The Zeitgeist Movement has just released their latest edition of the very informative “Spirit of the Time” magazine and it includes a review of pachacuti the novel. Click on the logo to catch up with the Movement’s view of our current reality … and check out the book review section too of course.
I came across the recent lecture for the National Endowment of the Humanities delivered by author Wendell E. Berry. It so reflects the Pachacuti view of today’s western society and so resonated with me that I’m impelled to share it around. Click on the logo and take yourself off to a very special place.
It seems that, regarding science, there exists a variety of perspectives, often disparate, that are counter-productive to dialogue when it involves accumulated knowledge and perceptions of reality. Since that pretty much covers every conversation of practical consequence, I thought it might be worth investing the following few words in pursuit of clarity and unity of view and to dispel distrust of the scientific method of enquiry.
Humans base their decisions and actions on an assessment of reality. We are sensory, reasoning beings and we assess reality by a combination of sensed evidence and reasoned conclusions. We cannot assess reality by any other mechanism, for our senses and our reason are all we have to work with. It is not a perfect system, for our senses can misrepresent the evidence and our reasoning can be flawed. Fifty people might assess the same reality and arrive at fifty different conclusions. But that’s fifty different conclusions, not fifty different realities. If only one of the fifty conclusions is correct, the other forty-nine are incorrect.
All humans (and many other animals) use and have used these tools and this method since the first glimmer of their ancestral consciousness. Many people conceive alternatives to this physical enquiry mechanism and give them such labels as ‘intuition’, ‘divination’, ‘spiritual awareness’, ‘the meta-physical’, the ‘super natural’ etc, but in truth they are not alternatives. They are either simply products of delusion or they are extensions and/or variants of the physical; i.e. ‘ESP’ and ‘sixth sense’ are real physical characteristics that we don’t yet recognise; our brain/mind complex reasons in ways we don’t yet understand. (the former being highly possible and the latter a given). These things are either real, in which case evidence based reasoning can ultimately reveal their secrets, or they are not real. Of late, we have overlain our innate mechanism of inquiry with the academic refinements of experimentation, postulation, theory testing, statistical analysis, peer review etc, and developed all of that into a formal discipline we call ‘science’.
This relatively recent ‘refinement’ has not altered the fundamental way in which humans everywhere engage with reality. We all still use the same organic means. The great volume of ancient and indigenous knowledge also was acquired by these means. Though, for some, the methods by which it is stored and transmitted might give the appearance of it having some mystical or spiritual nature, indigenous knowledge is the product of evidence based reason nonetheless. It cannot be anything other.
Since the conception of ‘science’ as an academic discipline, a vast accumulation of data has been compiled as the product of its deployment. This science-sanctioned accumulated understanding is often known as the ‘body of scientific knowledge’ or simply ‘the science’. This may be an unfortunate evolution of language giving rise to confusion and even conflict, implying as it does, that there is more than one source of knowledge when there simply isn’t. How can there be? All is gathered by the same means. All is subjected to the checks and audits of reasoning, which leads to conclusions that have varying degrees of veracity, although never 100%. The discipline of science is simply an academic formalising of those checks and audits as well as an extension of the reasoning process, via peer review, to bring multiple brain/mind complexes to bear on the question.
It is legitimate, in literal terms, to regard accumulated knowledge as ‘science’ but the term is equally applicable to the academic discipline we apply to the enquiry method. It might be helpful to find new terms that differentiate between these two applications.
All human knowledge is derived from a common source and by a common method. All human knowledge is conclusion derived by reasoning over sensed evidence. When we base a decision upon a conclusion, our conviction to that decision is inevitably tempered by the level of ‘confidence’ with which we regard the veracity of our conclusion. Allocating levels of confidence in this way is something we do unconsciously all the time. It’s a part of the reasoning process. It is the mechanism by which we ‘change our minds’ and it is more active in some than in others. If, as I suspect, all things are inter-related it is therefore axiomatic that no conclusion can be 100% certain (except perhaps by accident), as certitude about any one thing requires total understanding and awareness of all things – simultaneously. For the human intellect, that omniscient state may ultimately be achievable but it seems some way off just yet (and if the cosmos is infinite, it seems actually an unattainable state).
Distrust of ‘science’ appears widespread, which is as unfortunate as it is unnecessary. While some scientists might be justifiably regarded with suspicion as might the product of some conclusions arrived at by scientifically enhanced enquiry, the actual discipline itself is surely incorruptible and beyond distrust. Science is merely a discipline applied to our innate means of enquiry in the hope of improving the level of confidence we can have in the conclusions we draw and act upon. Most of us adopt its principles unconsciously most of the time, even those of us who profess to distrusting it. Without it, we have no formal structure to govern our decisions and actions and must rely on less concrete things like intuition – gut feel. This may be appropriate at the individual level but for society at large it exposes all of us to the vicissitudes of uninformed, mob ‘gut-feel’; not a good approach to the deployment of nuclear technology say or our considerations of climate change or the impacts of 7 billion humans upon the planet’s wild-life and resources.
There is no reason that social discourse should be stymied by multiple and disparate conceptions of ‘science’ – of how we acquire the knowledge upon which we base our daily decisions. Some decisions are too urgent and critical for us to allow that to happen”.
Hi fellow traveller,
Labelling the Durban Climate Change summit a ‘fight’ does not create a misnomer. Durban is the current focus of a very serious political battle between Team Red and Team Green and the outcome of the engagement may well be critical to the future welfare (perhaps even the survival) of civilisation as we know it.
Team Red – those who would like to scuttle all climate change mitigation efforts because they don’t understand the science, they lack the reasoning capacity to join the obvious dots or they do understand it all but put their commercial profits ahead of the welfare of future generations.
Team Green – those who do understand the science and are aware that without a properly functioning ecosystem, all economic and commercial considerations are invalid.
Last year CO2 emissions rose by a staggering 6% over the previous year’s emissions. At this rate of increase, the 2009 annual rate of CO2 emissions would double by 2021. An overwhelming majority of the scientific community calculates the likelihood as ‘high to very high’ that such an emissions rate will initiate run-away warming with catastrophic climatic and biosphere changes that the human species will struggle to survive. Even if the likelihood of these outcomes was ‘low to very low’, surely the gravity of the risk dictates that a precautionary stance be adopted as the default.
A common mantra that has arisen from the Team Red equivalent of the current Murray-Darling Basin debate puts the order of priorities as “People, Profits then Planet”. It’s clearly moronic. It’s like eagerly anticipating a party while you’re setting fire to the venue.
This same mantra is a Team Red sub-text in Durban. A US-led coalition of countries are trying to kill efforts to stop catastrophic climate change at this crucial summit in Africa. It’s a staggering moral failure and we can stop this. The EU, Brazil and China can stand up to form a “Green Dream Team” and lead us towards a planet saving deal, but with just 5 days left they need a global roar of support to make it happen.
PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR SUPPORT TO AVAAZ! ADD YOUR VOICE TO THE PROTEST AND/OR DONATE.
What interesting times we’re living in! In every corner you look, there seems to be something going down that’s of major global significance;
Did I mention rising CO2, peak everything and acidifying oceans?
Crazy unsustainable behaviour! And we can’t even beg, “forgive us Pachamama, for we know not what we do.”
Prominent in the list of causes behind this accelerating craziness, is our relentless drive for growth in human enterprise. Population growth. Economic growth. Consumer growth. Urban growth. Growth that tries to meet increasing demands by each of us from a shrinking supply for all of us – and we then compound that lunacy by distributing the shrinking bounty with alienating inequity.
In spite of an ecological footprint that already tramples our offspring’s future, almost nowhere are we reining in or even resisting the tide of human growth. The population milestone of 7 billion will slide into our rear-view mirror at the end of this month and our elected leaders calmly discuss the advent of the 8th billion by 2025, apparently without consternation. Society is hooked on growth and like most drug users, we are terrified by the prospect of withdrawal. At some point however, growth in a finite system must end and a voluntary turn-around will surely be gentler than the forced cessation that seems ever more imminent.
We need to stop. But terminating society’s barnstorming joy-flight of growth to a soft and civilised landing presents a monumental challenge for both private individuals and public leaders. It will require an unwritten, unsigned pact of trust and trustworthiness extended and reciprocated across suburban fences, polling booths, television screens and international borders. It must involve the establishment of a new worldview, shared in common to a degree that is not just historically unprecedented but is not actually possible under the current operating system. The social transformation must be undertaken by the individual as a leap of faith and conducted with sufficient order as to not fatally disrupt the flow of life’s essentials. Contemplating the enormity of the task in light of the collective cultural fitness of the individuals undertaking it and the factional fragmentation of those charged with its orderly conduct, is an exercise that generates very little optimism.
Central to the task will be informing society of the need for change and persuading them to undertake it. Enter the Pachacuti Project, of course, for this is the very grist to our particular mill.
Work we’ve been doing recently:
We’re still actively peddling and pitching Pachacuti to the movie industry in Australia and overseas of course. No ‘Bingo!!’ moments yet, but we are pitching it higher up the film corporate tower now that two years ago.
The project manned a stall at the Population Film Festival on August 28th at the Tribal Theatre in Brisbane, hosted by Sustainable Population Australia. Numerous great Australian and international contacts made there.
I attended a three-day Transforming Australia National Summit in Geelong at the beginning of October. The detail output from the summit is still being compiled. Out soon.
You’ll recall the project is supporting and promoting Dave Gardner’s groundbreaking film GrowthBusters: Hooked on Growth? Well Dave has now finished the film and is preparing for its premiere in US in early November.
This is a feature length documentary that asks the most critical question of our time: How do we become a sustainable civilization? It takes a unique approach among modern environmental documentaries. Rather than dispensing facts about climate change, peak resources, and bio-diversity loss, it examines the cultural barriers that prevent us from acting rationally. It asks why population conversations are so difficult to have, and why a roaring economy is more important to us than a survivable planet. It explores our obsession with community growth and economic growth. GrowthBusters holds up a mirror, encouraging us to examine the beliefs and behaviors we must leave behind, and the values we need to embrace, in order that our children can survive and thrive.
The Pachacuti Project is eager to promote Dave’s film in Australia because it so readily cuts to the underlying cultural issues that we ourselves are trying to address. To make sure this valuable film is not wasted, we need the broadest possible distribution and screening. We know the mainstream media won’t touch the subject matter so we have to do it the hard way. We can however make it fun!
Anyone can easily support the film by buying copies and by arranging screenings via the GrowthBuster’s website, and we urge individuals and social groups to get involved in that as perhaps the best way to singly support it.
However, we’d like to arrange a massive group event and take the promotion to a much higher level of social interaction.
We truly believe this film has potential for great things, especially given the recent media prominence of the Occupy Wall Street phenomenon globally and the ‘Lock the Gate’, ‘Getup’, ‘Save the Kimberley’ and other activity here in Australia. Can’t see the connection? You would if you knew the film!
Hooked on Growth, so comprehensively reflects the values and statements of these groups you’d think they were associated organisations. They aren’t of course. Dave started making the film long before OWS was even thought of and the parallels are probably just a function of broad dissatisfaction arising from recent global economic and corporate events. But it does corroborate the filmmaker’s great foresight and vision. (Can’t wait for the follow on series that Dave is already planning.)
To make the most of Dave’s film in Australia and to give organisations the maximum chance of being identified with its success, we are looking for partners in staging a simultaneous screening across the major capitals and as many other towns as possible. The concept of simultaneous screenings adds to media appeal if we can get a big enough event happening.
Additionally, the Oz promotion is steadily attracting the interest of notable Australian and international figures (‘no names, no pack drill’ at this stage but do stay tuned) and it maximises their chances of adding value to a screening if there are multiple venues from which to choose. Again, simultaneous events with multiple public figure attendance will increase media attention. The earliest we could realistically arrange a major simultaneous screening is December 12th; and after about January 31st the impact may be reduced by public familiarity with the film. So if you are interested in taking part in this event by arranging a screening, or you know of high profile public figures that would be willing to help draw media attention, contact me ASAP to discuss details. By about November 11th we need to have homed in on a mutually suitable date, so the sooner we start the better. And please don’t be put off by the lack of funding. Though we don’t have money to hand out for this as yet, if we can demonstrate wild enthusiasm for the idea, I have a begging bowl and some doors I can knock on!
Obviously, you will want to get a preview of the film beforehand and that can also be arranged. You can view the trailer on GrowthBusters web site as a starter.
One other thing of note in the project pipeline; Pachacuti will have a presence at a ‘Jack Beale’ lecture on the Global Environment, presented by Professor Paul R. Ehrlich from Stanford University at UNSW’s Kensington campus on Monday 31st October. If you’d like to accompany us, let me know.
As a follow up to that, Professor Ehrlich and I are trying to bring together a discussion group of Australian academics and social leaders to collaborate on generating global alliances and global dialogue to address world enviro/social issues. But that’s not set in stone yet, so I’ll leave the details to be reported in our next newsletter if it all comes off.
Prof. Ehrlich is also seeking alliances with the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere, (the MAHB). Please check this out and do whatever you can. The more hands that are joined across the globe the better.
A couple of things you can do very easily to promote what the Pachacuti Project is doing:- Follow and re-tweet our never-frivolous commentary on Twitter. Mention our work to family and friends.
And lastly, here’s a great new book I found – “The Biggest Wake-up Call in History”. Richard Slaughter writes very lucidly on the converging world crises.
That’s it for now but more in the near future. Travel well!
Please, Be the Change.
Globally there now exists a strong foundation of recognition that our civilisation is under threat of catastrophic harm by its own unguided hand. The social reaction to this rapidly growing comprehension is currently ungoverned and at risk of descending, perhaps even exploding, into fear and chaos. To ward off the worst of potential outcomes, systemic change is essential – probably with urgency. This change is just now becoming dimly visible on the horizon.
The best instruments for initiating and guiding non-destructive transformation are our governments – but they are currently enslaved to the wrong goals and are victims of compromised and disempowering electoral systems. The required capacity for them to govern in the interest of all of their constituents can only be re-established by popular influence. This requires an informed, mobilised and united population; and many of us are engaged in establishing the public dialogue that must precede those social conditions.
Recognition of the issues has spawned and continues to spawn small to medium size groups strongly motivated to action. These exist around the globe in a wide diversity of cultures, places, circumstances, comprehensions and potential for influence. Synergistic outreach between the nodes of this informal network has commenced but is too slow and not yet adequately directed around a workable plan on an appropriate pathway. Luckily, within the growing potential for chaos and catastrophe lies also the energy and opportunity to accelerate that process of social coalescence.
Australia is well placed to provide at least one platform on which that energy and opportunity can be fused together. We have the wit, the wherewithal and the social freedom for the job, but perhaps more importantly, we have a moral obligation to step up.
With every handshake that adds to global unification around this issue, the credibility of the outreach and its chances of success are multiplied. Success is eminently possible, because there’s no need to tamper with our differences of culture, politics, religion, etc. We only need to become sufficiently informed on a handful of facts, commonly aware that our future survival or otherwise is inextricable shared, and united behind a single idea – the establishment of a sustainable future for all of our offspring.
Some speak about various elephants in the room, but perhaps it’s more appropriate to say we have made mistakes that need correcting or have unwittingly invited a social illness that we find too embarrassing to discuss. In the interest of existing and future generations, we need to shoo the elephants, correct the errors, get past the embarrassment.
Whatever!
We need to start talking about the social illness and we need to engage in a vigorous dialogue about the healing process.
Healing self, society and planet. How hard can it be?
I’ve been having a serious second look at Paul Gilding’s work in The Great Disruption and his prognosis of humanity’s self-salvation from the looming collision of growth addicted economy with ecological limits. Paul cites the sudden social change catalysed by Hitler’s invasion of Poland and the Pearl Harbour attack as an example of humans coming up with the necessary reserves of spirit and community when pushed to the brink; and he forecasts similar social transformation in the near future.
I’d like to engage in discussion on a number of things I believe are missing from his deliberations;
If humanity managed to cobble together a global unity that salvaged say 6 billion of us and set in motion a century long contraction to a stable and sustainable eco-footprint, I’d feel that Gilding may have been right but if the disruption results in say >50% of lives lost prematurely, i.e. to other than old age, the validity of his claim would be progressively diluted.
I may be wrong and Paul may be right. Under the weight of sound argument I’m always happy to change my views. Which brings us to football. Well, more appropriately to society’s engagement with global sporting events.
I see this as something of a bell-wether of the Gilding effect taking hold; of society’s engagement with the current ecological footprint predicament. Flying millions of people around the world annually to sit in clusters vicariously soaking up gladiatorial glory while the middle-age health of our athletes is sacrificed on the altar of greedy commercial gods is less than wise .. to my mind. Given peak-everything, It’s a serious waste of resources, of energy (human and otherwise) and of social focus.When I see society self-motivated toward curtailing the practice; when we start to disconnect commerce and economies from global sporting events; e.g. when we electively cut back on motor sports of all kinds; I’ll start to believe that Paul Gilding’s prognosis for the current social malaise of reality-avoidance may have a chance after all. And obviously the sooner that begins the better .. to my mind.
And a quick parry here of a thrust that I know is coming; Someone recently tried to assure me that global engagement with sport was ‘a great social unifier’. Well, ignoring the obvious paradox arising from the combative nature of the sport, the commerce behind it and the fan structure, I’m prompted to ask, “unified in support of what?” Anybody got an answer to that one?
Given the volume (both space and decibels) of UK parliamentary outrage in response to last week’s rioting, you’d be forgiven for thinking it came to Tottenham as some sort of social Pearl Harbour – without forewarning. But the comments of PM David Cameron contain the real story.
THE DAILY BEAST – ‘Prime Minister David Cameron has called for an end to the four days of rioting that have left five dead, thousands facing criminal charges, and at least $350 million in property losses. The prime minister said he believed his country was facing a “moral collapse.” His senior ministers will reportedly spend the next few weeks formulating policies to help build a “stronger society.” “This has been a wake-up call for our country. Social problems that have been festering for decades have exploded in our face,” Cameron said.’
Festering for decades? It takes a major social face-plant to prompt policy change on something that’s been known for decades? And the immediate response is to propose the curtailment of social media – and consultation with international heavies on how to suppress social disdain for authority by imposing even more of it. There’s no need to shut down Twitter and limit society’s freedom of association. The riots didn’t happen because disaffected youths started talking to one another! Every one of the rioters and looters was born an innocent and only later became a product of his/her societal and cultural influence. The recent behaviour is unacceptable, sure. Irresponsible and even irrational. All of that. But not incomprehensible or unpredictable.
“Children are born blank slates on which today’s society prescribes tomorrows.” That’s been the case for thousands of years now.
The problem has economic elements via the impacts of unemployment on self-esteem and personal dignity. It also has cultural elements – of course it has. It has elements of inadequate public infrastructure, uncaring social welfare and education systems too, and poor personal prospects and motivation. That is to say the problem is a systemic one and can only be addressed by long term policies of social transformation – to a point where we are championing the best in our human nature rather than facilitating the worst.
Cameron’s take-home observation from this social upheaval that so rudely interrupted his holiday, has to lie in his own recognition of “festering for decades” and the unstated follow on “and we did nothing about it”.
When the system not only facilitates but favours the promotion, to leadership, of corporate and commercial acumen rather than social understanding and wisdom, we should expect the resultant society to reflect that bias. The social expectations and promised benefits of ‘trickle-down’ economics in particular have not materialised and indeed are receding ever more day-by-day. We need leadership that is prepared to push the policies of real social transformation, not just reach out to the corporate buddies for another box of publicly funded band-aids.
The following was posted on NRDC’s Switchboard blogsite in response to a news article highlighting New York City’s chronic sewerage infrastructure problems.
Over the next 14 years we plan to add another 1 billion people to the global population. It sounds like NYC is not in a position to accept any of them . The infrastructure readiness of practically all of the world’s cities is similar to that of NYC, yet no one is talking about reining in the growth. Do we intend to accommodate this 1 billion in new cities? 1 billion is equivalent to the entire current population of US and Europe combined. That infrastructure was centuries in the development. Are we really able to duplicate that in the single decade or so to 2024? And then do it all over again in the subsequent 15 years to 2040 as forecast, starting from the current bad economic and resource availability position? If our fragmented global leadership can keep all of that on the rails, I’ll publicly eat my favourite panama.
It is way beyond time for a serious discussion about reversing the growth madness. Already we commit around 15 million new people annually to the global poverty line. Hunger, inequity and repression fuel the social discontent that is the breeding ground for the next generation of extremists. Another good reason to address the growth that is the underlying cause. I’d say NYC residents, like most other city-dwellers had best get used to swimming in their own poop, because the situation isn’t about to go away. Instead of howling down the ‘de-growth’ lobby, we should be embracing their message. Check out Growthbusters.org and support their coming feature documentary, ironically due to premiere in NYC in late October to coincide with the birth of our 7 billionth little person.
Wouldn’t want to be a the mayor of NYC.
Way to go New York!
While I don’t necessarily agree that gay and lesbian marriage should be legalized (see my reasons below that might inspire you to new perspectives) I do vigorously support the social recognition of homosexuality and homosexual love as something that is as natural (though perhaps not as common) as the heterosexual variety. What New York has just done is a great step in that recognition process! Congratulations.
Homosexuality should be viewed, both constitutionally and culturally, as a naturally occurring phenomenon, an occasional and involuntary departure from the genetic procreative norm, in other words a congenital (or perhaps acquired) as opposed to an elected and perverse condition. On this basis, there should be no discrimination either for or against homosexuals. Same-sex relationships should be embraced both legally and culturally, including the right of a homosexual individual to adopt children on the same criteria as a heterosexual individual. The recognition should be taken a step further however. The education system should ensure child awareness of the details of procreation and sexuality, as a normal part of a wider education program and at an early age, and knowledge of the homosexual phenomenon should be simply an integral part thereof, promoting comprehension and inhibiting stigmatization.
So why wouldn’t I support homosexual marriage? Well I believe that the legal component of marriage generally should be minimized – if possible, eliminated. Marriage is a great community unifier and should be elevated in status as a cultural and community concern not a government or legal one. The less legal connotations and complications that bear on marriage the better. Legalities of marriage are almost exclusively about property ownership and there are ways to address those with minimal legal intervention. See Book Two of ‘Pachacuti – Mankind in the coming re-genesis’. Custody and responsibility for children is also a concern, but that could also be addressed by strong community values and without governmental interference in the marriage process. So too can expressions of homosexual love be fulfilling and rewarding within a tolerant informed society without ‘legalization’. Therein lies a potentially very rewarding challenge for today’s society.
Hello! welcome to my blog.
