Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Global Warming] Re: Road to Ruin

Expand Messages
  • Eric Stewart
    ... From: F Cote Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:18:47 -0000 To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Road to
    Message 1 of 7 , Nov 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "F Cote" <dionysios2100@...>
      Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:18:47 -0000
      To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Road to Ruin

      > An insightful article but where do we go from here?
      >
      > How do we go from insightful analysis to popular based movement?
      > At present, to the the degree there is movement, the momentum is in
      > the wrong direction.
      >

      We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.

      *

      --
      ______________________________________________
      Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
      This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.


      Powered by Outblaze
    • dmgan106
      ... Tricking people doesn t seem to be a very fruitful course of action in the long run. As far as implementing changes in national GW policy by going from
      Message 2 of 7 , Nov 2, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
        Tricking people doesn't seem to be a very fruitful course of action
        in the long run. As far as implementing changes in national GW policy
        by going "from insightful analysis to popular based movement" I have
        my doubts about that also. The mayority of Americans are for gun
        control, there are even ocasional horrible crimes that jolt
        the "apathetic into feeling" but where has that taken us? Not very
        far.

        A major crisis with severe consequences in the near future (where our
        generation is sure to be affected directly) will do the trick. For
        instance, the collapse of thermohaline circulation in the North
        Atlantic will catapult us into action if it is supposed to happen
        during the next 20 years. If we are talking about 70 years, or more,
        140 years, forget it. There will be concern but I don't think enough
        of it to override special interests, etc.

        I am very pessimistic about all this.

        For reference check:
        http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~christof/div/fact4thc.html

        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Stewart"
        <tatteredflag@l...> wrote:
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
        > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:18:47 -0000
        > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Road to Ruin
        >
        > > An insightful article but where do we go from here?
        > >
        > > How do we go from insightful analysis to popular based
        movement?
        > > At present, to the the degree there is movement, the momentum is
        in
        > > the wrong direction.
        > >
        >
        > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
        >
        > *
        >
        > --
        > ______________________________________________
        > Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
        > This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
        >
        >
        > Powered by Outblaze
      • F Cote
        I have to agree with you on just about everything. It will take major shocks from the ecosystem and/or climate change to wake up the masses . When young, I
        Message 3 of 7 , Nov 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          I have to agree with you on just about everything. It will take
          major shocks from the ecosystem and/or climate change to wake up the
          "masses". When young, I believed - or hoped - that democracy
          possessed a built in homing mechanism (an enlightened public acting
          in their long term self-interest through the electoral process).
          This should keep the ship of state on course. Modern parliamentary
          democracy would be a streamlined, space age version of Plato's
          "kybernautica", the art of the helmsman. Democracy was social
          "cybernetics" that really did work for the common good, progress..

          This "guarded optimism", I now realize, was misplaced. Learning
          to pilot Spaceship Earth will require hard knocks. The lessons may
          even kill the student but what can you do when the student is a
          functional underachiever? (Einstein claimed that humans utilize only
          10% of their mental capacity. He was probably thinking of geniuses..)

          The only nuance I'd make is regarding the term "pessimistic". I
          prefer the term "fatalistic". Fatalism because the die is,
          effectively, already cast: there will be hell to pay simply because
          THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE OF THE 21ST CENTURY and this
          issue is not being addressed with the seriousness it deserves, nor
          will it likely be addressed within a time frame that would allow
          proper infrastructural adaptation (30-50 years minimum, given the
          massive nature of the re-conversion of energy sources required -
          particularly in the third world where the opportunity to "get things
          done right from scratch" is being thrown away).

          In general, the CENTRAL ISSUE is never discussed (except in
          conversations with burned out idealists who busted their arses
          working for the California dept of the environment, saw the light,
          became survivalists and fled to Hawaii to weather out the shitstorm.
          I actually believe there are survivalist communities out there!!) The
          real issue, then, is: what comes AFTER the crunch(es) begin to hit?

          For if hairy times are (quasi-inevitably) ahead, the nature and,
          above all, the OUTCOMES of the hairyness are unpredictable; they
          are "highly contingent" and, being highly contingent, HIGHLY
          INFLUENCABLE by human action. This is the "central issue" never
          addressed. <<For the humanist, religious or agnostic, the hard part
          of course is the initial acceptance of the (quasi-inevitable) hard
          crunches coming.>>

          Fatalism, in short, is most definitely not the same thing as
          pessimism. Pessimism is a psychology that badmouths life: you give an
          optimist and a pessimist each a glass half full of wine. The optimist
          exalts over "A glass half full of wine!" while the pessimist bitches
          over getting a half-empty glass. The fatalist, though, can either
          appreciate the sunset knowing night follows or, if he is of
          pessimistic nature, he will wail the coming darkness. In the present
          context, the optimistic fatalist will wonder what comes AFTER the
          crunch and how to draw benefit, if possible..

          These may seem moot points but they have helped me deal with the
          emotional side of the issues.

          I feel you must be right about not tricking people, somehow.
          Trickery is what is being done now for example in the fostering of
          climate change complacency.
          Admittedly, the public is complicit - hence the generalized
          cynicism, scapegoating and cultural vacuity. Down deep the masses
          know when they are being - or letting themselves being - tricked, so
          expect more "exotic" behaviors in the years ahead.. : 0


          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
          > > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
          > Tricking people doesn't seem to be a very fruitful course of action
          > in the long run. As far as implementing changes in national GW
          policy
          > by going "from insightful analysis to popular based movement" I
          have
          > my doubts about that also. The mayority of Americans are for gun
          > control, there are even ocasional horrible crimes that jolt
          > the "apathetic into feeling" but where has that taken us? Not very
          > far.
          >
          > A major crisis with severe consequences in the near future (where
          our
          > generation is sure to be affected directly) will do the trick. For
          > instance, the collapse of thermohaline circulation in the North
          > Atlantic will catapult us into action if it is supposed to happen
          > during the next 20 years. If we are talking about 70 years, or
          more,
          > 140 years, forget it. There will be concern but I don't think
          enough
          > of it to override special interests, etc.
          >
          > I am very pessimistic about all this.
          >
          > For reference check:
          > http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~christof/div/fact4thc.html
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Stewart"
          > <tatteredflag@l...> wrote:
          > >
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
          > > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:18:47 -0000
          > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
          > > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Road to Ruin
          > >
          > > > An insightful article but where do we go from here?
          > > >
          > > > How do we go from insightful analysis to popular based
          > movement?
          > > > At present, to the the degree there is movement, the momentum
          is
          > in
          > > > the wrong direction.
          > > >
          > >
          > > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
          > >
          > > *
          > >
          > > --
          > > ______________________________________________
          > > Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
          > > This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
          > >
          > >
          > > Powered by Outblaze
        • dmgan106
          You are right, pessimism is the wrong word. I think that in the end we, as a species, have managed to do thing right in the end or otherwise we would not have
          Message 4 of 7 , Nov 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            You are right, pessimism is the wrong word. I think that in the end
            we, as a species, have managed to do thing right in the end or
            otherwise we would not have survived as long as we have. I tend more
            towards fatalism but not because I think events are predetermined by
            fate. We create our own fate by being who we are. While I think we
            are capable of growth and change our "destiny", it is almost
            impossible.

            Economics has distilled our nature when it comes to making choices
            into cost-benefit analysis. We, as individuals, choose the
            alternative course of action that brings the highest benefit for the
            smallest expenditure of resources. The benefit is subjective and very
            personal, the resources expended may not be just financial, they can
            be time, prestige, time in heaven, etc.

            This has served us well over the millenia but I think it will lead to
            our downfall when it comes to GW. First of all, C-B analysis is an
            individual decision making mechanism, while GW is a global
            phenomenon. (That we can affect planetary climate is mind bogling and
            difficult to grasp. As Einstein (I think) said about the atom bomb,
            this changes everything but human nature.) However, the main reason
            is because in the case of GW the costs and benefits are spread over
            generations. Our generation, who is the one that has to act in order
            to prevent GW, is getting all the benefits while future generations
            (great grandchildren and later) will reap most of the costs. Any
            individual C-B analysis will then go for doing nothing until our
            great grandchildren's time. However, by then, very little can be done
            but adapt or die.

            It is, then, too easy nowadays for nay sayers to have their say
            effectively, for optimists to say we'll invent something that will
            get us out of the pickle and for the apathetic to get on with their
            busy lives. The rest if the human race is living "lives of quiet
            desperation", I can't expect them to save us from our follies.

            How to shield your great-grandchildren's lives from the worst? First,
            I would not drop out and head for the hills. One has to keep trying
            to influence society now and not give up on it. Second, teach your
            children to think for themselves and be resourceful and caring.
            Third, move inland, in a place that would not be affected much by sea
            level rise. Does that sound like a fatalistic plan, you bet.
            ----------------------
            from the American Heritage Dictionary:
            fa·tal·ism (f³t"l-¹z"…m) n. 1. The doctrine that all events are
            predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable. 2. Acceptance of
            the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable. --
            fa"tal·ist n. --fa"tal·is"tic adj. --fa"tal·is"ti·cal·ly adv.

            pes·si·mism (pµs"…-m¹z"…m) n. 1. A tendency to stress the negative
            or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view: "We have seen
            too much defeatism, too much pessimism, too much of a negative
            approach" (Margo Jones). 2. The doctrine or belief that this is the
            worst of all possible worlds and that all things ultimately tend
            toward evil. 3. The doctrine or belief that the evil in the world
            outweighs the good. [French pessimisme (on the model of French
            optimisme, optimism) from Latin pessimus, worst. See ped- below.] --
            pes"si·mist n. --pes"si·mis"tic adj. --pes"si·mis"ti·cal·ly adv.




            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
            wrote:
            > I have to agree with you on just about everything. It will take
            > major shocks from the ecosystem and/or climate change to wake up the
            > "masses". When young, I believed - or hoped - that democracy
            > possessed a built in homing mechanism (an enlightened public acting
            > in their long term self-interest through the electoral process).
            > This should keep the ship of state on course. Modern parliamentary
            > democracy would be a streamlined, space age version of Plato's
            > "kybernautica", the art of the helmsman. Democracy was social
            > "cybernetics" that really did work for the common good, progress..
            >
            > This "guarded optimism", I now realize, was misplaced. Learning
            > to pilot Spaceship Earth will require hard knocks. The lessons may
            > even kill the student but what can you do when the student is a
            > functional underachiever? (Einstein claimed that humans utilize
            only
            > 10% of their mental capacity. He was probably thinking of
            geniuses..)
            >
            > The only nuance I'd make is regarding the term "pessimistic". I
            > prefer the term "fatalistic". Fatalism because the die is,
            > effectively, already cast: there will be hell to pay simply because
            > THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE OF THE 21ST CENTURY and
            this
            > issue is not being addressed with the seriousness it deserves, nor
            > will it likely be addressed within a time frame that would allow
            > proper infrastructural adaptation (30-50 years minimum, given the
            > massive nature of the re-conversion of energy sources required -
            > particularly in the third world where the opportunity to "get
            things
            > done right from scratch" is being thrown away).
            >
            > In general, the CENTRAL ISSUE is never discussed (except in
            > conversations with burned out idealists who busted their arses
            > working for the California dept of the environment, saw the light,
            > became survivalists and fled to Hawaii to weather out the
            shitstorm.
            > I actually believe there are survivalist communities out there!!)
            The
            > real issue, then, is: what comes AFTER the crunch(es) begin to hit?
            >
            > For if hairy times are (quasi-inevitably) ahead, the nature and,
            > above all, the OUTCOMES of the hairyness are unpredictable; they
            > are "highly contingent" and, being highly contingent, HIGHLY
            > INFLUENCABLE by human action. This is the "central issue" never
            > addressed. <<For the humanist, religious or agnostic, the hard part
            > of course is the initial acceptance of the (quasi-inevitable) hard
            > crunches coming.>>
            >
            > Fatalism, in short, is most definitely not the same thing as
            > pessimism. Pessimism is a psychology that badmouths life: you give
            an
            > optimist and a pessimist each a glass half full of wine. The
            optimist
            > exalts over "A glass half full of wine!" while the pessimist
            bitches
            > over getting a half-empty glass. The fatalist, though, can either
            > appreciate the sunset knowing night follows or, if he is of
            > pessimistic nature, he will wail the coming darkness. In the
            present
            > context, the optimistic fatalist will wonder what comes AFTER the
            > crunch and how to draw benefit, if possible..
            >
            > These may seem moot points but they have helped me deal with the
            > emotional side of the issues.
            >
            > I feel you must be right about not tricking people, somehow.
            > Trickery is what is being done now for example in the fostering of
            > climate change complacency.
            > Admittedly, the public is complicit - hence the generalized
            > cynicism, scapegoating and cultural vacuity. Down deep the masses
            > know when they are being - or letting themselves being - tricked,
            so
            > expect more "exotic" behaviors in the years ahead.. : 0
            >
            >
            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
            wrote:
            > > > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
            > > Tricking people doesn't seem to be a very fruitful course of
            action
            > > in the long run. As far as implementing changes in national GW
            > policy
            > > by going "from insightful analysis to popular based movement" I
            > have
            > > my doubts about that also. The mayority of Americans are for gun
            > > control, there are even ocasional horrible crimes that jolt
            > > the "apathetic into feeling" but where has that taken us? Not
            very
            > > far.
            > >
            > > A major crisis with severe consequences in the near future (where
            > our
            > > generation is sure to be affected directly) will do the trick.
            For
            > > instance, the collapse of thermohaline circulation in the North
            > > Atlantic will catapult us into action if it is supposed to happen
            > > during the next 20 years. If we are talking about 70 years, or
            > more,
            > > 140 years, forget it. There will be concern but I don't think
            > enough
            > > of it to override special interests, etc.
            > >
            > > I am very pessimistic about all this.
            > >
            > > For reference check:
            > > http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~christof/div/fact4thc.html
            > >
            > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Stewart"
            > > <tatteredflag@l...> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > > From: "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
            > > > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:18:47 -0000
            > > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
            > > > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Road to Ruin
            > > >
            > > > > An insightful article but where do we go from here?
            > > > >
            > > > > How do we go from insightful analysis to popular based
            > > movement?
            > > > > At present, to the the degree there is movement, the momentum
            > is
            > > in
            > > > > the wrong direction.
            > > > >
            > > >
            > > > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
            > > >
            > > > *
            > > >
            > > > --
            > > > ______________________________________________
            > > > Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
            > > > This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > Powered by Outblaze
          • dmgan106
            Two interesting articles from the New York Times: As Earth Warms, the Hottest Issue Is Energy, The New York Times, 11/4/03 If global warming occurs as
            Message 5 of 7 , Nov 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Two interesting articles from the New York Times:
              As Earth Warms, the Hottest Issue Is Energy, The New York Times,
              11/4/03

              "If global warming occurs as predicted, there will be no easy way to
              turn the Earth's thermostat back down. The best that most scientists
              would hope for would be to slow and then halt the warming, and that
              would require a top-to-bottom revamping of the world's energy
              systems, shifting from fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas to
              alternatives that in large part do not yet exist.

              "We have to face the fact this is an enormous challenge," said Dr.
              Martin I. Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University.

              But interviews with scientists, environment advocates and industry
              representatives show that there is no consensus in how to meet that
              challenge. Some look to the traditional renewable energy sources:
              solar and wind. Others believe use of fossil fuels will continue, but
              that the carbon dioxide can be captured and then stored underground.
              The nuclear power industry hopes concern over global warming may help
              spur a revival.

              In an article in the journal Science last November, Dr. Hoffert and
              17 other experts looked at alternatives to fossil fuels and found all
              to have "severe deficiencies in their ability to stabilize global
              climate."

              The scientists believe that technological fixes are possible. Dr.
              Hoffert said the country needed to embark on an energy research
              program on the scale of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic
              bomb during World War II or the Apollo program that put men on the
              moon.

              "Maybe six or seven of them operating simultaneously," he said. "We
              should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the
              next 10 to 15 years."

              But to even have a hope of finding a solution, the effort must begin
              now, the scientists said. A new technology usually takes several
              decades to develop the underlying science, build pilot projects and
              then begin commercial deployment."
              http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/science/earth/04ENER.html?
              pagewanted=1

              Deep in the Amazon Forest, Vast Questions About Global Climate
              Change, The New York Times, 11/4/03

              "Scientists at the National Institute for Amazon Research in Manaus
              estimate that carbon emissions in Brazil may have risen by as much as
              50 percent since 1990. By their calculations, what is euphemistically
              called "land use changes" now produce annual emissions of 400 million
              tons of greenhouse gases, dwarfing the 90 million tons generated
              annually by fossil fuel use in Brazil and making this country one of
              the 10 leading emitters of greenhouse gases in the world."

              http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/science/earth/04AMAZ.html

              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
              > You are right, pessimism is the wrong word. I think that in the end
              > we, as a species, have managed to do thing right in the end or
              > otherwise we would not have survived as long as we have. I tend
              more
              > towards fatalism but not because I think events are predetermined
              by
              > fate. We create our own fate by being who we are. While I think we
              > are capable of growth and change our "destiny", it is almost
              > impossible.
              >
              > Economics has distilled our nature when it comes to making choices
              > into cost-benefit analysis. We, as individuals, choose the
              > alternative course of action that brings the highest benefit for
              the
              > smallest expenditure of resources. The benefit is subjective and
              very
              > personal, the resources expended may not be just financial, they
              can
              > be time, prestige, time in heaven, etc.
              >
              > This has served us well over the millenia but I think it will lead
              to
              > our downfall when it comes to GW. First of all, C-B analysis is an
              > individual decision making mechanism, while GW is a global
              > phenomenon. (That we can affect planetary climate is mind bogling
              and
              > difficult to grasp. As Einstein (I think) said about the atom bomb,
              > this changes everything but human nature.) However, the main
              reason
              > is because in the case of GW the costs and benefits are spread over
              > generations. Our generation, who is the one that has to act in
              order
              > to prevent GW, is getting all the benefits while future generations
              > (great grandchildren and later) will reap most of the costs. Any
              > individual C-B analysis will then go for doing nothing until our
              > great grandchildren's time. However, by then, very little can be
              done
              > but adapt or die.
              >
              > It is, then, too easy nowadays for nay sayers to have their say
              > effectively, for optimists to say we'll invent something that will
              > get us out of the pickle and for the apathetic to get on with their
              > busy lives. The rest if the human race is living "lives of quiet
              > desperation", I can't expect them to save us from our follies.
              >
              > How to shield your great-grandchildren's lives from the worst?
              First,
              > I would not drop out and head for the hills. One has to keep trying
              > to influence society now and not give up on it. Second, teach your
              > children to think for themselves and be resourceful and caring.
              > Third, move inland, in a place that would not be affected much by
              sea
              > level rise. Does that sound like a fatalistic plan, you bet.
              > ----------------------
              > from the American Heritage Dictionary:
              > fa·tal·ism (f³t"l-¹z"…m) n. 1. The doctrine that all events are
              > predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable. 2. Acceptance
              of
              > the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable. --
              > fa"tal·ist n. --fa"tal·is"tic adj. --fa"tal·is"ti·cal·ly adv.
              >
              > pes·si·mism (pµs"…-m¹z"…m) n. 1. A tendency to stress the negative
              > or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view: "We have
              seen
              > too much defeatism, too much pessimism, too much of a negative
              > approach" (Margo Jones). 2. The doctrine or belief that this is the
              > worst of all possible worlds and that all things ultimately tend
              > toward evil. 3. The doctrine or belief that the evil in the world
              > outweighs the good. [French pessimisme (on the model of French
              > optimisme, optimism) from Latin pessimus, worst. See ped- below.] --
              > pes"si·mist n. --pes"si·mis"tic adj. --pes"si·mis"ti·cal·ly adv.
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
              > wrote:
              > > I have to agree with you on just about everything. It will
              take
              > > major shocks from the ecosystem and/or climate change to wake up
              the
              > > "masses". When young, I believed - or hoped - that democracy
              > > possessed a built in homing mechanism (an enlightened public
              acting
              > > in their long term self-interest through the electoral process).
              > > This should keep the ship of state on course. Modern
              parliamentary
              > > democracy would be a streamlined, space age version of Plato's
              > > "kybernautica", the art of the helmsman. Democracy was social
              > > "cybernetics" that really did work for the common good, progress..
              > >
              > > This "guarded optimism", I now realize, was misplaced.
              Learning
              > > to pilot Spaceship Earth will require hard knocks. The lessons
              may
              > > even kill the student but what can you do when the student is a
              > > functional underachiever? (Einstein claimed that humans utilize
              > only
              > > 10% of their mental capacity. He was probably thinking of
              > geniuses..)
              > >
              > > The only nuance I'd make is regarding the term "pessimistic".
              I
              > > prefer the term "fatalistic". Fatalism because the die is,
              > > effectively, already cast: there will be hell to pay simply
              because
              > > THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE OF THE 21ST CENTURY and
              > this
              > > issue is not being addressed with the seriousness it deserves,
              nor
              > > will it likely be addressed within a time frame that would allow
              > > proper infrastructural adaptation (30-50 years minimum, given the
              > > massive nature of the re-conversion of energy sources required -
              > > particularly in the third world where the opportunity to "get
              > things
              > > done right from scratch" is being thrown away).
              > >
              > > In general, the CENTRAL ISSUE is never discussed (except in
              > > conversations with burned out idealists who busted their arses
              > > working for the California dept of the environment, saw the
              light,
              > > became survivalists and fled to Hawaii to weather out the
              > shitstorm.
              > > I actually believe there are survivalist communities out there!!)
              > The
              > > real issue, then, is: what comes AFTER the crunch(es) begin to
              hit?
              > >
              > > For if hairy times are (quasi-inevitably) ahead, the nature
              and,
              > > above all, the OUTCOMES of the hairyness are unpredictable; they
              > > are "highly contingent" and, being highly contingent, HIGHLY
              > > INFLUENCABLE by human action. This is the "central issue" never
              > > addressed. <<For the humanist, religious or agnostic, the hard
              part
              > > of course is the initial acceptance of the (quasi-inevitable)
              hard
              > > crunches coming.>>
              > >
              > > Fatalism, in short, is most definitely not the same thing as
              > > pessimism. Pessimism is a psychology that badmouths life: you
              give
              > an
              > > optimist and a pessimist each a glass half full of wine. The
              > optimist
              > > exalts over "A glass half full of wine!" while the pessimist
              > bitches
              > > over getting a half-empty glass. The fatalist, though, can either
              > > appreciate the sunset knowing night follows or, if he is of
              > > pessimistic nature, he will wail the coming darkness. In the
              > present
              > > context, the optimistic fatalist will wonder what comes AFTER the
              > > crunch and how to draw benefit, if possible..
              > >
              > > These may seem moot points but they have helped me deal with
              the
              > > emotional side of the issues.
              > >
              > > I feel you must be right about not tricking people, somehow.
              > > Trickery is what is being done now for example in the fostering
              of
              > > climate change complacency.
              > > Admittedly, the public is complicit - hence the generalized
              > > cynicism, scapegoating and cultural vacuity. Down deep the masses
              > > know when they are being - or letting themselves being - tricked,
              > so
              > > expect more "exotic" behaviors in the years ahead.. : 0
              > >
              > >
              > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
              > wrote:
              > > > > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
              > > > Tricking people doesn't seem to be a very fruitful course of
              > action
              > > > in the long run. As far as implementing changes in national GW
              > > policy
              > > > by going "from insightful analysis to popular based movement" I
              > > have
              > > > my doubts about that also. The mayority of Americans are for
              gun
              > > > control, there are even ocasional horrible crimes that jolt
              > > > the "apathetic into feeling" but where has that taken us? Not
              > very
              > > > far.
              > > >
              > > > A major crisis with severe consequences in the near future
              (where
              > > our
              > > > generation is sure to be affected directly) will do the trick.
              > For
              > > > instance, the collapse of thermohaline circulation in the North
              > > > Atlantic will catapult us into action if it is supposed to
              happen
              > > > during the next 20 years. If we are talking about 70 years, or
              > > more,
              > > > 140 years, forget it. There will be concern but I don't think
              > > enough
              > > > of it to override special interests, etc.
              > > >
              > > > I am very pessimistic about all this.
              > > >
              > > > For reference check:
              > > > http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~christof/div/fact4thc.html
              > > >
              > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Stewart"
              > > > <tatteredflag@l...> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > > From: "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
              > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:18:47 -0000
              > > > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
              > > > > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Road to Ruin
              > > > >
              > > > > > An insightful article but where do we go from here?
              > > > > >
              > > > > > How do we go from insightful analysis to popular based
              > > > movement?
              > > > > > At present, to the the degree there is movement, the
              momentum
              > > is
              > > > in
              > > > > > the wrong direction.
              > > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
              > > > >
              > > > > *
              > > > >
              > > > > --
              > > > > ______________________________________________
              > > > > Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
              > > > > This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > Powered by Outblaze
            • pawnfart
              Two interesting articles from the New York Times: As Earth Warms, the Hottest Issue Is Energy, The New York Times, 11/4/03 If global warming occurs as
              Message 6 of 7 , Nov 4, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Two interesting articles from the New York Times: As Earth Warms, the
                Hottest Issue Is Energy, The New York Times, 11/4/03

                "If global warming occurs as predicted, there will be no easy way to
                turn the Earth's thermostat back down. The best that most scientists
                would hope for would be to slow and then halt the warming, and that
                would require a top-to-bottom revamping of the world's energy
                systems, shifting from fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas to
                alternatives that in large part do not yet exist.

                "We have to face the fact this is an enormous challenge," said Dr.
                Martin I. Hoffert, a professor of physics at New York University.

                But interviews with scientists, environment advocates and industry
                representatives show that there is no consensus in how to meet that
                challenge. Some look to the traditional renewable energy sources:
                solar and wind. Others believe use of fossil fuels will continue, but
                that the carbon dioxide can be captured and then stored underground.
                The nuclear power industry hopes concern over global warming may help
                spur a revival.

                In an article in the journal Science last November, Dr. Hoffert and
                17 other experts looked at alternatives to fossil fuels and found all
                to have "severe deficiencies in their ability to stabilize global
                climate."

                The scientists believe that technological fixes are possible. Dr.
                Hoffert said the country needed to embark on an energy research
                program on the scale of the Manhattan Project that built the atomic
                bomb during World War II or the Apollo program that put men on the
                moon.

                "Maybe six or seven of them operating simultaneously," he said. "We
                should be prepared to invest several hundred billion dollars in the
                next 10 to 15 years."

                But to even have a hope of finding a solution, the effort must begin
                now, the scientists said. A new technology usually takes several
                decades to develop the underlying science, build pilot projects and
                then begin commercial deployment."
                http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/science/earth/04ENER.html?
                pagewanted=1

                Deep in the Amazon Forest, Vast Questions About Global Climate
                Change, The New York Times, 11/4/03

                "Scientists at the National Institute for Amazon Research in Manaus
                estimate that carbon emissions in Brazil may have risen by as much as
                50 percent since 1990. By their calculations, what is euphemistically
                called "land use changes" now produce annual emissions of 400 million
                tons of greenhouse gases, dwarfing the 90 million tons generated
                annually by fossil fuel use in Brazil and making this country one of
                the 10 leading emitters of greenhouse gases in the world."

                http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/04/science/earth/04AMAZ.html

                Comment:

                The failure to understand the electrical and biological nature of
                living climate feedbacks results in the second article perpetuating
                ignorance. More straw for flying.


                The problem with the article is that the deforestation issue ASSUMES
                INCORRECTLY that what matters is only what sequestration that the
                would have occurred but for the sequestration, and ASSUMES
                incorrectly that CO2 as a GHG is what couples to cloud behaviors.
                But there has been no SCIENTIFIC link, direct causal link between
                cloud behavior and CO2 levels. Meanwhile, and this is one I give to
                Christy, even though he is a chaos idiot RWN of extreme views, is
                that the cloud forcing is MUCH more powerful than the CO2
                differential forcing--over 100 times more powerful. By failing to
                consider CO2 as an ELECTRICAL issue that impacts clouds, but directly
                as far as gas exchanges and conductivities, and by biological
                activity, and containment of chemstries and increases, therefore, of
                conductivities once that material washes to the marine biosphere,
                that the false assumption is shown for what it is.
              • F Cote
                The question of fatalism and of degree of control is an interesting one. Unfortunately dictionary definitions tend to lack the flexibility we sometimes search
                Message 7 of 7 , Nov 4, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  The question of fatalism and of degree of control is an interesting
                  one. Unfortunately dictionary definitions tend to lack the
                  flexibility we sometimes search for in "exploratory thinking". I tend
                  to use the term "fatalism" CONTEXTUALLY, in reference to situations
                  in which little or nothing can be done to modify the present course
                  of action. Other times, though, we may have great control over
                  outcomes. Our "spectrum" of control, in reality, goes from about 0%
                  control up to about 100% depending upon the situation. A car heading
                  toward a brick wall at 120 MPH may or may not be able to avoid a
                  catastrophic crash. The probability of avoidance may be about .000..
                  if the car is only 15 feet away from the wall. At 300 feet,
                  avoidance/damage minimization may still be very effective.
                  Back in 1973, avoidance of damage due to Climate Change (CC) might
                  still have been possible if a "crash program" like the Manhattan or
                  Apollo Projects had been put in place in, at least, the developed
                  nations. Today, I suspect we are in damage MINIMIZATION/damage
                  avoidance mode. I see this reflected in the IPCC"s stated goals
                  of "Climate Change adaptation".
                  "Adaptation" already suggests that some damage has been done or is
                  inevitable and now must be dealt with by damage minimization
                  strategies (as opposed to avoidance). The longer we wait to implement
                  damage avoidance strategies, the greater the damage that will have to
                  be absorbed and minimized. Costs of damage minimization versus costs
                  of damage avoidance.. Either way you pay. Strange that today's hyper-
                  capitalists don't understand what "There's no free lunch" means
                  (except for Welfare recipients, of course).
                  Economics tends, as you say, to reduce everything to (de facto)
                  short term consideration. What happens 25 years from now is simply
                  off the radar screen. (Obviously, one can assauge a guilty conscience
                  with platitudes of Market Force Tooth Fairies jumping in at the nick
                  of time to save humanity from its follies - jacking prices of
                  renewables to required levels overnight - just as heroines were saved
                  from certain doom by dei ex machina in traditional action film
                  storylines. Equally obviously, some of us can't buy into this
                  argument; it just doesn't FEEL right, regardless of the honesty of
                  the proponents.) However, I am not sure that the market mechanism has
                  been dominant for "millenia" as you suggest. Market forces have
                  certainly been important for several millenia in various
                  civilizations; I am less sure they have always been the monolithic
                  driving force they have become recently. Some "primitive" cultures
                  still existing do not use ANY kind of market for dividing up the
                  shares of primary "production" (game killed by hunters). The sharing
                  is done on a totally arbitrary basis which - strangely - turns out to
                  be "equitable"; no one starves. Thus, the mother of the man who first
                  struck the animal receives half a rump plus the horns and front
                  hooves, the wife receives.. etc. Arbitrary, non-market, yet it
                  works! : 0
                  To survive at the present standards of living and global population
                  levels we will have to do a big re-think, learn to think outside the
                  box, create new paradigms of value and action. (The technology to
                  solve the worst problems either exists or can be invented, I believe.
                  The problem is therefore not a technical one but a "spiritual" one of
                  values, ethics, choices, goals - in short "political Will".) Example:
                  the ethicist Hans Jonas argued that future generations
                  have "Absolute" rights to life and to the resources permitting life.
                  Such a notion may appear absurd in contemporary N. America but
                  appears to be closer to the normative values expressed in other
                  cultures and times (cult of ancestor worship or veneration in China,
                  ancient Celts, Amerindian cultures.. One was bound in continuity with
                  the mythologized past which extended into the future. One's actions
                  as a man must not dishonor one's ancestors and one should strive to
                  be remembered by future generations for one's worth.) It is unlikely
                  that such "re-thinks" will occur, for us, without major dislocations
                  and massive suffering (that is, from the failure of the dominant
                  paridigms).
                  I just don't know how DEMOCRATIC such options will turn out to be.
                  Democracy really is on trial today. Democracies are letting
                  opportunities to create "bridging technologies" to a sustainable (and
                  better) future slip through their hands like sand, after all.. This
                  is the point which rankles the most, for me.

                  --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                  > You are right, pessimism is the wrong word. I think that in the end
                  > we, as a species, have managed to do thing right in the end or
                  > otherwise we would not have survived as long as we have. I tend
                  more
                  > towards fatalism but not because I think events are predetermined
                  by
                  > fate. We create our own fate by being who we are. While I think we
                  > are capable of growth and change our "destiny", it is almost
                  > impossible.
                  >
                  > Economics has distilled our nature when it comes to making choices
                  > into cost-benefit analysis. We, as individuals, choose the
                  > alternative course of action that brings the highest benefit for
                  the
                  > smallest expenditure of resources. The benefit is subjective and
                  very
                  > personal, the resources expended may not be just financial, they
                  can
                  > be time, prestige, time in heaven, etc.
                  >
                  > This has served us well over the millenia but I think it will lead
                  to
                  > our downfall when it comes to GW. First of all, C-B analysis is an
                  > individual decision making mechanism, while GW is a global
                  > phenomenon. (That we can affect planetary climate is mind bogling
                  and
                  > difficult to grasp. As Einstein (I think) said about the atom bomb,
                  > this changes everything but human nature.) However, the main
                  reason
                  > is because in the case of GW the costs and benefits are spread over
                  > generations. Our generation, who is the one that has to act in
                  order
                  > to prevent GW, is getting all the benefits while future generations
                  > (great grandchildren and later) will reap most of the costs. Any
                  > individual C-B analysis will then go for doing nothing until our
                  > great grandchildren's time. However, by then, very little can be
                  done
                  > but adapt or die.
                  >
                  > It is, then, too easy nowadays for nay sayers to have their say
                  > effectively, for optimists to say we'll invent something that will
                  > get us out of the pickle and for the apathetic to get on with their
                  > busy lives. The rest if the human race is living "lives of quiet
                  > desperation", I can't expect them to save us from our follies.
                  >
                  > How to shield your great-grandchildren's lives from the worst?
                  First,
                  > I would not drop out and head for the hills. One has to keep trying
                  > to influence society now and not give up on it. Second, teach your
                  > children to think for themselves and be resourceful and caring.
                  > Third, move inland, in a place that would not be affected much by
                  sea
                  > level rise. Does that sound like a fatalistic plan, you bet.
                  > ----------------------
                  > from the American Heritage Dictionary:
                  > fa·tal·ism (f³t"l-¹z"…m) n. 1. The doctrine that
                  all events are
                  > predetermined by fate and are therefore unalterable. 2. Acceptance
                  of
                  > the belief that all events are predetermined and inevitable. --
                  > fa"tal·ist n. --fa"tal·is"tic adj. --fa"ta
                  l·is"ti·cal·ly adv.
                  >
                  > pes·si·mism (pµs"…-m¹z"…m) n. 1. A tendency to
                  stress the negative
                  > or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view: "We have
                  seen
                  > too much defeatism, too much pessimism, too much of a negative
                  > approach" (Margo Jones). 2. The doctrine or belief that this is the
                  > worst of all possible worlds and that all things ultimately tend
                  > toward evil. 3. The doctrine or belief that the evil in the world
                  > outweighs the good. [French pessimisme (on the model of French
                  > optimisme, optimism) from Latin pessimus, worst. See ped- below.] --
                  > pes"si·mist n. --pes"si·mis"tic adj. --pes
                  "si·mis"ti·cal·ly adv.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > I have to agree with you on just about everything. It will
                  take
                  > > major shocks from the ecosystem and/or climate change to wake up
                  the
                  > > "masses". When young, I believed - or hoped - that democracy
                  > > possessed a built in homing mechanism (an enlightened public
                  acting
                  > > in their long term self-interest through the electoral process).
                  > > This should keep the ship of state on course. Modern
                  parliamentary
                  > > democracy would be a streamlined, space age version of Plato's
                  > > "kybernautica", the art of the helmsman. Democracy was social
                  > > "cybernetics" that really did work for the common good, progress..
                  > >
                  > > This "guarded optimism", I now realize, was misplaced.
                  Learning
                  > > to pilot Spaceship Earth will require hard knocks. The lessons
                  may
                  > > even kill the student but what can you do when the student is a
                  > > functional underachiever? (Einstein claimed that humans utilize
                  > only
                  > > 10% of their mental capacity. He was probably thinking of
                  > geniuses..)
                  > >
                  > > The only nuance I'd make is regarding the term "pessimistic".
                  I
                  > > prefer the term "fatalistic". Fatalism because the die is,
                  > > effectively, already cast: there will be hell to pay simply
                  because
                  > > THE ENVIRONMENT IS THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE OF THE 21ST CENTURY and
                  > this
                  > > issue is not being addressed with the seriousness it deserves,
                  nor
                  > > will it likely be addressed within a time frame that would allow
                  > > proper infrastructural adaptation (30-50 years minimum, given the
                  > > massive nature of the re-conversion of energy sources required -
                  > > particularly in the third world where the opportunity to "get
                  > things
                  > > done right from scratch" is being thrown away).
                  > >
                  > > In general, the CENTRAL ISSUE is never discussed (except in
                  > > conversations with burned out idealists who busted their arses
                  > > working for the California dept of the environment, saw the
                  light,
                  > > became survivalists and fled to Hawaii to weather out the
                  > shitstorm.
                  > > I actually believe there are survivalist communities out there!!)
                  > The
                  > > real issue, then, is: what comes AFTER the crunch(es) begin to
                  hit?
                  > >
                  > > For if hairy times are (quasi-inevitably) ahead, the nature
                  and,
                  > > above all, the OUTCOMES of the hairyness are unpredictable; they
                  > > are "highly contingent" and, being highly contingent, HIGHLY
                  > > INFLUENCABLE by human action. This is the "central issue" never
                  > > addressed. <<For the humanist, religious or agnostic, the hard
                  part
                  > > of course is the initial acceptance of the (quasi-inevitable)
                  hard
                  > > crunches coming.>>
                  > >
                  > > Fatalism, in short, is most definitely not the same thing as
                  > > pessimism. Pessimism is a psychology that badmouths life: you
                  give
                  > an
                  > > optimist and a pessimist each a glass half full of wine. The
                  > optimist
                  > > exalts over "A glass half full of wine!" while the pessimist
                  > bitches
                  > > over getting a half-empty glass. The fatalist, though, can either
                  > > appreciate the sunset knowing night follows or, if he is of
                  > > pessimistic nature, he will wail the coming darkness. In the
                  > present
                  > > context, the optimistic fatalist will wonder what comes AFTER the
                  > > crunch and how to draw benefit, if possible..
                  > >
                  > > These may seem moot points but they have helped me deal with
                  the
                  > > emotional side of the issues.
                  > >
                  > > I feel you must be right about not tricking people, somehow.
                  > > Trickery is what is being done now for example in the fostering
                  of
                  > > climate change complacency.
                  > > Admittedly, the public is complicit - hence the generalized
                  > > cynicism, scapegoating and cultural vacuity. Down deep the masses
                  > > know when they are being - or letting themselves being - tricked,
                  > so
                  > > expect more "exotic" behaviors in the years ahead.. : 0
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, dmgan106 <no_reply@y...>
                  > wrote:
                  > > > > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
                  > > > Tricking people doesn't seem to be a very fruitful course of
                  > action
                  > > > in the long run. As far as implementing changes in national GW
                  > > policy
                  > > > by going "from insightful analysis to popular based movement" I
                  > > have
                  > > > my doubts about that also. The mayority of Americans are for
                  gun
                  > > > control, there are even ocasional horrible crimes that jolt
                  > > > the "apathetic into feeling" but where has that taken us? Not
                  > very
                  > > > far.
                  > > >
                  > > > A major crisis with severe consequences in the near future
                  (where
                  > > our
                  > > > generation is sure to be affected directly) will do the trick.
                  > For
                  > > > instance, the collapse of thermohaline circulation in the North
                  > > > Atlantic will catapult us into action if it is supposed to
                  happen
                  > > > during the next 20 years. If we are talking about 70 years, or
                  > > more,
                  > > > 140 years, forget it. There will be concern but I don't think
                  > > enough
                  > > > of it to override special interests, etc.
                  > > >
                  > > > I am very pessimistic about all this.
                  > > >
                  > > > For reference check:
                  > > > http://www.climate.unibe.ch/~christof/div/fact4thc.html
                  > > >
                  > > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Stewart"
                  > > > <tatteredflag@l...> wrote:
                  > > > >
                  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > > > From: "F Cote" <dionysios2100@h...>
                  > > > > Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2003 00:18:47 -0000
                  > > > > To: globalwarming@yahoogroups.com
                  > > > > Subject: [Global Warming] Re: Road to Ruin
                  > > > >
                  > > > > > An insightful article but where do we go from here?
                  > > > > >
                  > > > > > How do we go from insightful analysis to popular based
                  > > > movement?
                  > > > > > At present, to the the degree there is movement, the
                  momentum
                  > > is
                  > > > in
                  > > > > > the wrong direction.
                  > > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > We have to trick the apathetic into feeling.
                  > > > >
                  > > > > *
                  > > > >
                  > > > > --
                  > > > > ______________________________________________
                  > > > > Check out the latest SMS services @ http://www.linuxmail.org
                  > > > > This allows you to send and receive SMS through your mailbox.
                  > > > >
                  > > > >
                  > > > > Powered by Outblaze
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.