ECO BOOK
Some new looks at what we need to do to survive near total ecological and economic colapse.

I will have some basic areas to look at:-

Voracious use of the worlds materials.

Population explosion.


Population movements and the response from "invaded" lands and over populated places of safety.

Banking.

Money and power.

Pyrimid structures.


Religion and Capitalism
Capitalism like Religion demands constant growth. So no change there then.
We need radical change to our ways of living on this world and the  Go forth and multiply mentality of religions was , being a way of invading by population explosion and was arguably only any good if one had an infinite area to expand into. Capitalism and Consumer Capitalism in particular asumes that infinate resorces are available and that it should , for its own reasons, wants to claim all. In that it is "buisness as usual", no change there then.

It can be seen much a like pyramid scheme; each generating feeding on the newer /yonger layer below. each generation can get wealthy-er, easier because the "market" is always expanding, there are always more people comming to buy stuff. {There are always more buyers comming along than present competion?}
This is an entirly unfair parasitism of the young and confirms the idea that we have not set up the best of possible worlds for us to live in.


What is wealth?

Its a concept and a way to store work that we all agree on.
Letts :- skills valued in a different way, its your choice and joy what you specialize in and there are fewer pressures forceing one to work.

Why do we work? To Make our lives better.
At present we work to keep the "system" going. ie we work to keep companies from going out of buisness. Consumerism in particular
FORCEING People to work. But "people wont work unless you force them" and there you have it, Presently we force people to work just as if we were in an ant like colony.
I would like to see people not being forced to do work like mineing and being encoraged to enjoy their permaculture home life. (with constructive hoby's.)

Money and power.
If you were not forced to work by poverty, you wouldn't go. but you would not be entirly stilleither, humans cant sit still for a moment. The idea that humans society would collapse  without the force of poverty, is a reflection of the subjugation inflicted slavery and in UK of the military dictator ship of the Normans and the possivness of feaudal system. in which you were basicaly property of the localy imposed pyramid chief.

Missuse of power via money.

IS Money amoral or imoral?

Longevity. (A basis for a morality, the therory being that long term survival is Good, and one that is not based on (long term) survival is a Bad philosophy. (ideology, theosophy, theology). Also that the scale is relavent to humans and the planet. ie galactic scale is to big , the whole of our system comes and goes in a blink. Day to day is dangerously mopic.


Why is it important to look after our world.
We can effect the way things evolve on this planet. That gives us the a moral responsibility to ourselves if we want to have a nice place to live , we can have it. If we fuck  everything up we will have a very harsh a nd difficult place to survive. be  sure it will be survival and not in any sort of comfort.
If we treat it nature harshley the only things that will survive and evolve will, by nesecsseity, produce harsh plants and (few) harsh animals.

 

The major changes we need to think about.

The ecological argument 

I have been looking very closely at the ecology of our planet and I can see very clearly that because of human action we have 50 to 200 years to have utterly changed the way we do everything.

Because?

Well actually its very straight forward.

Our actions are destroying every system on our planet. 

If any one of system goes, we and our society/culture will go with it.

 

Here is just one such bit of information.

50% of the released CO2 is dissolved into the oceans.

CO2 is making them more acid. Through a system I don’t full understand yet. 

YouTube - Climate Change State of the Science 2009 (1/7)

 

This will mean that shelled sea creatures will not be able to build shells.

(CO2 Up = calcium carbonate saturation down = cant make shells = certain extinction.)

A shelled creature without a shell being vulnerable to sun and predators will be wiped out very fast.

One of these creatures is plankton and it is at the foot of the food chain for virtually all the life in the sea. It is the base upon which all* sea life thrives and without which practicaly all life in the seas will die.

 

It will take about 50 years for the level of CO2 to reach this point.

YouTube - Climate Change State of the Science 2009 (1/7)

 

 

Yes that’s right, very scarey. 

Another 2 degree rise in temporiture would lead to the Greenland Ice Cap melting would mean a 4 to 6 meter rise in sea levels. Eventually (in 100 years we could rise by 10 degrees. Deserts everywhere south of uk) and then the stored methane starts to be released into the atmosphere sending tempritures up to those of 4 billion years ago. 

 

 

 

YouTube - Global Dimming Documentary Part 5/5

 

 

I have done the research and that is what 90% of the scientific community think will happen. Even the climate warming doubters agree.

 

So anyone makeing CO2 is being destructive.

That’s what I meant. Its not about you or Tim or me, its our whole society. And if we intend to survive we must do things differently.

 

It reminds me of an Irish gag, a chap asks for directions and the answer is prefaced with "well I wouldn’t go from here,,". My thought is that if "We cant get there from here", if we say that then we can say goodbye to our world.

I refuse to go that way. We are in really in deep trouble because of the way we do things and of course if we don’t ask difficult questions we wont have much to help us get out of a very dangerous situation.

That’s only talking about one species on this planet. Us, but what about all the millions of other species we are taking with us? On a low average we have been making extinct 1 species every 20 minutes since 1970. Some crude math’s will tell you that over 900,000. Nearly a million species. Quite simple we cant go on this way.

 

The fundamental question must be "If we do this, what will happen?"

And the answer for nearly all present human activity's is, That way lie's death.

Its not palatable, but it is true.

 

So given that that is our situation, I am forced to ask questions like:

 

 

Questions:

1. What can we do which will not muck up our planet?

 

2. What should we not do? 

And 

3. What should we do?

And not least

4. Why do we do what we do?

 

Unfortunately all the answers come up with "that way lie's death". I don't like it ether but because no one is actually acting as though this is a major disaster, I feel that someone should be saying this stuff out loud.

 

ANSWERS. Not actually answers, but a decent starting point

1. We need to stop destroying nature. It’s so simple and we all agree.

But even I am totally compromised. I cant be ecologically undamaging because of a million things in our world that tie me to the rest of our society. (Food miles, transport, shopping, fishing, computers, standby buttons, cotton, coal and oil fueled power stations) I could go on but the point, I hope, is clear we are all destructive. If we totally stopped producing any pollutants and all damaging activity we are still in for an exceptionally bad ride. Like a vast oil tanker the Earth has a momentum and it will take many generations befor the environment will stop getting worse. And that’s if we totally stop now.

 

2. We must stop all activity that is stressing nature. (In layman’s terms) Yes that’s Just about everything we now do! 

Yes we must change it if we want to survive.

Metaphor: 

We are on a raft in the middle of the sea.

Some people here are breaking the raft and selling bits off profitably.

If we want to survive we must stop them breaking the raft.

Our god says its good to sell things so do we offend god and save ourselves or let those in control carry on selling bits of our raft until we drown? 

Remember Easter Island? An ideology wherein the governing philosophy was more important than nature and so they destroyed there own culture and the island descended into cannibalism.

Steven Chu says it well here.

YouTube - Steve Chu - Climate Change as "Titanic the Sequel" - Copenhagen Climate Council and CITRIS Interview

 

 

Well you can see the factors here; we can’t stop what we are doing because it’s all about day-to-day survival (cash) and that is what makes us destroy everything. But we can’t question the money motive because it’s the dominant ideology, "You questioning my god?"

But actually we must if it destroys our planet.

 

 

3. We Must Find Alternative Ways Of Doing Things. 

Our money system is at the heart of everything we do. It is the single most important drive we have. Partly this appeals to our selfish nature. And partly this has become a cultural imperative, an unquestionable god. The one and only true god banishing any alternative until we can see no other way. It is in fact a designed system placed there by vested interests. There are other ways but they are not encouraged because there is no profit in them.

Our economic system seems so central but it is just a system, one of many that have been developed over the years, and as such we can change it. Its our invention we can change it. After all our economy is there to serve us, not us to serve the economy. It served us well in the past but not now. Because it was developed with the idea that the world was infinite resources were infinite we could just keep growing infinitely. Well, just like kids, we need barriers. 

The world is not infinite. Smith, Marx and Keynes, Engles, Thatcher, Reagan, Blair and Brown all understood that constant growth could be achieved by constant population growth. 

BUT none of them saw the world as finite. 

Even though the world has always demonstrably been finite, we have never heard powerful voices acknowledging it. 

Why? Because it will mean changes they don’t like and don’t want. From business through religion to politics, not a single one is telling the truth about what the change will be like and how much we need to change. 

It’s easier to take the money and leave it to the next generation to deal with.

Crudely that means that we still think that constant expansion is the best way to "grow". 

 

We can’t go on like this because we will destroy our world. We need to change all ideologies that incorporate constant growth. Simply because we don’t have the space or resources.

 

Now we see every day that our planet is going wrong because of our economy, but our "economists" have not changed. We still have the same mantra. Growth is good, More growth is better.

So now it make sense to destroy our planet?? (How can that ever be true)? Just like kids we have to have limits. 

A society like ours does not, we've got the "Free Market" and now we will reap the damage. Because we cant come to terms with our own inventions, Money, consumerism, capitalism and the free market. That’s what's killing the world and yet it is hearsay to mention it.

 

What makes a mockery of our economy is that, contrary to expectation; our wealth has not made us happier. Bill McKibble in his book Deep Economy goes into this. In an American study there is a set of questions asked in country’s right across the planet that have records going back to the second world war. The questions basically ask about people’s levels of happiness. And shockingly the answer universally, is people got happier until 1950s then got progressively more depressed every year since. 

So doing what we are doing is not only destroying our planet but it’s not achieving its own goal of making us happy!

So we should do something else.

 

4. Its so all-encompassing its very hard to even start. Everything we do is so fantastically destructive.

One thing is clear, we are destroying the planet because we cant come to terms with our own invention; Money. We are dominated be a philosophy that makes us destroy the planet because it makes monetary sense to do so.

I have seen, at first hand, the primary jungles in Malaya being torn down to make way for a monoculture of Palm Oil. I have seen thousands of starving and diseased monkeys being shot as their habitat is destroyed. But it all makes perfect financial sense.

 

 

Coda

 

In Truth I think it’s gone too far now and most people are not prepared to look at the situation dispassionately, Honestly and without bringing their own vested interests in. It is in a great deal of peoples interests not acknowledge the looming desaster or to see that the present power structures are causing it because they will loose power if it is acknowledged.

Which means that I don’t think we have a chance but I am not willing go down without mentioning it. It is very serious and far-reaching with very hard truths, its not going to be easy for anyone.

 

More people+less land+faster use of resorces+ more pollution+ more ruthless exploitation of our resources+ global ecological changes (all bad)= Its going to be very dangerous out there.

 

As the farmable land decreases, deserts expand those people will kill and eat everything and when everything is gone they will come north and south in their millions and then billions. It could get so bad that we will have to defend our farmland, with guns, from starving people. That is a terrible scenario but a very very real one.

 

I have spent a very long time reading and thinking about this, I am not just being a difficult eccentric, I know what I am talking about.




Random thoughts to be sorted.
Useing a market forces look at an economie that does not use coersion  to force people to work might mean that, foreinstance if you need a metal tool you will need to find someone who likes mineing, a smelter, and a skilled tool maker.
That might not be easy in the stone age but now we have so many people  who cant wait to "get involved" that it might be a great deal easier than one would expect.
It is true that less things would be made , built, done, but if each thing had life of 400 years rather that 5 years, then we would need to make so much less.  So its not all bad, right now it might be vital even our only hope.
We cant run our economy on forceing each other to do work we dont like, makeing stuff that ultimatly distroys our world. Its patently daft.
It might be difficult to stop enthusiasts, Millions of shed across the land Brewing, making toys, Smelting might not be as huge but actualy the planet needs less, we do have to change our technologys.
There is little we cant give up if it means survival.



"Money is like an iron ring we've put through our noses," Lietaer has said. "We've forgotten that we designed it, and it's now leading us around. I think it's time to figure out where we want to go-in my opinion toward sustainability and community-and then design a money system that gets us there."
 

 

 

Its our creation, we can do whatever we want with it.

Its our world we can organise it any way we want it.

We are but should not be subject to a system, which we invented, which doesn't even work well.

We are being destroyed by the very idea of money.

We are destroying nature because we cane come to term with our own idea, that of cash.

Stubornly holding on to our cash as it destroys nature.

 

 


Give them what they want and they'll all eat chocolate [and have the death penalty].

 




 

Free website powered by Beep.com
 
The responsible person for the content of this web site is solely
the webmaster of this website, approachable via this form!