Thank you for the comment, Diana. I did mention Gaza early in the essay. I appreciate your pain (and mine) of witnessing this horror, and have addressed it specifically in a few other articles. This article had a different focus. My mandate when I started this work was climate change. Circumstance has forced me to expand. However, one cannot ignore Gaza.
Media bias is a terrible thing, one of the reasons I started writing. In the article, I provided a link or two to genocides even less discussed than Gaza. It's appalling.
Below are a couple of articles I wrote on the subject. You may want to investigate Jonathon Cooke and Counsel Estate Media which can be found by cycling through my home page who concentrate more on that horror. Stay well.
Thanks, Geoffrey, but first you write: "The Earth does not need our stewardship." (as per Rev. Jessica Hetherington) then you write: "...realize our humanity, and become stewards of the planet."
Leave the planet alone, please, otherwise we have hubris piled on hubris and supposed techno-fixes for everything. Enough! The circle representing humanity MUST be contained in the circle representing ecology, instead of the bulge where people keep pushing the human portion beyond the ecology circle, that bulge being urbanization and "Progress." Enough!
You're right, that was confusing. I should clarify that. By "not needing our stewardship," I mean left to its own devices, the Earth finds equilibrium. By becoming stewards of the planet, I mean the wisdom of simply living within its generous confines. Thanks, Kathleen.
Well...uh...wow. Trying to follow the lead of a slight vein of lightness amid the heaviness here, gotta say something like...This essay was one of the more impressive bombshell nutshells I've ever been glad I didn't have to crack or be cracked open by. In other words, I've been there, I pre-“get it” and I respect this piece of writing a lot. As will many others who are already seeing things similarly, or will come to do so from reading it, of course. I do like the way you blended multiple elements, including outrage at the negative, but also a vision for salvaging something better via degrowth, etc. Hope-not-hopium for somehow further evolving something sane in our world, is how I read it. It has a vibe of importance to me that moves me to carry on at some length with the discussion as well.
At the same time, the way all this reads, it begs the question--You can't see ANY possible path for enough people to get "activated", to wake up to what's happening enough to put shoulder to wheel, until civilization hits bottom? Well that's so bleak, G.D., in my view it’s too bleak for too many people, to be able to navigate by. So, what about a “both/AND" approach which would mean building a coalition from a bit of a different way of viewing it all? That's partly how I see what Suzanne is advocating on her forum, as well as here, which yes, would require a logic-based "leap" into a more compassionate attitude and inclusive perception. So here’s another quick Q for you—-Why do we have to work on SEPARATE sides of the street? Seems to me it’d bode better if we didn’t.
As I re-read your piece, aside from all the convincing points well made, I see there is also the matter of those readers potentially on board who will turn away just because of the tone of it. Which calls it up for discussion as to its value as an educational tool, no?...or as a coalition builder, walking its talk about how to create sufficiently potent and cohesive movements to do much degrowing. (Not that anyone here hasn't thought of this stuff; am just bringing the issues up...) As for that tone, objective descriptors that leap to mind are "bitingly cynical satire, in the form of a strongly sarcastic summary of where we're allegedly at." Of course you could always do up a different edit and put that out, elsewhere as well. A different slant on the appeal. And in other pieces you've written, you do adopt a more "unbiased journalism" approach to the overview. Each approach will appeal to a lot of readers more than the other will, with a huge overlap zone. So there IS that too. But fewer will be turned off by the non-satirical version than the other way around. And it’d be a shame to see you get defined or even sort of "cancelled" as a result of writing that many will see as too bitter to fully follow, when there's so much value in your work and who you are. The common hypocritical habit of alienating (potential) allies remains a huge hangup for humanity. That's one thing to wake up to, and from.
For example, there's no escaping the harsh sarcastic bite of the subhead. It was kind of dramatic reading for me because I was half-wondering all along, 'Will he somehow bring this particular scenario of inevitable doom back around to how he ALSO literally believes in, "It's just going to take a leap in human consciousness, that's all."? Sure, I thought, he’s being satirical, but does the prospect at least hold a kernel of possibility for him? Does he get the inherent double meaning, can he hold both as "true from a valid point of view"?'
So again I’ve gotta go more with Suzanne here. There is not only the obvious need for that too-long-comin' evolutionary leap, there’s actually SOME unknowable possibility of it! Hence validation for an earnest attitude of "that's all it'll take", as long as it's ALSO realistic about the apparent facts of the global predicament you lay out. Does anyone reading this not see the significance of this implication? Maybe cruise over to Sue's and let us know there where you stand as well.
So...as she says, now what? To this end, appreciative of the way you engage in authentic discussion with your commenters, even the critics, I've few more Qs for you.---As a response to that subheading, in the context of what you go on to say, it seems to me we'd do better to frame things a little differently. Since this mega-multi-mess we're in clearly stems from a crisis of perception at the root, don't we have the room, the need even, for both meanings, the sarcastic AND the serious, in an effective Coalition? Can't we now move into building THAT? And doesn't some sort of deep change in how we perceive this world by definition HAVE TO unpin the otherwise miraculous scope of the physical changes you call for here, i.e., INTENTIONAL Degrowth? If so, what's wrong with really rooting for it, working for it even as we doom-prep? What can propel such a broad physical change without the perceptual one? Isn't it a copout to essentially say 'there's no evidence' that it's possible? Do you agree with the famous maxim that claims meaningful change in the right direction can't come about from the same level of thinking that created and perpetuates the problem? Furthermore, why can't what's hitting the fan now catalyze a great up-leveling in the minds of millions, at the same time the unavoidable psychological breakdown is going on for millions of others (with in many cases both occurring within the same individuals)?
After all, it's about working for the best while getting ready for the worst, right?
I appreciate your long, thoughtful comment very much, thank you. Finding the right voice to write these essays is challenging. When I started so long ago, my voice was likely gentler, but with essentially no progress on fundamental issues, or even serious discussion on either side of the aisle since then of well-established science, I grow desperate. Whose voice, what tone, what weaving of facts and emotion will wake people up? I have no clear answers, I just try to weave facts and emotion together as best I can. It's a moving target that can be affected by new information midway through an essay.
What I see is that for most until people are personally threatened they are willing to go with the status quo, which is a large part is what has landed us here.
For decades, numerous environmental organizations have begged us to wake up. Being reasonable and logical has resulted in a collapse situation.
Suzanne is advocating for an awakening of human consciousness. I certainly do, too. Our behavior got us here, it's a theme in my writing. I suspect most people are reasonable and just want enough, not too much. Tragically, the wolves have taught us to want too much. Even the baseline definition of a good life, one that allows for equity among people, isn't widely understood. The majority of the population have no clue of overshoot or degrowth, and those struggling in the nations which have been exploited to support our absurd lifestyles suffer from the lack of the most basic essentials for lives with dignity. Our way of life results in mass shootings. Clearly, we aren't achieving the pursuit of happiness, which is another BS slogan in itself.
We have many enemies now in this "polycrisis." The perception of what our problems are, the profound ones set by the planet, are still not absorbed by enough, IMO. This opinion is hardly scientific, but informed "liberals" in my life, family and friends won't read my work and have the opinion there's no point, that they "can't do anything." Certainly we have to not just hope for, but encourage a leveling up of minds at this moment. You raise many of the conflicts and fears I feel. The clock has struck midnight or likely is ten past. The economy built on unsustainable destruction was already dead, now we're going to suffer from that even faster from the "policies" of the new administration. If we're lucky beyond belief, pulling the scab off the wound can lead us in the right direction, but there is much education to do and no time. You appear to be someone who can be a strong voice in that movement.
And I thank you in return GD, for taking time to reply in some depth; and while I'm at it, a bow of respect for all the valuable work you've done. (See also my short new comment above.)
That said, your thoughtful reply is mostly echoing your general overview, and giving indirect answers to direct questions. Which naturally gives rise to, well, pretty much still the same questions, right? My last Q is a semi-rhetorical quasi-cliche, but I wonder if you might yet be enticed to respond more precisely to a couple of the others? E.g., do you agree with the well known maxim and implications I cite near the end, as to whether you believe that the significant intentional degrowth itself is even possible without some sort of radically basic shift in millions of people's perceptions? You know, like the one you were either born with or came around to gradually or relatively suddenly somehow? Are "we" that special? (There are lots of exemplars out there; 'we just need orders of magnitude more of them, that's all'. And you already know how tipping points work and cascades and collapses tend to be exponential. Why not some "good" cascading being catalyzed as a "natural" evolutionary response?) And please if you will, more specifically, where do you stand on the ASAP need for a scalable semi-organized coalition of overlapping movements, networks, groups, factions, whatever, and if it IS fairly fundamental, how to approach that? I mean going far beyond a mostly "on paper", conceptual Coalition. It's a scary step in some ways. Would it be worth it?
I think degrowth is highly unlikely to occur, even though I promote it. I think it's a great concept for solving numerous interrelated problems, but it was conceived in 1970 or so, and should have been put into action then. Aside from the obvious — that we have creeps in office now who would never promote it (and have probably never even heard of it)— hell, neither would our so-called liberals, implementing the plan would take decades including ongoing public education just to make it possible. No doubt it would be labeled "socialist," the kiss of death. The basic problem is almost nobody with a significant voice is painting the real picture of overshoot and that we are in a catastrophic emergency requiring nothing short of radical change.
Yes, tipping points are exponential, and natural evolutionary response takes hundreds or thousands of years. Epigenetics points to changes in a single generation that add up to evolution over enough time. Clearly, evolution and the speed with which we are destroying an inhabitable planet are on different schedules.
Is there good with evolutionary response? Sure, Homo sapiens, at least some of us have ALREADY been there, exemplified in the thinking of many indigenous people who see the oneness of everything. Many of the answers we need lie in going back, not going forward, and certainly not in BS technological "solutions" being foisted on us by greedy, myopic capitalism.
Thank-you very much Geoffrey for a wonderful essay although brutally sad. Whilst reading a book called "The Earth Knows my Name" I learnt more about 2 other atrocities that have occurred in the last 100 or so years. Mussolini and Pol Pot.
Recently here in Australia, during a regular TV program called 4 Corners on the ABC, they featured a story about the Yoorrook Justice Commission. It is the first formal truth telling process into the historical and on-going injustices experienced by First Peoples in the Australian state of Victoria. This commission might lead to a treaty being enacted.
My thought at the end of the program was, if the Victorian Government seeks to recognise the injustices experienced and being experienced by their First Nations people, when will the Victorian Government publicly condemn the genocide being continually inflicted on the Palestinian peoples.
Mussolini's war crimes in Africa and Greece included chemical weapons and on the spot executions. Japan also committed war crimes and is infamous for the Rape of Nanjing. The Bosnian genocide of the early 90s is still in my memory, and yes, the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot took at least 1.3 million lives. The sad truth is that somewhere in the world at any given time, genocide is happening.
As a child, I remember playing Cowboys and Indians. Nobody wanted to be an Indian, such was the brainwashing at a young age. Now, I would proudly play an Indian.
Becoming conscious of the truth takes much time and digging. My efforts here well into my fourth year have been a second education on many issues. I'm thankful to have gone down this road, even when it's tiring.
The stubbornness of our governments to condemn the genocide in Gaza is utterly absurd and evil. Israel is of course a colonial power stronghold in the midst of oil, and there are trillions of cubic feet of LNG off the Gaza coast. As fossil fuels dwindle, maneuvering to control them becomes acute. I believe that fuels what we are witnessing, in addition to pure hatred. It's heartbreaking and unforgivable.
Thank-you Geoffrey for your wonderful, tireless work. The reminders and learning of the atrocities (human and non-human) that occur on this planet are much needed to raise our consciousness.
A note to GD's readers: Here's a fact I recently read that is better brought up here than anywhere else in the world; and I I doubt I'll come across another startling one this coming week whose implications disturb me more: The longtime host here only has a few DOZEN paying subscribers!? WTF folks, does that not seem an extremely appalling stat? Guess I gotta add another item to the monthly budget. Hmm...do even this man's fans find this a scary prospect, that it crosses their line to be on such a subscription list, which could lead to getting on "other lists"? I can't even consider the possibility that there's only a few dozen solid fans on this whole planet. So I say 'Hey, it's "just" a necessary part of our full-spectrum research as concerned citizens, to follow such an informative forum, right?'
I second that. I've been urging my subscribers to pay in for you. And here's something else. Substack now has Chats for subscribers to people's Substacks, for ongoing conversation and not just responses to posts. Although I have almost 3,000 subscribers, by and large they don't make Comments, so I could see calling a Chat and nobody but Jolt Rider showing up. Your subscribers could be a better bet. One thing I'd put out to remain available to your Chat participants is from Marianne Wiliamson, which I messaged you to look at yesterday. Here's what I'd hope would be widely shared:
I watched Marianne’s talk, and I don’t have a problem with her thoughts. We do indeed need a great leap forward in consciousness. I'm all for it, and think you know I emphasize our behavior in almost all of my writing. If we can't change that, our future is bleak. What western techno civilization fails to realize is the answers we need lie in going back, not forward. We need to recognize the "oneness" of everything, exemplified in indigenous culture. I wrote about that and the irony in Imagine an Earth First Policy.
The problem we have now is time. Climate change is locked in. Even if we could magically stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow morning (wait, it is tomorrow morning, damn this insomnia) we're locked into warming and falling tipping points, perhaps most worrisome the release of massive CO2 and CH4 from the Arctic, and life for people nearest to the equator is becoming untenable. Climate migration is well under way, along with massive economic disruption.
As much as I may agree with Marianne, the practical chaos we're just hitting the threshold of is not likely to foment an environment of lifting collective human consciousness. Rather, it is likely to cause desperation and violence. I don't enjoy my morbid assessment, but I think this is the far more likely scenario for the future. Sorry.
I appreciate you amplifying my voice very much, thank you. My modest effectiveness only goes as far as my words travel. Where the hell are the big people in all of this who ignore the significant smaller ones? Certain writers here that do good work in other ways really piss me off. There's a caste system here that limits the truth spoken.
“It’s an old playbook foisted on us by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics.” 🎯
The Owners and Controllers of Global Financialized Capital are here to root out value wherever they can find it, irrespective of national allegiances. “Raise a wolf on human flesh and eventually it no longer distinguishes between food and the hand that feeds it.”
Hopefully readers understand I’m not asking a question, I’m pointing out the conditions. I’m pleading for people to understand what we’re facing. Your response is realistic. Nothing short of a galvanized, united uprising in recognition that the bottom line is the health of the planet is going to save us. Pleading for this is likely in vain, I well-know. As people awaken to the practical attack on the safety net, and deliberate destruction of the economy, I hope it’s an opportunity to help at least a few to understand the deeper picture and act accordingly. I understand the odds are slim, and a heavy price is baked in.
No argument with our dire state, but, even though there are no logical fixes, seeing as we still are breathing we have to ask now what? Having been coming up with answers to that queston for a couple of years here -- from upleveling human consciousness to relacing lawns with vegetables -- beyond specific things there are additudinal considerations that could be meaningful. One is of being radically available. Stay aware of what's going on with an eye toward action, where even conversations with misguided people can matter. The other, I would argue, is that our thoughts create reality where the more people who believe in universal doom the more likely it will come to pass, so best we come from faith in the future.
There is a logical fix. Unfortunately, it is well established. It comes with blood. Ultimately, power is only taken down with power. There is no reasoning or nicey, nicey. I'm on board with your sentiments. I fantasized at the end of an article a couple of years ago about my neighborhood being lawn free, inviting the creatures back in and a community garden. The harsh truth is we are well away from that thinking. We have ignorant thugs in power and a system we are all dependent on that's going to crash. Maybe after the crash, the survivors will have witnessed and absorbed the brutal lessons. Maybe that will be the breakthrough. It ain't going to happen for you and me, though. The best we can do is put the truth out there at risk, and hope it makes a difference after we hit bottom. Neither of us will see bottom in our lifetimes, but we will have seen enough. Doomers are wise, we're calling it out. Only by dealing with reality do w have a chance. The big epiphany you want won't occur until we have hit the lowest of lows. Look at who's governing us. Realistically, what do you think the future is going to bring? Like you said, I'll work my side of the street and you'll work yours. We both want the best outcome. I prefer your vision, but sorry to say don't find it realistic.
It’s not that I don’t have the right answer but that this is the wrong question. Yes to all horrors, and now what? By the by, can’t we have a coup without blood? These people are not popular. We outnumber them. Aren’t there ways in cyberspace to take over? My “now what” would be to put some of the best minds together to deal with that question.
You have the right answer, but the knuckle draggers continue to drag us down. I thought about you when I wrote my subhead, "It’s just going to take a leap in human consciousness, that’s all." The economic and physical factors about to take place will be phenomenal. Agricultural breakdown will be a primary driver. It will take Jesus times 1000 to herd the insanity. I'm a logical person. The best minds have logic behind them. Unfortunately, the worst of the fuck-ups stopping human advancement aren't reasonable or logical at all.
Geoffrey, when you informed me for the first time that to increase the impact of renewables by building additional infrastructure for them is totally dependent on fossil fuels (diesel), it blew my mind. What kind of disinformation fantasy world was I living in?
We have been led down a road of doom by “leaders” that refused to deal with our climate reality and inflicted increasingly deadly damage instead. Greed and avarice when science and goodwill were needed most.
Now, of course, I fear for our children, and their children. Ignorance is bliss, but in this era of climate change, it is oh so temporary.
Don't feel bad, when I started this project I hadn't connected the dots on diesel and our promised "green," renewable economy either. The puppeteers are quite good at fostering illusions. It blows my mind how many well-known environmentalists and environmental groups haven't seen it, either.
Shale oil and ever deeper ocean drilling platforms entail far more cost than when we could just punch a hole in the ground and voilà, geyser. The easiest reserves are long gone. These types of projects were ignored 20 years ago, for less return on investment.
No one can put a date on the end of oil, but it will happen when EROI no longer turns a profit. Leading up to that point will be, across the economy, inflation. That will be its own issue, even as we are still able to pump. The world of a Victorian era economy awaits us (if we're lucky) animal and human muscle power agriculture.
I got on Chat GPT to look for help, specifically how to react to Erik Michaels whom I found through your appreciation for him. Erik vehemently insists on this: "Sue, we're going extinct. Maybe you missed that part? In other words, we are going to be dead REGARDLESS of what we do. Previously and individually, this has always been the case. It is just that now our entire species will also go this route because the rate of evolution cannot match the rate of change."
My Substack Tuesday will pass along the interesting smarts I got, and I am thinking to pay more attention to what AI can come up with.
--Looking forward to Tuesday! Been thinking a lot, coincidentally, recently about that AI issue too.
--Sounds like Mr. Michaels' answer to Geoffrey's "unity" question, the title of this post, would be a rock-hard NO. Curious if GD agrees completely, or we might see some significant space between them per this debate, maybe even have a modicum of influence on his views. The reverse has been true.
The perfect non-violent bloodless coup could start tomorrow if everyone in the country just turned off their alarm and went back to sleep in the morning. No laws have been broken, no one has died or been jailed, and the current system would come to a screeching halt.
It could be that simple in principle. We have the power to grind the machine to a halt by simply not participating to the best of our ability. Meanwhile, the Amazon truck pulls up to my neighbor's house for the third time this week...
That could be an element, but certainly there are other ones. Always underlying racism which applies to other communities as well is a disturbing element in this mess.
He writes here on Substack. I don't love him, but on WMDs he was speaking the truth. Take the Google results with a grain of salt. There was considerable motivation to smear his reputation. This is the world we live in, one in which the truth becomes ever harder to discern every day.
His personal behavior may be questionable, but so was the timing of the attacks. Even if he was guilty, a revolting thought, that doesn’t invalidate his statements about no WMDs. That said, skepticism is always a good starting point.
Thank you for the comment, Diana. I did mention Gaza early in the essay. I appreciate your pain (and mine) of witnessing this horror, and have addressed it specifically in a few other articles. This article had a different focus. My mandate when I started this work was climate change. Circumstance has forced me to expand. However, one cannot ignore Gaza.
Media bias is a terrible thing, one of the reasons I started writing. In the article, I provided a link or two to genocides even less discussed than Gaza. It's appalling.
Below are a couple of articles I wrote on the subject. You may want to investigate Jonathon Cooke and Counsel Estate Media which can be found by cycling through my home page who concentrate more on that horror. Stay well.
https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/will-the-war-in-israel-take-down
https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/israel-hamas-palestinians-and-the
Thanks, Geoffrey, but first you write: "The Earth does not need our stewardship." (as per Rev. Jessica Hetherington) then you write: "...realize our humanity, and become stewards of the planet."
Leave the planet alone, please, otherwise we have hubris piled on hubris and supposed techno-fixes for everything. Enough! The circle representing humanity MUST be contained in the circle representing ecology, instead of the bulge where people keep pushing the human portion beyond the ecology circle, that bulge being urbanization and "Progress." Enough!
You're right, that was confusing. I should clarify that. By "not needing our stewardship," I mean left to its own devices, the Earth finds equilibrium. By becoming stewards of the planet, I mean the wisdom of simply living within its generous confines. Thanks, Kathleen.
Thanks for posting, Geoffrey. And can we oppose Israel's genocide of Gaza while we're at it?
Well...uh...wow. Trying to follow the lead of a slight vein of lightness amid the heaviness here, gotta say something like...This essay was one of the more impressive bombshell nutshells I've ever been glad I didn't have to crack or be cracked open by. In other words, I've been there, I pre-“get it” and I respect this piece of writing a lot. As will many others who are already seeing things similarly, or will come to do so from reading it, of course. I do like the way you blended multiple elements, including outrage at the negative, but also a vision for salvaging something better via degrowth, etc. Hope-not-hopium for somehow further evolving something sane in our world, is how I read it. It has a vibe of importance to me that moves me to carry on at some length with the discussion as well.
At the same time, the way all this reads, it begs the question--You can't see ANY possible path for enough people to get "activated", to wake up to what's happening enough to put shoulder to wheel, until civilization hits bottom? Well that's so bleak, G.D., in my view it’s too bleak for too many people, to be able to navigate by. So, what about a “both/AND" approach which would mean building a coalition from a bit of a different way of viewing it all? That's partly how I see what Suzanne is advocating on her forum, as well as here, which yes, would require a logic-based "leap" into a more compassionate attitude and inclusive perception. So here’s another quick Q for you—-Why do we have to work on SEPARATE sides of the street? Seems to me it’d bode better if we didn’t.
As I re-read your piece, aside from all the convincing points well made, I see there is also the matter of those readers potentially on board who will turn away just because of the tone of it. Which calls it up for discussion as to its value as an educational tool, no?...or as a coalition builder, walking its talk about how to create sufficiently potent and cohesive movements to do much degrowing. (Not that anyone here hasn't thought of this stuff; am just bringing the issues up...) As for that tone, objective descriptors that leap to mind are "bitingly cynical satire, in the form of a strongly sarcastic summary of where we're allegedly at." Of course you could always do up a different edit and put that out, elsewhere as well. A different slant on the appeal. And in other pieces you've written, you do adopt a more "unbiased journalism" approach to the overview. Each approach will appeal to a lot of readers more than the other will, with a huge overlap zone. So there IS that too. But fewer will be turned off by the non-satirical version than the other way around. And it’d be a shame to see you get defined or even sort of "cancelled" as a result of writing that many will see as too bitter to fully follow, when there's so much value in your work and who you are. The common hypocritical habit of alienating (potential) allies remains a huge hangup for humanity. That's one thing to wake up to, and from.
For example, there's no escaping the harsh sarcastic bite of the subhead. It was kind of dramatic reading for me because I was half-wondering all along, 'Will he somehow bring this particular scenario of inevitable doom back around to how he ALSO literally believes in, "It's just going to take a leap in human consciousness, that's all."? Sure, I thought, he’s being satirical, but does the prospect at least hold a kernel of possibility for him? Does he get the inherent double meaning, can he hold both as "true from a valid point of view"?'
So again I’ve gotta go more with Suzanne here. There is not only the obvious need for that too-long-comin' evolutionary leap, there’s actually SOME unknowable possibility of it! Hence validation for an earnest attitude of "that's all it'll take", as long as it's ALSO realistic about the apparent facts of the global predicament you lay out. Does anyone reading this not see the significance of this implication? Maybe cruise over to Sue's and let us know there where you stand as well.
So...as she says, now what? To this end, appreciative of the way you engage in authentic discussion with your commenters, even the critics, I've few more Qs for you.---As a response to that subheading, in the context of what you go on to say, it seems to me we'd do better to frame things a little differently. Since this mega-multi-mess we're in clearly stems from a crisis of perception at the root, don't we have the room, the need even, for both meanings, the sarcastic AND the serious, in an effective Coalition? Can't we now move into building THAT? And doesn't some sort of deep change in how we perceive this world by definition HAVE TO unpin the otherwise miraculous scope of the physical changes you call for here, i.e., INTENTIONAL Degrowth? If so, what's wrong with really rooting for it, working for it even as we doom-prep? What can propel such a broad physical change without the perceptual one? Isn't it a copout to essentially say 'there's no evidence' that it's possible? Do you agree with the famous maxim that claims meaningful change in the right direction can't come about from the same level of thinking that created and perpetuates the problem? Furthermore, why can't what's hitting the fan now catalyze a great up-leveling in the minds of millions, at the same time the unavoidable psychological breakdown is going on for millions of others (with in many cases both occurring within the same individuals)?
After all, it's about working for the best while getting ready for the worst, right?
I appreciate your long, thoughtful comment very much, thank you. Finding the right voice to write these essays is challenging. When I started so long ago, my voice was likely gentler, but with essentially no progress on fundamental issues, or even serious discussion on either side of the aisle since then of well-established science, I grow desperate. Whose voice, what tone, what weaving of facts and emotion will wake people up? I have no clear answers, I just try to weave facts and emotion together as best I can. It's a moving target that can be affected by new information midway through an essay.
What I see is that for most until people are personally threatened they are willing to go with the status quo, which is a large part is what has landed us here.
For decades, numerous environmental organizations have begged us to wake up. Being reasonable and logical has resulted in a collapse situation.
Suzanne is advocating for an awakening of human consciousness. I certainly do, too. Our behavior got us here, it's a theme in my writing. I suspect most people are reasonable and just want enough, not too much. Tragically, the wolves have taught us to want too much. Even the baseline definition of a good life, one that allows for equity among people, isn't widely understood. The majority of the population have no clue of overshoot or degrowth, and those struggling in the nations which have been exploited to support our absurd lifestyles suffer from the lack of the most basic essentials for lives with dignity. Our way of life results in mass shootings. Clearly, we aren't achieving the pursuit of happiness, which is another BS slogan in itself.
We have many enemies now in this "polycrisis." The perception of what our problems are, the profound ones set by the planet, are still not absorbed by enough, IMO. This opinion is hardly scientific, but informed "liberals" in my life, family and friends won't read my work and have the opinion there's no point, that they "can't do anything." Certainly we have to not just hope for, but encourage a leveling up of minds at this moment. You raise many of the conflicts and fears I feel. The clock has struck midnight or likely is ten past. The economy built on unsustainable destruction was already dead, now we're going to suffer from that even faster from the "policies" of the new administration. If we're lucky beyond belief, pulling the scab off the wound can lead us in the right direction, but there is much education to do and no time. You appear to be someone who can be a strong voice in that movement.
And I thank you in return GD, for taking time to reply in some depth; and while I'm at it, a bow of respect for all the valuable work you've done. (See also my short new comment above.)
That said, your thoughtful reply is mostly echoing your general overview, and giving indirect answers to direct questions. Which naturally gives rise to, well, pretty much still the same questions, right? My last Q is a semi-rhetorical quasi-cliche, but I wonder if you might yet be enticed to respond more precisely to a couple of the others? E.g., do you agree with the well known maxim and implications I cite near the end, as to whether you believe that the significant intentional degrowth itself is even possible without some sort of radically basic shift in millions of people's perceptions? You know, like the one you were either born with or came around to gradually or relatively suddenly somehow? Are "we" that special? (There are lots of exemplars out there; 'we just need orders of magnitude more of them, that's all'. And you already know how tipping points work and cascades and collapses tend to be exponential. Why not some "good" cascading being catalyzed as a "natural" evolutionary response?) And please if you will, more specifically, where do you stand on the ASAP need for a scalable semi-organized coalition of overlapping movements, networks, groups, factions, whatever, and if it IS fairly fundamental, how to approach that? I mean going far beyond a mostly "on paper", conceptual Coalition. It's a scary step in some ways. Would it be worth it?
I think degrowth is highly unlikely to occur, even though I promote it. I think it's a great concept for solving numerous interrelated problems, but it was conceived in 1970 or so, and should have been put into action then. Aside from the obvious — that we have creeps in office now who would never promote it (and have probably never even heard of it)— hell, neither would our so-called liberals, implementing the plan would take decades including ongoing public education just to make it possible. No doubt it would be labeled "socialist," the kiss of death. The basic problem is almost nobody with a significant voice is painting the real picture of overshoot and that we are in a catastrophic emergency requiring nothing short of radical change.
Yes, tipping points are exponential, and natural evolutionary response takes hundreds or thousands of years. Epigenetics points to changes in a single generation that add up to evolution over enough time. Clearly, evolution and the speed with which we are destroying an inhabitable planet are on different schedules.
Is there good with evolutionary response? Sure, Homo sapiens, at least some of us have ALREADY been there, exemplified in the thinking of many indigenous people who see the oneness of everything. Many of the answers we need lie in going back, not going forward, and certainly not in BS technological "solutions" being foisted on us by greedy, myopic capitalism.
Thank-you very much Geoffrey for a wonderful essay although brutally sad. Whilst reading a book called "The Earth Knows my Name" I learnt more about 2 other atrocities that have occurred in the last 100 or so years. Mussolini and Pol Pot.
Recently here in Australia, during a regular TV program called 4 Corners on the ABC, they featured a story about the Yoorrook Justice Commission. It is the first formal truth telling process into the historical and on-going injustices experienced by First Peoples in the Australian state of Victoria. This commission might lead to a treaty being enacted.
My thought at the end of the program was, if the Victorian Government seeks to recognise the injustices experienced and being experienced by their First Nations people, when will the Victorian Government publicly condemn the genocide being continually inflicted on the Palestinian peoples.
Mussolini's war crimes in Africa and Greece included chemical weapons and on the spot executions. Japan also committed war crimes and is infamous for the Rape of Nanjing. The Bosnian genocide of the early 90s is still in my memory, and yes, the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot took at least 1.3 million lives. The sad truth is that somewhere in the world at any given time, genocide is happening.
As a child, I remember playing Cowboys and Indians. Nobody wanted to be an Indian, such was the brainwashing at a young age. Now, I would proudly play an Indian.
Becoming conscious of the truth takes much time and digging. My efforts here well into my fourth year have been a second education on many issues. I'm thankful to have gone down this road, even when it's tiring.
The stubbornness of our governments to condemn the genocide in Gaza is utterly absurd and evil. Israel is of course a colonial power stronghold in the midst of oil, and there are trillions of cubic feet of LNG off the Gaza coast. As fossil fuels dwindle, maneuvering to control them becomes acute. I believe that fuels what we are witnessing, in addition to pure hatred. It's heartbreaking and unforgivable.
Thank-you Geoffrey for your wonderful, tireless work. The reminders and learning of the atrocities (human and non-human) that occur on this planet are much needed to raise our consciousness.
Trust me, it's tiring, but with knowledge comes responsibility. Just trying to do what I can.
Another must read!
Thank you, Jane. So appreciated.
A note to GD's readers: Here's a fact I recently read that is better brought up here than anywhere else in the world; and I I doubt I'll come across another startling one this coming week whose implications disturb me more: The longtime host here only has a few DOZEN paying subscribers!? WTF folks, does that not seem an extremely appalling stat? Guess I gotta add another item to the monthly budget. Hmm...do even this man's fans find this a scary prospect, that it crosses their line to be on such a subscription list, which could lead to getting on "other lists"? I can't even consider the possibility that there's only a few dozen solid fans on this whole planet. So I say 'Hey, it's "just" a necessary part of our full-spectrum research as concerned citizens, to follow such an informative forum, right?'
I second that. I've been urging my subscribers to pay in for you. And here's something else. Substack now has Chats for subscribers to people's Substacks, for ongoing conversation and not just responses to posts. Although I have almost 3,000 subscribers, by and large they don't make Comments, so I could see calling a Chat and nobody but Jolt Rider showing up. Your subscribers could be a better bet. One thing I'd put out to remain available to your Chat participants is from Marianne Wiliamson, which I messaged you to look at yesterday. Here's what I'd hope would be widely shared:
Marianne Williamson, the voice for our time
A pep talk for making humanity sacred again
https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/marianne-williamson-the-voice-for
I watched Marianne’s talk, and I don’t have a problem with her thoughts. We do indeed need a great leap forward in consciousness. I'm all for it, and think you know I emphasize our behavior in almost all of my writing. If we can't change that, our future is bleak. What western techno civilization fails to realize is the answers we need lie in going back, not forward. We need to recognize the "oneness" of everything, exemplified in indigenous culture. I wrote about that and the irony in Imagine an Earth First Policy.
https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/imagine-an-earth-first-policy
The problem we have now is time. Climate change is locked in. Even if we could magically stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow morning (wait, it is tomorrow morning, damn this insomnia) we're locked into warming and falling tipping points, perhaps most worrisome the release of massive CO2 and CH4 from the Arctic, and life for people nearest to the equator is becoming untenable. Climate migration is well under way, along with massive economic disruption.
As much as I may agree with Marianne, the practical chaos we're just hitting the threshold of is not likely to foment an environment of lifting collective human consciousness. Rather, it is likely to cause desperation and violence. I don't enjoy my morbid assessment, but I think this is the far more likely scenario for the future. Sorry.
I appreciate you amplifying my voice very much, thank you. My modest effectiveness only goes as far as my words travel. Where the hell are the big people in all of this who ignore the significant smaller ones? Certain writers here that do good work in other ways really piss me off. There's a caste system here that limits the truth spoken.
“It’s an old playbook foisted on us by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics.” 🎯
The Owners and Controllers of Global Financialized Capital are here to root out value wherever they can find it, irrespective of national allegiances. “Raise a wolf on human flesh and eventually it no longer distinguishes between food and the hand that feeds it.”
The concise answer is No.
In fact, collapse will make our current conditions look like the halcyon days of harmony.
Hopefully readers understand I’m not asking a question, I’m pointing out the conditions. I’m pleading for people to understand what we’re facing. Your response is realistic. Nothing short of a galvanized, united uprising in recognition that the bottom line is the health of the planet is going to save us. Pleading for this is likely in vain, I well-know. As people awaken to the practical attack on the safety net, and deliberate destruction of the economy, I hope it’s an opportunity to help at least a few to understand the deeper picture and act accordingly. I understand the odds are slim, and a heavy price is baked in.
No argument with our dire state, but, even though there are no logical fixes, seeing as we still are breathing we have to ask now what? Having been coming up with answers to that queston for a couple of years here -- from upleveling human consciousness to relacing lawns with vegetables -- beyond specific things there are additudinal considerations that could be meaningful. One is of being radically available. Stay aware of what's going on with an eye toward action, where even conversations with misguided people can matter. The other, I would argue, is that our thoughts create reality where the more people who believe in universal doom the more likely it will come to pass, so best we come from faith in the future.
There is a logical fix. Unfortunately, it is well established. It comes with blood. Ultimately, power is only taken down with power. There is no reasoning or nicey, nicey. I'm on board with your sentiments. I fantasized at the end of an article a couple of years ago about my neighborhood being lawn free, inviting the creatures back in and a community garden. The harsh truth is we are well away from that thinking. We have ignorant thugs in power and a system we are all dependent on that's going to crash. Maybe after the crash, the survivors will have witnessed and absorbed the brutal lessons. Maybe that will be the breakthrough. It ain't going to happen for you and me, though. The best we can do is put the truth out there at risk, and hope it makes a difference after we hit bottom. Neither of us will see bottom in our lifetimes, but we will have seen enough. Doomers are wise, we're calling it out. Only by dealing with reality do w have a chance. The big epiphany you want won't occur until we have hit the lowest of lows. Look at who's governing us. Realistically, what do you think the future is going to bring? Like you said, I'll work my side of the street and you'll work yours. We both want the best outcome. I prefer your vision, but sorry to say don't find it realistic.
It’s not that I don’t have the right answer but that this is the wrong question. Yes to all horrors, and now what? By the by, can’t we have a coup without blood? These people are not popular. We outnumber them. Aren’t there ways in cyberspace to take over? My “now what” would be to put some of the best minds together to deal with that question.
You have the right answer, but the knuckle draggers continue to drag us down. I thought about you when I wrote my subhead, "It’s just going to take a leap in human consciousness, that’s all." The economic and physical factors about to take place will be phenomenal. Agricultural breakdown will be a primary driver. It will take Jesus times 1000 to herd the insanity. I'm a logical person. The best minds have logic behind them. Unfortunately, the worst of the fuck-ups stopping human advancement aren't reasonable or logical at all.
Geoffrey, when you informed me for the first time that to increase the impact of renewables by building additional infrastructure for them is totally dependent on fossil fuels (diesel), it blew my mind. What kind of disinformation fantasy world was I living in?
We have been led down a road of doom by “leaders” that refused to deal with our climate reality and inflicted increasingly deadly damage instead. Greed and avarice when science and goodwill were needed most.
Now, of course, I fear for our children, and their children. Ignorance is bliss, but in this era of climate change, it is oh so temporary.
The Honest Sorcerer who writes here as well is excellent on this subject.
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/?utm_source=homepage_recommendations&utm_campaign=489861
Don't feel bad, when I started this project I hadn't connected the dots on diesel and our promised "green," renewable economy either. The puppeteers are quite good at fostering illusions. It blows my mind how many well-known environmentalists and environmental groups haven't seen it, either.
Shale oil and ever deeper ocean drilling platforms entail far more cost than when we could just punch a hole in the ground and voilà, geyser. The easiest reserves are long gone. These types of projects were ignored 20 years ago, for less return on investment.
No one can put a date on the end of oil, but it will happen when EROI no longer turns a profit. Leading up to that point will be, across the economy, inflation. That will be its own issue, even as we are still able to pump. The world of a Victorian era economy awaits us (if we're lucky) animal and human muscle power agriculture.
https://geoffreydeihl.substack.com/p/the-end-of-oil
I got on Chat GPT to look for help, specifically how to react to Erik Michaels whom I found through your appreciation for him. Erik vehemently insists on this: "Sue, we're going extinct. Maybe you missed that part? In other words, we are going to be dead REGARDLESS of what we do. Previously and individually, this has always been the case. It is just that now our entire species will also go this route because the rate of evolution cannot match the rate of change."
My Substack Tuesday will pass along the interesting smarts I got, and I am thinking to pay more attention to what AI can come up with.
--Looking forward to Tuesday! Been thinking a lot, coincidentally, recently about that AI issue too.
--Sounds like Mr. Michaels' answer to Geoffrey's "unity" question, the title of this post, would be a rock-hard NO. Curious if GD agrees completely, or we might see some significant space between them per this debate, maybe even have a modicum of influence on his views. The reverse has been true.
Sue,
The perfect non-violent bloodless coup could start tomorrow if everyone in the country just turned off their alarm and went back to sleep in the morning. No laws have been broken, no one has died or been jailed, and the current system would come to a screeching halt.
It could be that simple in principle. We have the power to grind the machine to a halt by simply not participating to the best of our ability. Meanwhile, the Amazon truck pulls up to my neighbor's house for the third time this week...
Societal Stockholm in full bloom
That could be an element, but certainly there are other ones. Always underlying racism which applies to other communities as well is a disturbing element in this mess.
Keynesian economics is for those who can't spell Keynesian
He writes here on Substack. I don't love him, but on WMDs he was speaking the truth. Take the Google results with a grain of salt. There was considerable motivation to smear his reputation. This is the world we live in, one in which the truth becomes ever harder to discern every day.
His personal behavior may be questionable, but so was the timing of the attacks. Even if he was guilty, a revolting thought, that doesn’t invalidate his statements about no WMDs. That said, skepticism is always a good starting point.