Part 1 of 2: It is worse, much worse, than you think. The slowness of climate change is a fairy tale, perhaps as pernicious as the one that says it isn’t happening at all, and comes to us bundled with several others in an anthology of comforting delusions: that global warming is an Arctic saga, unfolding remotely; that it is strictly a matter of sea level and coastlines, not an enveloping crisis sparing no place and leaving no life undeformed; that it is a crisis of the “natural” world, not the human one; that those two are distinct, and that we live today somehow outside or beyond or at the very least defended against nature, not inescapably within and literally overwhelmed by it; that wealth can be a shield against the ravages of warming; that the burning of fossil fuels is the price of continued economic growth; that growth, and the technology it produces, will allow us to engineer our way out of environmental disaster; that there is any analogue to the scale or scope of this threat, in the long span of human history, that might give us confidence in staring it down. None of this is true. In fact, more than half of the carbon exhaled into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels has been emitted in just the past three decades." 'The uninhabitable Earth' by David Wallace-Wells. The first paragragh listed above from 'The uninhabitable Earth' by David Wallace-Wells, is one of the best prefaces I've ever read on the subject, and I would only suggest that without a plethora of questions and answers that rise to those questions, it may be too strong for younger minds to comprehend and or perceive a way that humanity can thread that needle and exist; ergo, they may give into the corporate structure's convolution's devolutionary direction's easy outs, like apathy, cynism, delusional opt-ins like "science and technology will fix it", etc., when supposed science has no intentions of ever being more than the religion of scientism to profit, pleasure and empower it's adherrents in ever-increasingly cyclical and centralizing patterns (in a word, more), etc.. Of course addictive personality disorder, and consumerism also come to mind. You see, while knowledge always has a concurrent responsibility to usually give it away, it also demands accuracy in it's growth and applications. An example, WWII was won by the Allies by sheer luck, my saying this in no way is meant to diminish the astronomical sacrifices of the Allies and their Allied countries. For the criminal insanity of a dozen German scientists was not what their Hitlers, Hirohitos, Mussolinis, and Francos demanded at the time. So, those scientists fleed, half to the West, half to the East, in a last ditched effort to stop the most criminally insane Hitler; successfully, as history bears out. Yet, humanity was at that precipice of definitive extinction at the hands of the notsees, but for those scientists discerning what it was to be human more accurately over time; and that they weren't doing it- and chose to instead. Simply, if Hitler would have had the A-bomb, etc., instead of the Allies, humanity would've been extinct decades ago. Yet, with the victory for life itself that the scientists handed the Allies they also handed them the utter criminal insanity of such a thing as a 'science' that is "pure" and somehow "separate" from anything else; an entity unto itself that need not be justified in it's actions- as they were definable as empirical, etc..... Cont'd in next comment:
Part 2 of 2: Thus the criminal insanity of the Axis powers scientists, especially the Germans, continued in it's form, yet, not it's content; somehow, thereby, being deemed palatable to politicians, world leaders, etc.- for now the criminal insanity was in the correct hands, supposedly, the united suck of assassins having it All would deter, if not stop other countries from becoming that criminal insane, etc.. So, if you look at that historical set of causes and effects, it's almost impossible to come up with a scenario where humanity isn't again at that precipice of extinction from supposed science; that while almost no one knows it? One might ask, how could humanity not know what's causing it's extinction, yet, that's where the seamlesssness of the corporate structure's convolution comes in. So, 400 years of supposed science have brought what it took the Galaxy to create and evolve over billions of years, the Earth and life on it, to the precipice of extinction; like "...one insect damaging so much grain..." (Elton John), or one instant, in terms of the evolution, destroying so much grace. Then one looks across the breadth and depth of the spectrum of the multi-media conspiracy's communications and one sees, the conspiracy between the bi-headed, RumputiN/vlad-the-impaler, bi-polar axi of supposed global power, one, republican capitalist notsees who are totalitarian and materialists and the other Communist, Socialist, totalitarians that are notsee and materialist, marginalizing to exterminating dissenting views and actual scientific ones too; like Darwin's one of evolution- accepted science for hundreds of years. Where are the discernments being propagatedd that the evolutionary direction is something, just as la machine's devolutionary direction is another entirely? How come the word evolution is falsely used as synonymous with process, etc.; and is never corrected- if the word is used at all? Why has the supposed scientific community never struggled against the completely fallacious propistion that "humanity...", supposedly, "doesn't have to evolve", etc.; "it", supposedly, "just needs technological fixes that politicians haven't allowed to be applied", etc.. Completely, supposedly, exonerating supposed science of it's causing the extinctions and responsibility to stop them in one felled swoop? Again, in a word, more. If the scientific community switches to real science they are diminishing their "almighty bottom line", getting more. Yet, anyone who knows anything knows along with it comes responsibilities; why haven't All demanded they exercise theirs? Political will, one might suggest is lacking, specifically, in each individual citizen; how has the corporate structure's convolution's devolutionary direction successfully devolved everyone, individually? Now, you'd be getting somewhere. This struggle for the hearts, minds and souls of each person to be emancipated from the worldly world's, la machine's, illusory through to delusional sociological through to societal programming is the key to threading that needle. For if each one doesn't reach and teach one to turn 360 degrees around, back to the evolution and the future humanity will only have if they do, extinction's the only posssibility; because it's all we ever actually chose. Certainly, illimitable, potentially, you, indivisible as life, can do that; no? reality
Part 1 of 2: It is worse, much worse, than you think. The slowness of climate change is a fairy tale, perhaps as pernicious as the one that says it isn’t happening at all, and comes to us bundled with several others in an anthology of comforting delusions: that global warming is an Arctic saga, unfolding remotely; that it is strictly a matter of sea level and coastlines, not an enveloping crisis sparing no place and leaving no life undeformed; that it is a crisis of the “natural” world, not the human one; that those two are distinct, and that we live today somehow outside or beyond or at the very least defended against nature, not inescapably within and literally overwhelmed by it; that wealth can be a shield against the ravages of warming; that the burning of fossil fuels is the price of continued economic growth; that growth, and the technology it produces, will allow us to engineer our way out of environmental disaster; that there is any analogue to the scale or scope of this threat, in the long span of human history, that might give us confidence in staring it down. None of this is true. In fact, more than half of the carbon exhaled into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels has been emitted in just the past three decades." 'The uninhabitable Earth' by David Wallace-Wells. The first paragragh listed above from 'The uninhabitable Earth' by David Wallace-Wells, is one of the best prefaces I've ever read on the subject, and I would only suggest that without a plethora of questions and answers that rise to those questions, it may be too strong for younger minds to comprehend and or perceive a way that humanity can thread that needle and exist; ergo, they may give into the corporate structure's convolution's devolutionary direction's easy outs, like apathy, cynism, delusional opt-ins like "science and technology will fix it", etc., when supposed science has no intentions of ever being more than the religion of scientism to profit, pleasure and empower it's adherrents in ever-increasingly cyclical and centralizing patterns (in a word, more), etc.. Of course addictive personality disorder, and consumerism also come to mind. You see, while knowledge always has a concurrent responsibility to usually give it away, it also demands accuracy in it's growth and applications. An example, WWII was won by the Allies by sheer luck, my saying this in no way is meant to diminish the astronomical sacrifices of the Allies and their Allied countries. For the criminal insanity of a dozen German scientists was not what their Hitlers, Hirohitos, Mussolinis, and Francos demanded at the time. So, those scientists fleed, half to the West, half to the East, in a last ditched effort to stop the most criminally insane Hitler; successfully, as history bears out. Yet, humanity was at that precipice of definitive extinction at the hands of the notsees, but for those scientists discerning what it was to be human more accurately over time; and that they weren't doing it- and chose to instead. Simply, if Hitler would have had the A-bomb, etc., instead of the Allies, humanity would've been extinct decades ago. Yet, with the victory for life itself that the scientists handed the Allies they also handed them the utter criminal insanity of such a thing as a 'science' that is "pure" and somehow "separate" from anything else; an entity unto itself that need not be justified in it's actions- as they were definable as empirical, etc..... Cont'd in next comment:
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 2: Thus the criminal insanity of the Axis powers scientists, especially the Germans, continued in it's form, yet, not it's content; somehow, thereby, being deemed palatable to politicians, world leaders, etc.- for now the criminal insanity was in the correct hands, supposedly, the united suck of assassins having it All would deter, if not stop other countries from becoming that criminal insane, etc.. So, if you look at that historical set of causes and effects, it's almost impossible to come up with a scenario where humanity isn't again at that precipice of extinction from supposed science; that while almost no one knows it? One might ask, how could humanity not know what's causing it's extinction, yet, that's where the seamlesssness of the corporate structure's convolution comes in. So, 400 years of supposed science have brought what it took the Galaxy to create and evolve over billions of years, the Earth and life on it, to the precipice of extinction; like "...one insect damaging so much grain..." (Elton John), or one instant, in terms of the evolution, destroying so much grace. Then one looks across the breadth and depth of the spectrum of the multi-media conspiracy's communications and one sees, the conspiracy between the bi-headed, RumputiN/vlad-the-impaler, bi-polar axi of supposed global power, one, republican capitalist notsees who are totalitarian and materialists and the other Communist, Socialist, totalitarians that are notsee and materialist, marginalizing to exterminating dissenting views and actual scientific ones too; like Darwin's one of evolution- accepted science for hundreds of years. Where are the discernments being propagatedd that the evolutionary direction is something, just as la machine's devolutionary direction is another entirely? How come the word evolution is falsely used as synonymous with process, etc.; and is never corrected- if the word is used at all? Why has the supposed scientific community never struggled against the completely fallacious propistion that "humanity...", supposedly, "doesn't have to evolve", etc.; "it", supposedly, "just needs technological fixes that politicians haven't allowed to be applied", etc.. Completely, supposedly, exonerating supposed science of it's causing the extinctions and responsibility to stop them in one felled swoop? Again, in a word, more. If the scientific community switches to real science they are diminishing their "almighty bottom line", getting more. Yet, anyone who knows anything knows along with it comes responsibilities; why haven't All demanded they exercise theirs? Political will, one might suggest is lacking, specifically, in each individual citizen; how has the corporate structure's convolution's devolutionary direction successfully devolved everyone, individually? Now, you'd be getting somewhere. This struggle for the hearts, minds and souls of each person to be emancipated from the worldly world's, la machine's, illusory through to delusional sociological through to societal programming is the key to threading that needle. For if each one doesn't reach and teach one to turn 360 degrees around, back to the evolution and the future humanity will only have if they do, extinction's the only posssibility; because it's all we ever actually chose. Certainly, illimitable, potentially, you, indivisible as life, can do that; no? reality
ReplyDelete