack of access to basic income, adequate social services, etc. This is one part of the implementation issue. Green New Deal is basically a jobs program with part on green technologies. Who will benefit? And the list goes on. Rebuilding infrastructure is one thing. Where do we put "n" acres of land for renewables or how many acres for new hydro (we can and are importing from Canada and the American west suggests we can pump water from the Great Lakes?)
In the US one talks about affordable housing or housing for the homeless. Calculate how much a dwelling unit costs and then subtract out the finance charges for all costs from raw materials to finished unit and then the financial costs for owning. There is increased interest in public banks to strip out much of these costs. Land trusts and similar efforts to increase affordability. The world runs on "financialization" including the proposed GND. This is but one of the issues at hand. But this issue dominates the entire argument on growth/degrowth. The science/technology is a diversion from addressing the socio/economic/cultural issues and why some have posited that society is faced with a variant of secularism where society turns to science. SMR's or variances of nuclear vs WWS is a default (as Greta thunberg has said, "ask the scientists")
There are possibilities for projects but are they scalable and sustainable and at what cost and to/for whom.
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 11:46 AM Ruben Nelson <ruben...@shaw.ca> wrote:
I agree with Noel that the notion of an “equitable contraction” should be given greater prominence. It is not yet an idea in good currency. No political party, as yet, says, “Elect us because we understand the need for and nature of an equitable contraction better than the other folks.” Not surprising since the market for this notion is very small.
And, we must be open to the reality that “decline”, “contraction”, “degrowth”, “disintegration” are already baked into the future of MTI cultures and, for many folks, has already started. We are not talking about something that should occur, but is not yet occurring. We are on this path, although we have not yet recognized and owned up to it. We are missing are the “intentional and equitable” parts.
And, in addition, we need to get serious about the fact that the “equitable decline” must also be a “transition that moves us beyond our Modern Techno-industrial aspirations, identities and cultures.” It is not a strategy to “save” Modernity, but to transcend it. If this element is not present in a serious way, all we are doing is managing a descent into chaos and death.
Ruben
From: sco...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sco...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Noel Gerard Keough
Sent: July 6, 2020 6:38 AM
To: Rees, William <wr...@mail.ubc.ca>
Cc: sal...@alum.mit.edu; SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com>; b.sov...@sussex.ac.uk; Megan Seibert <megan....@realgnd.org>
Subject: Re: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize
Bill,
I think your statement on a sustainable future is quite likely the best option for human societies to continue to prosper on our planet
Perhaps the next transition should be a carefully planned, equitable contraction of human enterprise in which people in industrial countries learn to live on much-reduced (truly renewable) energy supplies and material consumption. Does anyone else believe that this scenario merits serious consideration?
We are capable of this and coming out the other end a more content and responsible species.
COVID has been enlightening as it is an experiment in equitable contraction - much to be learned.
Noel Keough
On Jul 5, 2020, at 6:12 PM, Rees, William <wr...@mail.ubc.ca> wrote:
[△EXTERNAL]
Benjamin, Saleem, et al. --
Most discussion of "energy transitions" deal with historic shifts or assume that the next transition -- e.g., from fossil fuels to renewables (RE), particularly wind turbines and solar PV -- is only a matter of time.
However, given such limitations as:
- the much reduced energy density of wind and solar;
- the fact that many industrial processes require temperatures that cannot yet be generated easily with electricity;
- the irritant (to RE advocates) that wind turbines and solar cells are mined and manufactured literally from the ground up using fossil fuels;
- concerns about the availability of adequate economic supplies of rare earth minerals;
- the significant pollution costs associated with mining and manufacturing associated with RE technology;
- the fact that wind and solar are not renewable, merely replaceable (using fossil fuel?) after ~15 and 25 years respectively;
- a rapid build out of wind and solar plants to at a rate sufficient meet the IPCC target of <1.5 Celsius degree of mean global warming would almost certainly blow the carbon emissions budget (catch-22);
is it not just possible that the next transition, at least to a future with quantitatively equivalent energy availability per capita, is simply not possible?
Consider that meeting the IPCC maximum permissible warming target requires that the world reduce carbon emissions at the rate of 7.5% per year (this gets us to about half current emissions by 2030). I estimate, conservatively, that to replace fossil fuels with wind and solar electricity at an adequate pace to meet this target while maintaining current energy supplies, we would have to treble the existing 30+ years cumulative stock of wind and solar installations in just the first year, i.e., in 2020 (ignoring for now the CO2 generated by this process). And of course, we would have to repeat in 2021 for a further 7% reduction in remaining emissions, and the next and...
Clearly, is is not happening and, I submit, cannot happen. Assuming the climate science is correct, without major emissions reductions by other means, humanity will trigger disastrous climate change.
Perhaps the next transition should be a carefully planned, equitable contraction of human enterprise in which people in industrial countries learn to live on much-reduced (truly renewable) energy supplies and material consumption. Does anyone else believe that this scenario merits serious consideration?
Just askin'
Bill Rees
From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Benjamin Sovacool <B.Sov...@sussex.ac.uk>
Sent: Sunday, July 5, 2020 12:58:04 AM
To: sal...@alum.mit.edu; SCORAI
Subject: RE: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize
Hello Saleem, all – as many of the more seasoned of us know, in the academy there is probably no such thing as a “revered” scholar any more, one can always find ways to critique or engage by looking at fundamental assumptions, ignored evidence, unconscious bias, etc. (deserved or not).
For Vaclav, my own experience has been he’s willing to engage constructively as long as you attack the arguments and not the person. We had a nice, civil debate in ERSS a few years ago where we argued in favour of fast transitions, he critiqued, we replied:
Although I hope we “won” the debate, and I still think Vaclav is too pessimistic when it comes to assumptions about transition speeds, it was an enjoyable process that benefitted from the Socratic like exchange.
So for him, focus on the substance, and not ad hominum attacks, and you may both be able to refute him and also benefit from his earnest engagement.
From: sco...@googlegroups.com <sco...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of saleem
Sent: 05 July 2020 04:29
To: SCORAI <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize
Colleagues
Colleagues
Much as we can lament and dismiss Shellenberger’s specious arguments (and there are many in the book), the points he makes about energy density issues with wind and solar come from revered energy scholars like Vaclav Smil and Jesse Ausubel.
Any thoughts on critiquing Smil and Ausubel ? forget about Shellenberger.
All best
Saleem
On Wednesday, July 1, 2020 at 10:05:39 AM UTC-4, Robert Sroufe wrote:As a follow up to the Planet of the Humans thread and earlier posts, this book has caught my attention and I wanted to see how you all would respond to something like this book and webpage link below being brought up in your classrooms?
Here is some of what the author says is in this book:
I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public. Here are some facts few people know:
- Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
- The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
- Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
- Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
- The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
- The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
- Carbon emissions have been declining in rich nations for decades and peaked in Britain, Germany and France in the mid-seventies
- Adapting to life below sea level made the Netherlands rich not poor
- We produce 25% more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
- Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
- Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
- Preventing future pandemics requires more not less “industrial” agriculture
--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/3955b7ed-6412-4629-8f81-c37687dbbb60o%40googlegroups.com.--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CWXP265MB0262C277CB5EEAC8788C61D7B5680%40CWXP265MB0262.GBRP265.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/92fb6cbd6c494d62b95b7b19586738d0%40mail.ubc.ca.
--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/B2F0FEB0-46BC-4A63-9000-AAE2B2637E6A%40ucalgary.ca.--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/016d01d653b4%24ea930290%24bfb907b0%24%40shaw.ca.--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/011901d653f4%2492214d70%24b663e850%24%40shaw.ca.
--
Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed
until it is faced. – James Baldwin
--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/00e501d654b9%24f5f02f90%24e1d08eb0%24%40shaw.ca.--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/CACnimAk%2BF7Da61hv2BRbcrQRHkDqaGvT8beOwJY%3DwumOgc4foQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/024201d65562%24a30de0c0%24e929a240%24%40shaw.ca.
--
- Subscribe to SCORAI: http://eepurl.com/dHXawz
- Too many emails? Send an email to rob...@orzanna.de and change to a digest mode.
- Submit an item to next newsletter: lizb....@gmail.com
- Submit a new blog post: hbr...@clarku.edu
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SCORAI" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
scorai+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/648811529.36306.1594249706073%40connect.xfinity.com.
JOHN DE GRAAF,* JOHN DE GRAAF
John de Graaf
Guy Salmon | Ecologic
Thanks, John for your delightful response, and for the link to your film featuring New Zealand.
I do vaguely remember that 1994 interview in the forest, and the film, and it was quite nostalgic to watch it again. It dates from an era of optimism and progress on environmental issues in New Zealand similar to that halcyon early 70s period in the US described in one part of Gus Speth’s book, Red Sky at Morning. The collaborative model you portray in the film probably reached its peak here in 2009-18 when we ran a successful consensus-building process with the agriculture sector, environmental and Maori groups through the Land and Water Forum: http://www.landandwater.org.nz/. But that painfully built consensus has recently unravelled, as did the earlier one on forests, and several others, albeit still leaving behind some clear environmental progress.
New Zealand has overall, become more polarised and litigious, like the other English-speaking countries, despite the collaborative leadership style of our Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern. This is in part because environmental issues that divide us have become bigger, and the influence of identity politics and social media has created a more divided and sectarian politics. So it is hard to foresee a return to consensual approaches - as Captain Oates said, “I am going outside and I may be some time…” Another film which I also feature in, from 2014, is a portrait of this less hopeful era, and of NZ’s continuing struggle to reduce its climate emissions (beyond statements of good intentions for the future): https://www.nzonscreen.com/title/hot-air-2014
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that we in NZ have now become caught up, like the rest of the world, in the broader dynamics of globalised, late capitalist development. Much turns on what happens in the U.S. and Europe in the months ahead. We hope for the best, and we are nurturing some ideas for the future, as ‘Fit for a Better World’ suggests…
Best wishes
Guy
Ruben Nelson
Guy,
Thank you.
A remarkable document in both content and presentation. Possibly only NZ could produce such a document today. It is a gift and an inspiration.
The message that we need to re-learn to experience reality as relational is a key necessary and critical step into the next form of civilization. By the way, this step also means we must learn to acknowledge and work with a host of soft human experiential data as worthy of our full and careful attention. The present positivistic bias of science is our past and not our future… if we are to have one. ‘empirical’ isn’t what it used to be.
From: Guy Salmon | Ecologic [mailto:g...@ecologic.org.nz]
Sent: July 8, 2020 9:00 PM
To: jo...@comcast.net; ruben...@shaw.ca; Ashley Colby <ash...@rizomafieldschool.com>
Cc: SCORAI Group <sco...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [SCORAI] Re: On Behalf of Environmentalists I Apologize; Publication of "Fit For A Better World"
Like Ashley, I’ve been impressed with the power of ‘experiential learning and doing’ at the local community level – in my case, through my governance role in the New Zealand Landcare Trust. In this role I have visited with many catchment groups in rural areas. And like John, I have no doubt about the importance of simple language to reach communities and the general public.
Jean Boucher
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/scorai/609814ebd301400d89a33e225d064881%40ecologic.org.nz.