Copyright 2010 by Ernest Partridge. Published here with permission of the author.
Men at some time are masters of their fates. The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings. – William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar
Place a few fruit flies in a bottle with a layer of honey at the bottom, and they will quickly multiply to an enormous number, and then, just as quickly, die off to the very last, poisoned by their wastes. Similarly, add a few yeast cells to grape juice, seal the bottle, and the cells will consume the sugar and turn it into alcohol. When the alcohol rises to 12.5% it will kill off all the yeast, and the wine will be ready for the table.
Fruit flies and yeast in a bottle are embarked upon suicidal endeavors. They can’t help it. They don’t know any better, lacking the cognitive equipment to “know” anything at all.
Human beings, we are told, are different. Humans can utilize their accumulated knowledge, evaluate evidence and apply reason, and with these skills and accomplishments they can imagine alternative futures and choose among them to their advantage.
Human beings have these capacities. But history teaches us that all too often, human beings simply refuse to apply them and, like the mindless fruit flies, march blindly into oblivion. For example:
None of the antagonists in the First World War wanted the war. It was touched off by the assassination of an Austrian Duke in the Balkans. And when it was all over four years later and sixteen million had died, one German politician asked another, “How did it all happen?” The second replied, “Ach, if we only knew!” (Tuchman)
When the Nazi pogrom against the Jews accelerated, a few wise Jews fled Germany, leaving friends, professions and all their possessions behind. The others, reflecting that “This can’t be all that bad, after all, I am a loyal German,” remained. When in January 1942 “the final solution” was decided at the Wansee conference, it was too late.
Industrialized fishing techniques have drastically reduced both the quality and quantity of the world-wide catch. As Elizabeth Kolbert reports in The New Yorker, “In the late nineteen eighties, the total world catch topped out at about eighty-five million tons… For the past two decades, the global catch has been steadily declining … by around five hundred thousand tons a year.” This is a paradigm example of Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons,” whereby “ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest…” While a global agreement to limit fishing might restore the take to sustainable levels, there are ominous indications that, in addition to over-fishing, climate change might be significantly responsible for these reductions. (More about this below).
Finally, consider Easter Island. When Polynesian explorers discovered and colonized Easter Island at about 900 AD, they arrived at an island that was fully forested, with huge trees that supplied essential resources for canoes, houses, food, fuel, ropes and textiles. With these resources, the islanders built more than eight-hundred stone statues (moai) for which Easter Island is famous. When the first Europeans arrived in 1722, they found a barren island totally devoid of trees. The peak population of this sixty-six square mile island is estimated to have been as much as thirty thousand. In 1872, only one hundred and eleven native islanders remained. (Diamond). Could the Easter Islanders foresee the consequences of the destruction of their forests? If not, then why not? If so, why did they not act to protect this essential resource before it was too late?
In his book, Collapse, Jared Diamond poses these questions in words that strike ominously close to home:
I have often asked myself, “what did the Easter Islander who cut down the last palm tree say while he was doing it? Like modern loggers, did he shout “Jobs, not trees!”? Or: “Technology will solve our problems, never fear, we’ll find a substitute for wood”? Or “We don’t have proof that there aren’t palms somewhere else on Easter, we need more research, your proposed ban on logging is premature and driven by fear-mongering”?
When we look back in time, we find numerous examples such as these of a collective failure of societies to anticipate and deal with oncoming emergencies. With 20/20 hindsight, we look back and wonder: How could they not have seen what was in store for them?
Thus it is fair to ask, how acute is our foresight today? What are we doing, or failing to do, that might prompt future generations to ask the same question of us: How could they not have seen what was in store for them?
The answer, I submit, is most discouraging. Our political and corporate leaders have eyes, but will not see. They have minds, but will not think, much less anticipate the catastrophes before us and take appropriate action to avoid them. Consider:
Regarding the domestic and global economy, our leaders are steadfastly ignoring Herbert Stein’s law: “That which can not go on forever, won’t.” Wealth continues to “percolate up” from the producers of wealth to the owners of that wealth. Today, one third of the U.S. national wealth is owned by one-percent of the population. The average Standard and Poors 500 CEO earns in half a day, more than his company’s median worker earns in an entire year. When, if ever, does this trend end? More in an hour? In a minute? Meanwhile, the super-rich pay a smaller fraction of their income in taxes than the average citizen – taxes that pay for the infrastructure, the courts, and the education of the workers upon which their wealth depends. Ever upward climbs the national debt. The Republican “solution” to the economic crisis? More of the same policies that precipitated the crash of August, 2008.
The solution to the federal budget deficit? Screw the little guy by cutting back on Social Security, Medicare, health reform and education. But don’t even think of raising taxes on the super-rich. How long will the bottom 99 percent of us tolerate this injustice until, at last, we band together and storm the Bastille?
More than half of the federal budget goes to wars, past, present and projected, and to the maintenance of the American global empire – over seven hundred military bases in at least 130 foreign countries. The military-industrial complex builds submarines and aircraft carriers to fight an enemy without a navy, and jet aircraft to fight an enemy without an air force. The U.S. military budget is roughly equal to the total of all other military budgets in the world. Yet scarcely any politician dares suggest a cut in the so-called “defense” budget which, with its enormous waste, fraud and abuse, is arguably a greater threat to our “national defense” than any “enemies,” real or imagined. How about using some of that cash for R&D in clean energy? Or for the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers? Or in the repair of our collapsing physical infrastructure? All of these are clearly matters of “national defense.” Will our leaders recognize this and act appropriately? Given the current political/economic/media environment, not a chance.
Modern industrial society runs on oil. There can be no doubt about that. In a very real sense, citizens in industrial societies “eat oil.” Petroleum products produce fertilizers and pesticides, run farm equipment, and distribute food to the cities. In the United States, about two percent of the population is directly involved in food production: one agricultural worker feeds fifty American citizens, and many more individuals abroad. And yet, ecologist Kenneth Watt estimates that nineteenth century pre-petroleum agricultural methods could support a global population of from one to four billion people. “Mankind,” writes Watt, is thus “embarked on an absolutely immense gamble” that somehow, when the oil runs out, another energy source will be available. When that happens, the world population, now approaching seven billion, might well exceed ten billion.
No one will contend that the supply of unrecovered petroleum is infinite. The controversy centers on various estimates of the remaining reserves. Oil extraction is becoming ever-more expensive, and the last drop of oil will be recovered at about the time that more energy is required to extract it than is contained in the oil itself. Some experts claim that “peak oil,” the time of maximum oil production, is now upon us.
So what happens if and when the oil finally runs out? If alternate energy sources are not in place and in full operation, wars and mass starvation are certain to follow. Current efforts to avoid this catastrophe are feeble, too little and too late. The international oil conglomerates that effectively own the congress of the United States are not inclined to encourage the promotion of their competitors.
Ninety-seven percent of all active climate scientists agree that global warming is real, and that human activity is the primary cause. This consensus is challenged by an array of scientifically uninformed politicians, media celebrities and corporate lackeys, joined by the usual “biostitutes” (Robert Kennedy Jr.’s term) – scientists for hire, ever prepared to conjure up bogus “evidence” to support their sponsors’ corporate agendas. The climate denier’s efforts and investments have been effective, as surveys indicate that fewer citizens are concerned about global warming and more citizens are inclined to be skeptical about it.
Meanwhile, the global atmosphere is proving itself to be totally indifferent to public opinion and political inaction as it continues to heat up, causing widespread wildfires in Russia, floods in Pakistan and Iowa, drought in the American southwest, the shrinking of the Greenland icecap, rising sea level, with still more horrors in store in the future.
Oberlin College ecologist David Orr is unconstrained in his rage over the political and corporate resistance to informed and effective responses to climate change:
“We really don’t have a name to describe behavior of this sort… It is criminality beyond any language, concepts or laws that we presently have. It’s criminality that places the entire human enterprise at risk. And we simply have not been able to confront inaction that allows the entire human enterprise to slip into catastrophic failure. It really does beggar the imagination to understand why, given the consensus of the scientific community on this issue, … inaction was the order of the day.”
And finally, a little-noticed news report that should scare the bejesus out of all of us: Canadian scientists have discovered that the population of oceanic phytoplankton has dropped by 40 percent since 1950 and continues to drop at a rate of about one percent per year. This fact just might foretell a catastrophe even greater than global warming which, as it happens, may be the primary cause of this phenomenon.
Why should we care about the fate of these microscopic plants? Because phytoplankton are the foundation of the oceanic ecosystem – the base of the food pyramid that sustains all marine life. No phytoplankton, no fish, and the seas become biotic deserts.
And that’s not even the worst of it. Phytoplankton produce half of the world’s atmospheric oxygen and absorb that carbon-dioxide that we are spewing into the air in dangerous super-abundance. This raises a question that I’ve neither read about or heard: is it just possible that the loss of phytoplankton might suffocate us all? Without oxygen, we all die. Plain and simple. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the alarm? Are there any proposals to reverse this trend? And if we suppose that we can survive without the oxygen supplied by the phytoplankton, then pray tell us how this is possible.
Perhaps the Canadian scientists are mistaken. If so, then a threatened humanity pleads with the dissenting scientists to present their evidence and deliver their refutation. However this investigation might proceed, one fact remains unassailable: our fate is inexorably bound with that of the phytoplankton.
Are we, like the fruit flies in the bottle, predestined to meet a horrible fate due to forces beyond our control – beyond our control because we cannot overcome the blind economic interests which dominate our political processes and which own the mass media that misinforms the public?
I am sadly inclined to believe that this is the case. But I am not entirely convinced, for history also provides examples of how, facing pending emergencies, societies and nations can act responsibly.
On December 6, 1941, a majority of the American public was pacifist, demanding that we stay out of “those foreign wars.” Two days later, that same public was in solid support of President Roosevelt’s declaration of war. And the United States military, at that time one of the weakest in the world became, within months of total mobilization, the strongest.
When in 1974, physicists Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina published a paper in the scientific journal Nature, linking the erosion of the atmospheric ozone to the artificial chemical compounds, chlorofluorocarbons, the chemical industry responded with an all-out public relations campaign to debunk them. Eventually, the international scientific consensus prevailed resulting in the Montreal Protocol of 1989, banning the production and release of these substances. In 1995, Molina, along with Paul Crutzen, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this discovery.
In 1964, U.S. Surgeon General Luther Terry released a comprehensive government report linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer. The tobacco industry replied with a volley of quasi-scientific rebuttals. Now the good news: after relentless effort by medical and public interest groups, brutal truth has broken through the tobacco industries’ PR campaigns. In 1965, 42% of American adults were cigarette smokers. In 2005, less than half that number of Americans were smokers.
“You can’t keep an empire abroad and a republic at home,” wrote Mark Twain. Chalmers Johnson agrees: “Empire vs. Democracy…” Faced with this choice sixty years ago, Great Britain chose democracy. It remains to be seen how the United States will choose. At the moment, the indications are not favorable for democracy.
Japan, with one of the highest population densities in the world, has managed to keep 74% of its land mass forested – the highest percentage of all first-world countries. (Diamond)
While the fossil fuel public relations behemoth continues to convince the American public and politicians that renewable energy sources are “impractical” and “too expensive,” foreign countries such as Denmark, Iceland, Germany and China forge ahead with their research, development and installation of alternative energy. True, electricity from the sun costs more than energy from coal. But as R&D progresses, those costs are plunging while fossil fuel costs are rising. The cost curves are certain to cross in the near future, at which time coal-generated electricity will become obsolete. In fact, when such “externalities” as health and environmental effects are factored in, fossil fuel energy today is vastly more expensive than wind and solar energy. Europe and China’s message to American industry: lead, follow, or get out of the way. But we are not waiting for your reply!
Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse, is a monumental study of how societies from around the world – in Easter Island, in Pre-Columbian Central and North American, in Greenland – are demolished by the heedless destruction of the sustaining environment. And yet, in the final page of this book, Diamond closes on a hopeful note: “we have the opportunity to learn from the mistakes of distant peoples and past peoples. That’s an opportunity that no past society enjoyed to such a degree.”
It remains to be seen if we seize upon this opportunity.
A few corporate public relations geniuses with limitless budgets have convinced large portions of the American public that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was in league with al Qaeda, that their president was foreign-born and is a practicing Muslim, and that global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast conspiracy of climate scientists with motives still unknown. Now these same geniuses have taken on the task of convincing us that the solutions to our energy, economic and environmental problems are to continue the policies that created these crises in the first place.
This, of course, is the clinical definition of insanity. And so, to borrow Albert Einstein’s reflection upon the atomic bomb, everything “has changed .. save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes.”
The immediate result of a policy of “more of the same” will be a securing of the vast wealth and political power of those who have benefited from this policy. As for the remaining 99% of us in the disappearing middle class and the growing serf class, we’re on our own. No doubt, in the calamities that follow, the oligarches and kleptocrats of tomorrow will eventually be consumed as well.
To prevent which, here are a few stragegies of survival:
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging. If you are heading straight for a cliff, stop and change direction.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” (Richard Feynman) The best means of discovering and validating truth is science. Propaganda, skillfully and ruthlessly practiced, can deceive an entire nation. But it can not abolish fundamental physical laws. “Facts,” said John Adams, “are stubborn things.”
“In the conditions of modern life, the rule is absolute: [the nation] that does not value trained intelligence is doomed.” (Alfred North Whitehead). A nation that dismantles its public schools, impoverishes its universities, and makes advanced education unattainable to its brightest young people, is a nation engaged in collective suicide. “ “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, … it expects what never was and never will be.” (Thomas Jefferson).
Promote the common good. There are public interests and social benefits distinct from the summation of all private interests. Ayn Rand was profoundly and dangerously mistaken when she proclaimed that “there is no such entity as ‘the public,’ the public is merely a number of individuals. On the contrary, that which is good for each, may not be good for all. United we stand, divided we fall.
No civilized society has existed without a rule of law and sanctions to enforce the law, which is to say, no society has existed without a government. The choice, then, is not between government or no government, but between worse or better government – between government of, by, and for the privileged few, or government of, by and for the people. “To secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”
The ballot is the beating heart of democracy. The citizens’ ballot must be secret, but not the method of counting it. Neither should the counting and compiling of votes be in the hands of private companies with partisan affiliations. An unverifiable vote is an invalid vote. There is abundant evidence that recent elections in the United States have been fraudulent, yet the politicians have refused to investigate and the media has refused to report this evidence.
In a free society access to public office, legislation, and judicial decisions can not be bought and sold. “Privatized popular government” is an oxymoron. When privatization of government and an unrestricted market obtain, the inevitable result is oligarchy and despotism. The remedy was clearly enunciated by the founders of our republic when they declared our independence: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The task before us is momentous, and the outcome is uncertain. Quite frankly, I am inclined to agree with the pessimists that humanity is about to enter into dreadful and prolonged dark age.
There is no greater task before us than to dedicate ourselves to proving pessimists such as myself to be ultimately wrong. As the great Andrei Sakharov reflected:
“There is a need to create ideals even when you can’t see any route by which to achieve them, because if there are no ideals then there can be no hope and then one would be completely in the dark, in a hopeless blind alley.”
Does this mean we should start stocking up on canned food now for a coming collapse? Really what can I do?
Thank you for summarizing status quo! Now we have to make people buy the solution before it’s too late: https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/09/17/an-index-for-a-permacultural-world/
I should just like to add: If alternate agricultural techniques (read permaculture) are not in place and in full operation, wars and mass starvation are certain to follow.
interesting… i have also seen the yeast and us parallel. I think peak oil is happening now… look at how desperate they are drilling into the gulf of mexico. By late 2011 problems will start to occur and by late 2012 the full effect of peak oil will be in operation. this will destroy a lot of western civilization, a lot of people will die but also it will be our time to shine as permaculturalists.
my hope for the future is in life, life wants to live. life is competitive also. it can take a fair few more blows that i think we give it credit for, so i am hopeful that there will be some forgiveness. More so for us who design systems that are forgiving and everlasting.
But yes, I think war is comming, im going to start stockpiling fuel, cans, and look for somewhere I can escape to when it all comes crumbling in and set up food forests.
I saw your post Øyvind, and I think it is a great message Nic Marks on TED has to share. I was lucky to see what the world could be like on the weekend along with 10,000 other visitors to Hulbert st in Fremantle. The people of Hulbert st held a Sustainability fiesta. There were a variety of stalls that you normally see at sustainability fairs. The highlight was that everyone (i mean over 40 households) in the street had somehow contributed to organising this event, whether it was making signs or raising some of the $60,000 required to hold the event. The inspiring part was getting a chance to see into peoples sustainable or semi sustainable home. There almost everyone in the street had a vege garden and they were all permaculture designed!, some homes had solar panels and rain tanks. One person even built an electric car that is charged from with solar panels for free. The street had also taken over public land and grown a guerilla garden with over 10 raised beds and 3 herb beds (this example is the front page article of City Permaculture Magazine Volume One if you are interested in reading more about it). The street itself is hardly used for cars because everyone either rides or takes public transport so instead it is used as a tennis court, skate park or for couch races (couches with wheels raced from one end of the street to the other), billy carts and movie nights. The kids are integral to this community,they help in the gardens, do crafts together and every Friday after school all children in the street go to the corner cafe and get ice-cream together. Every one is happy because there is a strong community, and with that comes security too. Now whether we can all create small independent communities like this in the time needed is a different story (hence why I raised the point of beginning about stocking food), but it shows that it is already happening right now, and many people are being inspired by it.
Something else you can do to prepare is read up on Permaculture practices (if possible, take a course), start building your community (developing action groups, sharing food production, etc). Grass-roots movements have a lot of influence on all politicians. Make them take notice of the active citizens, and seek consultation from the community base when formulating policy. Governments are consistently proving inept at making rational decisions for long term sustainability. All the more often we are witnessing the desires of profit driven greed being given priority over public demand, environmental and economic common sense.
The trick to getting people involved is not to cause affront, overwhelm, or disrespect people for their lifestyles – no matter how environmentally unfriendly you believe them to be.
Massive change in lifestyle doesn’t usually happen overnight. Count the blessings for every little bit of change, and keep working to gather strength in your community through increasing numbers.
The way I see the present situation, there are strong parallels to how the majority of Germans have perceived the year 1942: By then it was pretty much clear that the war was lost – the only question of real importance was: how much more damage would the madmen do, and how deep would the collapse be, before the healing process would take over?
Concerning our collective behaviour, it is very important to realize that much of it is actually determined by our economic models (as economics is about “preferred outcomes”), and the legal framework set up by politics to prop up these models. It is pretty evident that there are very severe problems with present-day economic thinking. Why don’t they get sorted out? There are multiple reasons for this, but the way I see it, there is a pseudo-scientific sect of “the self-proclaimed converted” that managed to establish itself in economics, and use the academic ivory tower as a shield against any sort of external criticism. Indeed, it’s pseudo-science of the worst kind, a la Lyssenko.
Considering in particular Peak Oil, I am fairly sure that we will see a big revolution quite soon. If this is kind-of inevitable, we still have some choice what that revolution will look like. With a bit of effort, it should be quite feasible to ensure it won’t be a violent one.
Let me close the circle by coming back to Germany again: The “German Democratic Republic” was, in effect, an oppressive dictatorship. It ended in a revolution, but in quite a peaceful way. If – that’s a big if – the coming revolution will be somewhat like that, that would be a major achievement.
Any concrete advice? (a) Try to get an idea what Gandhi actually did, and how he did it, and (b) take a close look at some of the “scientific work” that has been published in economics. There’s a lot of insanity in there that must be made known much more widely. Of particular relevance to this article is William Nordhaus’s “Lethal Model 2: The Limits to Growth Revisited”. (Personally, I have a number of issues with the “Limits to Growth” analysis, but the way Nordhaus tried to debunk it is much more a reason for concern.)
The Slow Money Principles
In order to enhance food security, food safety and food access; improve nutrition and health; promote cultural, ecological and economic diversity; and accelerate the transition from an economy based on extraction and consumption to an economy based on preservation and restoration, we do hereby affirm the following Principles:
I. We must bring money back down to earth.
II. There is such a thing as money that is too fast, companies that are too big, finance that is too complex. Therefore, we must slow our money down — not all of it, of course, but enough to matter.
III. The 20th Century was the era of Buy Low/Sell High and Wealth Now/Philanthropy Later—what one venture capitalist called “the largest legal accumulation of wealth in history.” The 21st Century will be the era of nurture capital, built around principles of carrying capacity, care of the commons, sense of place and non-violence.
IV. We must learn to invest as if food, farms and fertility mattered. We must connect investors to the places where they live, creating vital relationships and new sources of capital for small food enterprises.
V. Let us celebrate the new generation of entrepreneurs, consumers and investors who are showing the way from Making A Killing to Making a Living.
VI. Paul Newman said, “I just happen to think that in life we need to be a little like the farmer who puts back into the soil what he takes out.” Recognizing the wisdom of these words, let us begin rebuilding our economy from the ground up, asking:
* What would the world be like if we invested 50% of our assets within 50 miles of where we live?
* What if there were a new generation of companies that gave away 50% of their profits?
* What if there were 50% more organic matter in our soil 50 years from now?
“Simple solutions will always lead to complex problems, surprising simple minds,” he said.
“Like you all, I hope, I am skeptical of visions,” he said. “So I hasten to point out that it is a modest vision.”
And he said it’s not in high-level political discussion that most of his hope lies.
Instead, he cited “leadership from the bottom” as a trend that could take his ideas forward.
He praised moves such as farmers’ markets and community-supported agriculture programs, wherein residents buy “shares” in local farms and reap regular installments of produce in return.
He said the movement’s not about nostalgia, but learning lessons from the past.
“I think we have to go back to our old agrarian ideals,” he said.
To do that, he said, will require a (perma)cultural shift.”
From a Wendell Berry speach: https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/04-1
Sign the Stetind declaration: https://www.stetinddeclaration.com/
It seems like we are replacing the oceanic phytoplankton with manmade plastic plankton both in the Atlantic Ocean: https://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/07/14/fishing_for_pollution_in_the_atlantic/
and in the Pacific Ocean: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
Let’s hope it could get some good out of this: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/plastic-disclosure-project-launched-at-clinton-global-initiatives-opening-plenary-receives-support-from-global-asset-managers-with-over-5-trillion-investments-under-management-103449374.html
But I think there is needed some harsh governmental regulations here!
For example in an average Norwegian house the amount of plastic used in the construction, is 25 Kilo per m2, much of this is PVC. In 1970 the use of plastic was “only” 10 kg. per m2 in a house. Today the use of plastic in construction is increasing, with windows, doors, painting, insulation and so on from plastic, in fact the whole house is wrapped in plastic.
Here is a better alternative for construction: https://www.davidsheen.com/firstearth/english/
Øyvind – see this also:
China is #1 in Fish Catch and Consumption, With Room to Grow: https://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/09/china-is-number-one-in-fish-catch-and-consumption.php
“How on earth have we done this to the ocean so far away from where most people are living?” Law asked yesterday. See: https://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2010/07/14/fishing_for_pollution_in_the_atlantic/
Some of the garbage actually comes from my town, Gjøvik, far away from the coast. How can this be? Actually, here in Norway we have a law which says:
If you eat your food at a restaurant you pay 25 percent tax. But if you bring the same food away from the restaurant you pay 12, 5 percent tax only. This is why the fast food chains have two prices at all their dishes.
Here in Gjøvik there is an McDonalds restaurant down by Lake Mjøsa, and you see McDonalds garbage all the way by Lake Mjøsa. Because many bring their McDonalds dishes down to Lake Mjøsa to eat it there, saving taxes. Some throw the wrapping just down on the ground. Others throw it in garbage pins, which too often are overfilled and the garbage floats around them.
And then, just a small stroke by the wind, and the plastic wrapping is blown out on Lake Mjøsa, from where it goes down the rivers of Vorma and Glomma, out into the Oslo Fjord and finally finds its way into the Atlantic Ocean.
Why we have this law I don’t know. Anyway, what’s for sure is that its made by people who don’t have a clue of pattern understanding, how everything is connected with everything else. It’s now time we, the permaculturists, infiltrates our governments, to create connected and meaningful pattern languages: https://www.math.utsa.edu/ftp/salingar.old/StructurePattern.html
Here is a site by David Holmgren named Future Scenarios. I don’t think it includes the new scenario introduced by Ernest Partridge here that we might all suffocate in lack of oxygen, but still well worth a look: https://www.futurescenarios.org/
“And that’s not even the worst of it. Phytoplankton produce half of the world’s atmospheric oxygen and absorb that carbon-dioxide that we are spewing into the air in dangerous super-abundance. This raises a question that I’ve neither read about or heard: is it just possible that the loss of phytoplankton might suffocate us all? Without oxygen, we all die. Plain and simple. Where’s the outrage? Where’s the alarm? Are there any proposals to reverse this trend? And if we suppose that we can survive without the oxygen supplied by the phytoplankton, then pray tell us how this is possible.”
Actually, I recently heard in a nature documentary that the oceanic phytoplankton produces up to 70 percent of the world’s oxygen!
Why are people so worried about Al Qaida, and so little worried about the situation for our little symbiotic friends in the Oceans? Do we have to create this image of an enemy, because we don’t want to realize we are our own worst enemy?
It’s so ironic, now we have worried about atomic war, global pandemics and terror and in the end we might all suffocate because we forgot to take care of our small little friends in the Oceans.
there are a number of highly unpleasant scenarios, but “lack of oxygen” certainly is not among them. Where should the oxygen go? Right, it would (mostly) end up in the atmosphere as CO2. So, we would be perhaps talking about CO2 concentrations in the per-cent range. That’s some 10_000 ppmv.
Then, we would have some *very* different problems. Well, actually, civilization would have collapsed long before.
Thank you Thomas, it’s good to have you as a watchman here when things turns out of perspective! I did already feel like suffocating a little, but realizes now that with these concentrations of CO2 I should rather worry for burning of heat. Still, I live quite far north so I should be rather safe for a while.
– Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points: https://www.livescience.com/environment/7-Crucial-Tipping-Points-for-Earth-100514.html
Hi, this is my first time visiting your site. Conggrat.you have one more followers now :)
It seems like we have to rely on our land based plants for the future. See the article “Plants set stage for evolutionary drama”: https://www.nature.com/news/2010/100927/full/news.2010.497.html
It seems like there is a connection between the decrease of whales and the reduction of phytoplankton. Here we see it again, in nature everything is connected. Humanity’s big mistake was to disconnect from nature:
– Whale Poop Pumps Up Ocean Health: https://www.uvm.edu/~uvmpr/?Page=News&storyID=17125
– The Whale Pump: Marine Mammals Enhance Primary Productivity in a Coastal Basin: https://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0013255
More threaths against our Oceans!
– The Ocean in a High-CO2 World: https://www.ocean-acidification.net/
– The Ocean in a High-CO2 World (pdf): https://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/17_3/17.3_scor_ioc.pdf
Thomas, it seems like we still have to fear for suffocating: https://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php
The article says:
In humans, failure of oxygen energy metabolism is the single most important risk factor for chronic diseases including cancer and death. ‘Oxygen deficiency’ is currently set at 19.5 percent in enclosed spaces for health and safety , below that, fainting and death may result.
lab health and safety says:
Gives some perspective on these claims.
Thomas, your link is not found!
I’ve fixed it for Thomas.
I must say this article does make a very strong case, causing me to rethink some things. On the topic of unequal wealth distribution and the absurd and paradox fact that the only “people’s revolt” (Tea Party) seems to be in favour of even more inequality, see this interesting observation from the Economist (entitled “Our global oligarchs”) https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/01/income_inequality
Wrong link – I meant to link to this, which is the follow-up and actually addresses the Tea Party situation. Sorry! https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/01/populism