Archived Message for Future Inhabitants
Daniel O'Neill
withing the not-to-distant future, there will still be humans alive
capable of accessing this message in the archives of Usenet.
By the time you read this message, the environment of the earth will
have changed drastically and, most likely, catastrophically. This
will have been due not only to the ignorance of many of the people who
are alive at the time this is being written - who refused to change
their actions by ceasing from the activities known to cause
environmental damage - but also from the international nuclear
conflicts which will have been the inevitable results of this
environmental damage.
I am addressing what is history to you from the other side. I have
the opportunity to say things which will not be able to be said.
In your time, which in my eyes is already this time, since in my eyes
the destruction of earth has already occurred, people will wonder what
it means to be human. Despite all of what has been said throughout
the ages, it has turned out that humans were not only no better than
other life forms - no more intelligent, spiritual, insightful - but in
fact worse. How can you believe in yourself as a human being when you
have seen where it all ends? You may also wonder how it is that you
even came to be in this body of yours as a human being, when you feel
within you that you have nothing in common with the despicable
creatures who have caused so much pain for so many beings.
I feel as though there is no difference between the time I am writing
this and the time you are reading this. Perhaps there is more tension
in the air right now, as we loom toward the inevitable consequences of
ignorance. In your time, this tension will have been relieved, and in
its place there will be an emptiness which cannot be filled, a deep
pain which cannot be soothed. You will realize that more precious
than diamonds, gold, or anything else would be the ability to have
changed what has happened. But you will not get the chance. It will
have been taken away from you. The people in the time in which this
is being written are the ones who have taken it from you. They have
taken the Earth from you, and left you a desolate, poisoned, sickened
planet.
Can I tell you how appalling I find this time to live in? Can I tell
you how utterly horrid people have become? How insane their
behaviours are?
I do not care to live in this time. I have often wondered how I could
have ended up in this situation, because it is virtually a logical
impossibility that a being such as me could have been generated out of
these conditions. I have almost nothing in common with those around
me. I feel out of time.
Everyday of my life as I am out walking about I receive hostile stares
from strangers. This is a new phenomenon. It has only been like this
for about five years or so. I think it all began somehow not long
after the United States bombed Iraq. Something changed at that time.
Something very wrong began to happen to the Amercan psyche. There was
more and more hate-mongering. People, instead of just minding their
own business and being happy for what they had, suddenly all became
jealous and hostile toward one another, and began concerning
themselves with other people's private business. They would suddenly
start verbally abusing people who engaged in activities which they did
not like. People also made the mistake of thinking that this abuse
and violation of others was a form of intellectual dialog. And while
some people began wondering whether all this happening had been done
intentionally for other reasons, it didn't matter, because this way of
thinking - or not thinking as it is - caught on with a majority of
Americans. At some level it resonated with their psyches, which were
not sufficiently developed and mature enough to discern the danger
involved.
At the same time, the people of the United States began taking on a
militaristic mentality about just about everything. Everything had to
be ordered and efficient. People who were seen as not being ordered
and efficient (even though they may perhaps have been in ways not
measurable in their system) were harrassed and even harmed.
The Internet/Computer revolution began to happen in the late 1990's,
and while on the one hand it seemed to offer some sort of promise for
a new way of doing things, this promise was utterly stifled by a lack
of insightful thought into the origin of modern technology, into how
humans have to relate to one another, to earth, to everything.
Anaximander, the pre-Socratic greek philosopher once said something
about all things paying penalty for their origin. If they did not pay
this penalty, they would be immortal.
In the end, the computer "revolution" just accelerated the
militarization of the psyche of the American citizen. We no longer
needed jails and police, because the police and jails were in
everyone's minds. Law enforcement was being enacted in a gross way in
everyday human affairs. Authentic human relations had disappeared.
Not only had everyone forgot, they didn't know they forgot. They
couldn't get back to who they were, and the succession of wisdom and
knowledge which has accompanied living beings in the course of their
evolution down through the ages, transmitted from one generation to
the next, had been broken. Perhaps this alone was enough to cause
such great destruction on earth. Everything else was just a side
effect.
You may not be human beings anymore, I am sorry to say. You may look
like we look, but you are not humans, in terms of the progression and
evolution of life on earth. You are something outside of this chain
of life. You can never regain your origin because it is lost.
Already in the time I am living it is lost. I can see only a few,
very scarce remaining vestiges of it. The people of this time are
severely damaged humans. You, their product, are no longer humans.
I, being human, am like a mother. You are like a child but you are
not my child, even though you may want to be, may long to be. This is
the abyss of being which has unfolded in the course of the development
of modern technology on earth. It has taken this abyss, which cannot
be traversed, for you to see what only the rarest of those living in
these final days saw: The preciousness of all life on earth.
For both of us it is too late. So, standing on opposite sides of the
abyss, we share something in common.
Tom Morris
Daniel O'Neill wrote in message <35d01818...@news.sirius.com>...
>This message is being composed in the event that, at some point
>withing the not-to-distant future, there will still be humans alive
>capable of accessing this message in the archives of Usenet.
>
Daniel:
Wow! I do understand that it can get very overwhelming. I have been teaching
environmental science for 18 years now. I've had my ups and downs. There
were times when I just threw up my hands and said, "What the f*%k is going
on?" But I stayed with my thoughts and my frustrations. After a long time, I
realized that the trends of environmental damage will continue because this
phenomenon is so closely tied into the essence of life. That's what living
things do. The notion of a sustainable environment, made that way by
sustainable economies pretty much is a pipe dream. Humans don't want a
sustainable environment. They want MORE of and from the environment. It's
very biological. And the last thing they want is some kind of flat economy.
The economies of the modern world are utterly dependent upon the expanding
pyramid scheme of the securities markets. The stock markets rise by sheer
force of will more than they do by a company's profitability.
I know we can stop doing really stupid things. For example, there is a lot
of pollution we can control without much effort. And we can do some
recycling and stuff. Conduct our nuclear tests underground instead of in the
atmosphere (or stop them altogether). Ride the bus instead of driving, and
so on.
But caring about the environment and even thinking about the future takes a
fair bit of sophistication and education. Most of the people of the world
(especially in the rapidly growing undeveloped countries) couldn't care less
about the environment and the fate of the planet. But even if 90% of us had
the wherewithal to be super environmental, 10% of 10 billion people (pretty
soon) can still do enough damage to counteract the successes of the
majority.
So, I think trying to stop humankind's environmental degradation of the
planet is impossible. We can slow it, but eventually, we will change the
planet until we decide that we don't want to change it anymore. When that
will be, I don't know. You and I can do our bit as environmentalists but
this will be more out of our personal desire to have a certain quality
relationship with our world. Ask how many of your friends really deliberate
and struggle with the fate of the world in the next 100 years. Mine think I
am crazy. "Who cares, we'll all be dead", they tell me.
Many of my students care, but in the end, they have other priorities that
they must attend to. And so do I, if I am going to be part of this society.
The history of this world is filled with natural revolutions that have
devastated the ruling biological hegemony. The temperature revolution 3
billion years ago was created by the thermophilic archea but killed many of
them off as a result. 2.5 billion years ago, the oxygen revolution was a
product of a new biological process for fixing carbon, but produced oxygen
that was poisonous to the pioneering photosynthesizers. The invention of the
eukaryotic cell was a master work of cooperation between bacteria but it
meant hard times for bacterial strains not on the bandwagon. Others
included: the invention of the mouth, cosmic cataclysms, and now humans. Are
these good things or bad things? They certainly were bad for the
non-survivors. But they represented worlds of opportunity for the
descendants of the survivors. Life just is and if humans are rearranging the
planet in ways that they know are bad for other living things, then that
just is too. It is a sad thing to watch happen before our very eyes, but
there is no way to stop it. Humans are creating new circumstances that many
living things will be unable to cope with. This is unethical and we should
know better. We DO know better, but most of humanity just doesn't care. How
many people drive the speed limit? How many people eat healthy and exercise
regularly? So it will happen despite the protests from the minority of
people who argue correctly that it just isn't right.
After many many years teaching otherwise, I have accepted this future and
there is no going back. Now my mission is to ensure that my descendants
(including my students and anybody else who will listen to me) will figure
out how to find hope and opportunity in this future new world. Hope and
opportunity are certainly out there on our own world. And I suspect it will
eventually be out there on other worlds. How to comprehend those worlds
represents a major intellectual hurdle. I have found great comfort by
developing a new theory about the operations of life-bearing worlds. It
helps me better understand the Earth in the context of other worlds in its
extended environment. At the hands of humans, Earth will never be the same.
But we are indomitable pioneers. Unfortunately for other kinds of living
things, their destinies began and ended or will end on Earth. This could be
the fate of humanity as well, but it need not be. Life is and always has
been about the power to dominate. That is not my particular raison d'ętre,
but many people have this urge. They are the ones who head the corporations
and public offices. They are the ones making the BIG decisions. They are the
ones helping to create the very environmental crisis that now threatens the
Earth. But ironically, they will be the ones who will find a way to survive
it. Perhaps besides Earth there are other safe harbors out there. We cannot
get there alone.
Good luck.
Tom
Tom Morris
Division of Natural Sciences
Fullerton College
Fullerton, CA, USA
Fenris
>I realized that the trends of environmental damage will continue because this
>phenomenon is so closely tied into the essence of life. That's what living
>things do. The notion of a sustainable environment, made that way by
>sustainable economies pretty much is a pipe dream. Humans don't want a
>sustainable environment. They want MORE of and from the environment. It's
>very biological. And the last thing they want is some kind of flat economy.
>The economies of the modern world are utterly dependent upon the expanding
>pyramid scheme of the securities markets. The stock markets rise by sheer
>force of will more than they do by a company's profitability.
Thanks for very interesting thoughts. But I think your assertion here
is extremely deterministic! 'It's very biological'? Are you really
trying to explain economics in terms of the biological? The extremely
complex human society in terms of an 'essence of life'? Ok, let's
scrap the whole of the social sciences. Eureka!
>Life just is and if humans are rearranging the
>planet in ways that they know are bad for other living things, then that
>just is too.
There is a difference between man-made impacts and other impacts. We
are conscious about our manipulation with nature. We don't follow the
blind trial-and-error that is typical of evolutionary development.
That is really worrying for environmentalists, as I will return to
further down.
>Life is and always has
>been about the power to dominate.
That seems very gloomy. There have been speculation over whether
Darwin was influenced by the economic theories of his time. I think
that a lot more weight has been put on other perspectives of life than
the competitive perspective. Because you have theories on cooperation
between organisms in nature, and also many examples of symbiosis.
>[...] many people have this urge. They are the ones who head the corporations
>and public offices. They are the ones making the BIG decisions. They are the
>ones helping to create the very environmental crisis that now threatens the
>Earth. But ironically, they will be the ones who will find a way to survive
>it. Perhaps besides Earth there are other safe harbors out there. We cannot
>get there alone.
How many people in the environmentalist movement are into this
'leaving Earth' thing anyway? Can't you see that you're just putting
your faith in the same thing that brought us into this mess in the
first place?
One very important root cause for the technological-industrial spiral
is the deep-rooted belief in progress embedded in science. Many people
would place the progress-belief's origin in the renaissance. According
to philosopher von Wright it's traceable to the French scientist
Fontenelle, who wrote in 1688:
"Mankind will never degenerate, the growth and development of its
wisdom shall be without end."
Another Frenchman, Condorcet, wrote cirka 1780 an extended thesis
about this idea, and postulated that not only knowledge, but moral
conpetence, was to grow forever with science. [in Esquisse d'un
tableau historique des progrès de l'esprit humain] He asserted that
'toute découverte dans les sciences est un bienfait pour l'humanité':
everything discovered in science is to the benefit of mankind.
(Obviously written before the atom bomb.) However, he feared the
uncontrolled birth rates, and warned against mindlessly increasing our
numbers. But he was assured that people would come to their senses
with enough insight.
Hey, enviros, let's look at what premises natural sciences are based
on, before "we" start jumping onto that same train as the ones
wrecking this place. One important is the so-called 'Hume's
guillotin', the divide between 'is' and 'ought'- a statement of "fact"
doesn't say anything about the potential use or application of that
knowledge. But as Shakespeare noted:
For naught so vile that on the earth doth live
But to the earth some special good doth give;
Nor aught so good but, strain'd from that fair use,
Revolts from true birth, stumbing on abuse:
Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied.
Hume's guillotin might have been practical for some time, but it only
holds as long as finding out "facts" doesn't lead to discoveries that
others can use for mass destruction. If this is a possibility - and
even only a possibility - the scientist has a personal responsibility
for potential consequences of his work. As we know, humanity will
always, as long as we exist (except if a major wipe-out happens) have
to live with the existence of atomic bombs.
So. What have we learnt from the atomic bomb? Let's look to
geneticism. Here is a field of great potential for major mistakes. Do
we want to make horrid discoveries today that future generations will
have to live with for eternity? Or that might radically change the
environment in unexpected ways?
How much effort is done by scientists today in addresing this
question? How much time and money is spent researching possibilities
for things to go wrong, compared to how much time and money is spent
on designing pesticide-resistant soy beans etc.? They might say: If we
don't do it, someone else will. And it's true. Who is going to take
responsibility for this development? The answer is: No-one. That why
it's going to happen, no matter how hard environmentalists protest
against it. So I agree on you on that point.
It just goes to showing how hard we humans have for learning from
history, I guess.
There have been some discussion on whether science can "save the
earth" (which should have been rephrased "save us"). The deep-rooted
belief in progress is still strong, maybe stronger than ever, and it
is to a large degree environmentalists who contribute to that. That is
the problem. We have to look at the root causes for the vicious spiral
of technological and population growth, and at the root here lies the
belief in progress.
As long as we call for more research and new technology as a solution
to environmental problems, we are contributing to the same development
that is causing the problems. We need to leave things to nature much
more.
And firing up underneath the space industry is no way to cool down
this belief. Escape in to space? Sheesh.
Fenris
<lydersag...@hotmail.com>
Tom Morris
Fenris wrote in message <6qp89d$9ne$1...@toralf.uib.no>...
>is extremely deterministic! 'It's very biological'? Are you really
>trying to explain economics in terms of the biological? The extremely
>complex human society in terms of an 'essence of life'? Ok, let's
>scrap the whole of the social sciences. Eureka!
>
><lydersag...@hotmail.com>
>
Fenris:
I hear you. And for many years I have deliberated extensively over the
arguments you have presented here. All excellent arguments. All ethical
arguments. Despite the beauty of civilization and its interest in ethics, I
think that human society on a global scale will not always do the ethical
thing. I once dreamt that human society would but I no longer nurture this
dream. Perhaps I am wrong. Only time will tell.
Still I do not see this as a gloomy future. I have stopped trying to FORCE
the future. I think the future will be very different from the one that
environmentally-minded folks want. And I am not proposing that we scrap all
constraints on our behavior. I am not giving permission to destroy the
planet because it is the only biological thing to do. But I have come to
understand why humans will continue to cause great and damaging changes to
the world despite our pleadings to the contrary. The environmental viewpoint
continues to promote a good and responsible relationship with the planet.
But it doesn't offer power-hungry people what they hunger for.
Environmentalism mainly is about restraint, but the powerful elite and
everyday people have great difficulty accepting limitations. They should but
they won't.
If humans collectively decide they want to stop the damage, then they will.
This would be the ethical thing to do. But I do not see humans making this
decision anytime soon. Humans should stop overpopulating the planet, but
they won't. Indonesians should stop burning the rain forest, but they won't.
Americans should stop driving gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles but they
won't. So, I do my part and teach my classes and share my concerns. Some
people care but even many educated folks don't. They have other goals that
they hunger for regardless of the environmental impacts. Look at the real
powers driving development all over the world. I cannot persuade people to
stop wanting what they want.
Regarding the notion of escaping to space. Obviously, this will never be a
practical alternative. Even if we discover a pristine habitable world right
next door, the great bulk of humanity on this world will receive no benefit.
Humans will still have to face environmental concerns on Earth. And there is
the powerful argument that humans are so environmentally irresponsible that
they should not be allowed on another habitable world. But rather than dwell
on the frustrating prospects for Earth, I am trying to see some benefit to
the industrial world we are creating. And one benefit is the power to
discover and explore other worlds -- if for no other reason than the pure
excitement of it. So, I have lifted my eyes outward and I have begun to
consider the prospects of other worlds -- simply for the excitement of it. I
have decided to leave the doom and gloom behind because after years and
years of teaching environmental classes I can't take it anymore. And I won't
teach it anymore. This doesn't rob any of the reality of our desperate
environmental storm. But I have decided to find the silver linings that
accompanies its clouds.
Your arguments and concerns are such good ones. They are right ones. We
should continue to cultivate them whenever possible.
Fenris
>I hear you. And for many years I have deliberated extensively over the
>arguments you have presented here. All excellent arguments. All ethical
>arguments. Despite the beauty of civilization and its interest in ethics,
I
>think that human society on a global scale will not always do the ethical
>thing. I once dreamt that human society would but I no longer nurture this
>dream. Perhaps I am wrong. Only time will tell.
Don't all enviros have moments of defaitism from time to time?
>Still I do not see this as a gloomy future. I have stopped trying to FORCE
>the future.
So you have stopped trying to influence the development in _any_ ways? It
sure doesn't look like it, if you're posting articles here.
[...]
>Humans should stop overpopulating the planet, but
>they won't. Indonesians should stop burning the rain forest, but they
won't.
>Americans should stop driving gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles but they
>won't. So, I do my part and teach my classes and share my concerns. Some
>people care but even many educated folks don't. They have other goals that
>they hunger for regardless of the environmental impacts. Look at the real
>powers driving development all over the world. I cannot persuade people to
>stop wanting what they want.
Yes, you can. That's exactly what needs to be done. And it _is_ done. There
are activist groups all over challenging the commercial influence that
multinationals and others have on people, by changing the text on
advertisement boards, through subvertisements (anti-advertisements), and through
direct action.
>Regarding the notion of escaping to space. Obviously, this will never be a
>practical alternative. Even if we discover a pristine habitable world
right
>next door, the great bulk of humanity on this world will receive no
benefit.
>Humans will still have to face environmental concerns on Earth.
Good point.
>And there is
>the powerful argument that humans are so environmentally irresponsible
that
>they should not be allowed on another habitable world. But rather than
dwell
>on the frustrating prospects for Earth, I am trying to see some benefit to
>the industrial world we are creating. And one benefit is the power to
>discover and explore other worlds -- if for no other reason than the pure
>excitement of it. So, I have lifted my eyes outward and I have begun to
>consider the prospects of other worlds -- simply for the excitement of it.
It didn't sound that way in the first posting. So now you are saying that
you don't really support a further development of hightech space industry
(which will further strengthen the belief in progress through technological
development), but since it is going to happen anyway, you prefer to enjoy
it?
> I
>have decided to leave the doom and gloom behind because after years and
>years of teaching environmental classes I can't take it anymore. And I
won't
>teach it anymore.
Understandable.
>This doesn't rob any of the reality of our desperate
>environmental storm. But I have decided to find the silver linings that
>accompanies its clouds.
Sounds like escapism.
>Your arguments and concerns are such good ones. They are right ones. We
>should continue to cultivate them whenever possible.
So you agree with me on absolutely everything? Gee. First time that's ever
happened to me on usenet.
Fenris
<lydersag...@hotmail.com>
Doug
>Regarding the notion of escaping to space. Obviously, this will never be a
>practical alternative. Even if we discover a pristine habitable world right
>next door, the great bulk of humanity on this world will receive no benefit.
>the powerful argument that humans are so environmentally irresponsible that
>they should not be allowed on another habitable world. But rather than dwell
>on the frustrating prospects for Earth, I am trying to see some benefit to
>the industrial world we are creating. And one benefit is the power to
>discover and explore other worlds -- if for no other reason than the pure
>excitement of it. So, I have lifted my eyes outward and I have begun to
>have decided to leave the doom and gloom behind because after years and
>years of teaching environmental classes I can't take it anymore. And I won't
>environmental storm. But I have decided to find the silver linings that
>accompanies its clouds.
you are thinking of habitable ones. Well, there aren't any, at least
in this solar system. While there almost certainly are habitable
worlds in other solar systems, we won't be exploring them for
centuries (at best). Therefore, let's make do with what we have.
Take one nickel-iron asteroid, say, 5 miles in diameter. Heat it up
with (very) large mirrors until it's molten. Set off a relatively
clean nuke in the center, and wait for it to cool down. Spin it for
gravity, add air, and presto! One hollow world waiting to be
colonized.
Alternatively, you could just drop a few comets on Mars and terraform
it.
I'm not saying any of this would be easy, but unlike warp drive, it's
actually feasible.
Doug
Graham Caswell
in the history of life, that our species seems more akin to a collection of
cancer cells than self-aware beings, and that millions of years from now
the earth will be a poorer place because of what a few generations of
humans have done and are doing, there is still room for hope. Consider the
following.....
1. The entire problem of the environmental crisis is a human behavioural
problem.
Human behaviour is in turn a result of the internal representation of
reality within each person. Alter this internal view of reality and you
alter the behaviour.
Furthermore, it is easier to affect mass human behaviour today than it has
ever been. Extremely sophisticated models of human internal dynamics and
behaviour are highly accurate in predicting behaviour and very effective in
influencing it. Technological innovations in media, together with a high
degree of dependance on such media for the creation of their internal
worldview, makes a large number of people -possibly even a substantial
majority -highly suseptible to focused, professional campaigns to alter
their inner representation of the world and hence their behaviour. There
is nothing that says that mass marketing must only be used to promote
greed.
2. The 'target audience' or 'target market' is far smaller than the
population of the planet. It is the richest billion people who are doing
most of the damage and who, more importantly, are setting the example for
the rest to follow. Furthermore, it is a substantial minority of these
billion people who are the 'reference groups' , 'influencers', or trend
setters. These include those active in education, the media, in art and
culture, in religion and in politics. To put it simply, if the people on
TV seem to believe that cars cause climate change, then to many people that
will be reality.
3. Humans are capable of suprisingly sudden and dramatic change at a
social level. Recent examples of such change include the collapse of the
Soviet Union and the abandonment of communism, the Chinese student's
revolution that culminated in Tiannanmen square, Phillipino 'People's
Power', and even the reaction to Princess Di's death. Mass media
emphasizes this change. While social change leading to global
sustainability would obviously have to be several orders of magnitude
greater in scale and intensity than the above examples, it would by no
means be without precedent.
4. The end of the cold war and the withdrawal ot the threat of imminant
global thermonuclear holocaust has been a major acheivement in humankind's
handling of its own affairs. Not only that, but violence as a method of
conflict resolution is increasingly unacceptable around the world. Nelson
Mandela is now president of South Africa: the war in Northern Ireland is
over, as is the Intifada; Mozambique, Angola, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Boznia,
Liberia, and many other countries now have some sort of peace; it is no
longer acceptable for a man to beat his wife or children in many countries;
there are no longer 'disappeared in Argintina or Chile; corporal punishment
is no longer acceptable. The greatest environmental disaster possible
would have been nuclear holocaust -not one or two or five on the Indian
sub-continent, but hundreds of thousands around the world. As a species we
have drawn back from that abyss, giving us hope that we can draw back from
the one we face now.
5. The established religions are natural allies. All of the world's major
religions denounce material values as appropriate goals for human life.
The teachings of Mohammed, Christ, Bhudda, and many other spiritual leaders
promote a way of life focused on non-material values -entirely consistant
with sustainablity. While religions are not prominant in the environmental
awareness movement today, as the crisis deepens it is realistic to expect
that they will become so.
6. Reality will point out the truth better than any environmentalist.
Every record hot summer, every statistic concerning declining fish stocks,
every pollution warning or sunshine 'alert', every local loss of childhood
fields or forest, every additional case of asthma or cancer, every commuter
traffic jam, every documentary on the fate of the Tiger, every hose-pipe
ban, every NIMBY garbage disposal crisis, every case of smog or smoke from
burning forests, every unusual flood, or drought, or storm, every little
child asking awkward questions --all point to the same thing. While the
most common response to the environmental crisis today is denial, that is a
short-term reaction. Reality will continue to intrude until the
psychological defences denying it are overwhelmed by fact and crumble.
Truth does not go away.
Each individual one of us can, if we wish, play a real and effective role
in halting the current destruction by doing two things:
1. "Be the change you wish to see in the world" (i.e., don't be a
hypocrite -set an example)
2. In as focused, consistent, sustained and professional a way as you can,
seek to educate, influence, persuade and make aware as many people as you
possibly can. Tell others what is happening -don't let them turn away from
reality- and show them how to change.
Graham Caswell
cas...@indigo.ie
Phil
Groan, such sophomoric melodrama! Just think how the next generation
will laugh.