JT, I am very happy for you and your hope. I have it too. What I don't want to take hold of me is complacency based around my sunny 'positive' attitude. Some kinds of hope can be false optimism, in disguise.
I took pains to make a few points that obviously weren't comprehended.
First, that hope can be reassuring and useful, once the individual moves past the denial stage and incorporates that we have a serious three e problem. If they are not there yet, self servicing complacency, greed are likely part of the problem. Or stupidity, sloth…take your pick.
There is only one emotion that trumps all of the seven deadly sins and that is fear. Don't underestimate it. If humans can use it to sell deodorant, Mother Nature can use it to drive a few salient points home, regarding what she she surely feels is attempted matricide.
Second, that using bulldozers to restore the natural environment to anything close to its former pristine condition, can be done. It can't. If one thinks that it is possible to restore the rainforest using this method, they are mistaken.
Even on a local, less dense and complex scale, natural biodiversity that has taken millions of years to evolve, can't be recreated.
The reason I take such exception to the notion that we can restore our way out of this mess, is that part of the 'hope' behind this idea is that population explosion might not be the problem we think it is.
The argument goes, if people just do things differently, they can continue to breed like out of control hamsters — that overshoot is amorphous, unknowable, unmeasurable. Wrong!
Third, that we are the masters of our destiny and completely control reality with our attitude. If life operates this way, it can be concluded that there are others out there with billions of dollars creating their own reality using bricks, mortar, oil, chemicals, instead of pure attitude mental imagery and local effort.
Like Freddy Kruger, the .0000001 % haunt our dreams, twist our realities, undermine our efforts. Our hope is not going to change them. Gut wrenching fear? That might work. A drain on the vein of their life's blood – money, might just get them moving, too.
So i did go and look up Ken Wilber, having a chat with Kevin Kelly about his Technium. I'm into it, having grown fed up of being urged to magically separate the human, technical and natural worlds. Much better to see them as all part of the same thing.
I do sincerely appreciate it, as it gives me some additional insight into where your previous comments are coming from. There is much in your statement that I sympathize with, and have experienced myself at various levels and various times.
I have young children now (8 and 4) and, with that, I really have no choice but to try and be hopeful about creating a little bit better of a world (or at least my corner of it) to bequeath to them. Because if I engage the pessimistic doomerism that I used to embrace, I am effectively saying that they are condemned to a bleak, hopeless future. That's a place that I just cannot allow myself to go.
My father, who is now 82, often expresses concern about my plans to transform my life, step away from a fairly lucrative but soul-sucking career as an engineer in the corporate sector, and embark upon a new path. He often cites the fact that I have a family and have to earn an income as justification for that view. When I think about it, I'm left thinking that the fact that I have kids and a wife is precisely why I have to embark upon this path, because if we are going to move in a different direction we can't expect TPTB to do it for us. We have to become the leaders that we're all waiting for.
One of the major hurdles I've had to get over in this regard is to not let adherence to ideology displace action. As an example, although I know that fossil fuels are major causes of pollution and strife throughout the world, I cannot eschew their use completely and make a difference in my community and bioregion.
[quote]At no point did I state that we could use bulldozers to restore the natural environment to its former "pristine" condition (whatever "pristine" means, given that humans have been modifying the environment to suit our purposes since the early Paleolithic). Rather, we can use earthmoving equipment to go into highly degraded landscapes and, using consciously applied design, restore ecological function to them in a relatively short period of time?[/quote] Well said, I couldn't agree more. I have been trying to grow more of my own food for some time on property that has been altered and degraded over the last couple centuries. The one overwhelming virtue of this land is abundant water. Unfortunately, the water is either in places that aren't helpful to my "forest garden" or runs off during the spring melt and heavy rains.
So, I have developed a number of plans to divert water and store it in ways and places that will see me through the driest spells. Not surprisingly that requires machinery. That need plus the fact that my old garden tractor is on its last legs and needs some kind of replacement has led me to buying a new larger tractor with backhoe, front end loader, three point hitch and mower deck. There will probably be more attachments I acquire over time.
But, the point is I will be able to do a lot of work that will make my property much more sustainable and productive for the indefinite future with relatively little fossil fuel power once that is accomplished. The tractor should last the rest of my life and be of value to my heirs.
I have long felt that the highest and best use of fossil fuels is to develop ways to live without them. That's my goal.
Second, that using bulldozers to restore the natural environment to anything close to its former pristine condition, can be done. It can't. If one thinks that it is possible to restore the rainforest using this method, they are mistaken.
At no point did I state that we could use bulldozers to restore the natural environment to its former "pristine" condition (whatever "pristine" means, given that humans have been modifying the environment to suit our purposes since the early Paleolithic). Rather, we can use earthmoving equipment to go into highly degraded landscapes and, using consciously applied design, restore ecological function to them in a relatively short period of time.
Did you watch the documentary (Green Gold by John D. Liu) I linked to? Because it details how this kind of work has been done on a massive scale in Ethiopia and the Loess Plateau of China. Not wishful thinking, but actual results. Within a decade. In the Loess Plateau, people there are now getting 3x as much productivity out of the land while using 40% of the land mass they previously used. And the ecosystems are actually getting more robust and resilient over time, not more degraded. All of this for a cost that is the fraction of what we spend on mindless consumption and waging war all over the globe.
As John D. Liu himself asked in the film, "If we know how to restore large-scale damaged ecosystems, then why aren't we doing it?" Since I think that the 0.0001% has a good bit to do with that, then I have to ask myself the simple question, "Why aren't YOU doing it?" Blaming the 0.0001% is not an acceptable answer to this question, it is an evasion of responsibility. As Bill Mollison stated in the beginning of the Permaculture Designer's Manual, "The only ethical choice we have to take responsibility for our own lives, and those of our descendants." I've decided to do it and transition my life to something that, while much more uncertain in the short term than what I have right now, is much more positive, regenerative, and resilient in the long term.
"…if you think the CBO estimates are believable, what are your specific reasons why besides "The CBO says so"?"
Let's review the CBO estimates for annual real GDP growth: about 2.3 percent per year to 2060, about 1.9 percent per year from 2060 to 2080.
U.S. real GDP growth in the 80 years from 1930 to 2010 declined from about 5% per year to 3% per year. U.S. real GDP growth from 1970-2008 averaged pretty steady at 3.1% per year.
So the CBO estimate of 2.3% per year to 2060 and 1.9% per year from 2060 to 2080 is certainly reasonable given the last 80+ years of U.S. economic performance.
The CBO estimate is also completely in line with the Department of Energy's Annual Energy Outlook for 2015, which uses a "Reference Case" real economic growth rate of 2.4% per year from 2014 to 2040:
“…you could have simply asked him What type of growth curve for GDP would you expect instead over the next 5 decades? I'm confident he would have not only had an informed idea on the matter, he would have been happy to share it.
Chris, what type of growth curve for GDP would you expect instead over the next 5 decades?
I have a better understanding now and see why you took such exception to what I wrote. Hopefully our survival as a species is predicated on an improving biosphere, through whatever means it takes. I hate to think that we are so successful using new more advanced methods of intensive farming that we double our global population, even if we end up using no more farm land. That's really my area of concern. Too many people displacing too many other species.
Tossing aside a job you don't like for one that is sure to reap much greater long term benefit, for you and your family, seems to be beyond reproach. Plus, it is an area where there will,be much more attention focused, in the future. I don't know what it is with parents. They think purely in terms of safety when it comes to their kids. And safety for many people means status quo.
I share your point of view. It is not enough to make necessary personal change. I've made as many as I can but continue to seek out more information about how the world works; politically, economically and environmentally. Currently I am trying to get a handle on whether the beef industry is marginalizing or simply minimizing one of the greatest sources of environmental degradation out there.
Apparently there is evidence to suggest non profits like Green Peace and the Sierra Club are mum about this subject because they receive a lot of their funding from – let's call it 'Big Cattle.' There's a documentary called 'Cowspiracy' that documents this. I haven't watched it yet but plan to.
During my hope and complacency phase, which lasted a few years after my mind was hijacked (rightfully so!) by the 911 fascist coup d'état, I realize, I have to get back in the game, so to speak and continue to educate myself about the grim realities.
My late husband was a working member of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. I feel it's important to continue his legacy, in this regard. It's a mere drop in the bucket, but I feel it's important.
Blueberries. Yum. Hope you are getting more rain than I am!
Thank you for sharing such an amazing post. Really appreciate the useful information that you share with your audience. Mejour Digital is also a great platform through which you find more of such meaningful resources.
