On Pessimism - Why Struggle When Failure is Likely « Alternative Technology Assn Forums

Alternative Technology Assn Forums » General

On Pessimism - Why Struggle When Failure is Likely

(223 posts) (20 voices)

Started 10 years ago by Eco
Latest reply from rockabye

Tags:

12…8 Next »

Eco
Member

This topic is in response to Buzzman's post (2 April) in Carbon Price topic. It is something I wrote a few years ago when I was getting very pessimistic about progress on climate change - I am not sure that I yet living up to it - but here goes.....

It is easy to be pessimistic about climate change's impact. It is easy to doubt the world's ability to get its acts together quickly enough to be able to effectively tackle climate change. There are so many vested interests in maintaining the status quo – big oil, big coal, big energy hungry conventional industry and business. These groups have mega billions tied up in maintaining the status quo and seem quite willing to spend some of that to support their position. The political process itself generally means that change, if it occurs at all, will be slow and may not be sufficient. Political parties that might say it as it is and propose large changes that impact on the hip pocket nerve or lifestyle of the populous risk being thrown out by the electorate, as well as losing big campaign contributions from those powerful bodies with the vested interests in the status quo. Change has been slow when it needs to be fast.

Given this, it begs the question, why go on, why bother hitting our heads against what seems like an immovable object when failure is more than a possible outcome.

My answer to this question is simply this - I hope. I hope that I am wrong and that the world can get its act together and change, despite all of the obstacles. I hope that our political leaders will see the light and lead the change, despite the political risks. I hope that the population also recognises that change is necessary and agree to it despite some personal costs. However for this to occur I know it is also necessary to do more than just hope. These mammoth changes will not occur without good people keeping the pressure on, advocating for and participating in change.

To give up is to loose hope, to wallow in despair or to say “bugger you Earth, I am just going to enjoy myself while I can". But that is not me. I believe life is important, that people are important and future generations are also important. There is significance to our struggle. So while I believe this I will go on fighting the good fight. I will try, to the limit of my meagher skills, to be part of the solution. If we fail we fail but at least we won’t fail because we haven’t tried.

I live with hope.

Posted Saturday 2 Apr 2011 @ 7:43:37 am from IP #
sun2steam
Member

Thank you!

Posted Saturday 2 Apr 2011 @ 7:55:55 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

Sounds fair Eco. Of course all those pessimists are still with us so there is hope even with them or they wouldn't get out of bed in the morning.

I don't give up and I do more than hope. I write letters to politicians, community forums and all sorts of groups because it's cheap and makes me feel good.

I also demonstrate alternatives where ever I can. Just finished doing a solar workshop in our local community garden and they want another one as well as a night time one to cater for people working during the day. All were amazed at the brightness of the led lights and my ebike and other stuff I demonstrated. Even people with disabilities can join in. If you own a mobility scooter you have battery bank available to run lights etc during blackouts. No limits to what's possible if you try.

So instead of worrying, get out and make a difference. You'll be so busy you won't have time to be unhappy and pessimistic. We live in paradise compared to other poor countries.

Posted Saturday 2 Apr 2011 @ 7:59:12 am from IP #
Bearamundi
Member

"These mammoth changes will not occur without good people keeping the pressure on, advocating for and participating in change. "

Yeah, if the mammoth is anything to go by it's not looking good

Posted Saturday 2 Apr 2011 @ 9:28:51 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Eco
I agree. We have yet to discover our true potential as a species. Our current period is not as bad as some would have us believe. It's not that great either. But it is up to us to change. We need to embrace and not resist change. Life is Change.

Rockabye
I also agree about being pro-activ. Life is to short as it is, no time to waste in providing a sustainable future for our children.

Posted Saturday 2 Apr 2011 @ 11:59:41 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

Yes it is JB. Met three Qld politicians on Fri and gave them each a letter with a CD of inspirational eco stuff. Shall follow up with them in a week. Also spoke to the the local newspaper journo and gave him some good updates on renewables and how fast the technology is moving.

I look at shows like Global Village and see little children walking 5km each way to get water and on a hungry belly and think what a wretch I would be if I sat here and did nothing but complain. My glass isn't just half full, it's overflowing.

Posted Saturday 2 Apr 2011 @ 11:36:50 pm from IP #
Buzzman
Member

Hey, who's a pessimist??? I work as a sustainability consultant, attempting every day in every little way to convinve whoever I can of the need for change.

I, too have hopes, but frankly, do not expect they will ever be realised.

Humanity IS a parasite. Look it up in a biological dictionary. I did.

If, and I repeat, if, we can avoid killing our host, or otherwise making it uninhabitable, then perhaps we will have a chance for the SPECIES - not just we few concerned and committed citizens, to evolve into homo superior.

This is NOT pessimism. It is cold-blooded academic and scientific analysis of the available data.

Deep down, most individual humans are decent well-meaning people. En masse we are a danger to ourselves, never mind everything else on the planet.

But, like the climate scientists, I hope like hell I'm wrong. I have a child, who will in turn have children......it's them I worry about and them I work for.

Posted Sunday 3 Apr 2011 @ 1:46:59 pm from IP #
SteveJ
Member

I consider myself a realistic pessimist, the human race is no different to any other species and as such our dominance is finite, the dinosaurs lasted 4 million years, I can't see humans going on for another 400. On a positive note though, the planet will be fine without us. When I was young and idealistic I believed I could ‘save the world’ but the passage of years, many miles travelled around the world, the benefit of education and some big picture hindsight, I have no elusions that anything we do will save the human race from itself.

Posted Sunday 3 Apr 2011 @ 1:53:37 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Buzzman and SteveJ
You'd make a good team lol
What do you do for hope and purpose?
Did you give up on the world because it wouldn't change to how you wanted it?
The truth does not originate in an individuals perception.
There is always more to be learnt, and with it contentment.
With every day there is new hope, another gift. Make the most of it.
Fulfill your potential.

Posted Sunday 3 Apr 2011 @ 2:00:16 pm from IP #
PeterReefman
Member

Good topic Eco. My optimism and pessimism goes up and down like a pair of independent roller coasters. Sometimes both are opposite, sometimes bottom at a bottom cycle together, sometimes at the top together. But always moving, always going up or down.

The most frustrating/depressing factor though I feel is that we have a whole movement set up to do all they can to try to stop any efforts to help the situation. People/companies that are not only profiting from retaining the status-quo (like the fossil fuel industry), but also those that are profiting from promoting the populist deny/delay line (like many conservative pollies, as well as the openly right-wing op-ed media).

Without these two groups of course I’d have a MUCH higher cause for optimism, even though public apathy/ignorance is still high. But with the delay/deny groups so effective turning apathy/ignorance into doubt/resistance, it’s no wonder many of us are pessimistic.

A person I have a huge amount of respect for is Lester Brown, who wrote Plan B - Mobilising to save civilisation. PBS in the States has produced a 90 minute documentary based on his work, and it's available to watch online during this month of April.
http://video.pbs.org/video/1864227276/

Have a look at the vid, and in particular which "day" do you think we're at. My own opinion is that we're absolutely on day 29.

Posted Sunday 3 Apr 2011 @ 9:55:00 pm from IP #
Russell Moore
Member

SteveJ, my 11 year old son says that dinosaurs roamed the Earth for about 150 million years, and we all know that boys around that age are experts on dinosaurs!

Posted Sunday 3 Apr 2011 @ 11:35:31 pm from IP #
Lance
Key Master

Yes, google is your friend... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur

Getting in on this thread though, I have to disagree that people are fundamentally good. Deep down, most humans are no different to the animals we evolved from, when push comes to shove, the majority will do whatever gives them the best outcome. There's a good reason why the greenies (and ATA) have been trying to educate the public for over 30 years and are making very little headway - people just don't want to accept the reality of their behaviour, so long as they can live out their lives in comfort, that's all that matters, screw the planet.

Sounds pessimistic and cynical, but I like to think of myself as a realist, I see people for what they are...

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 5:03:12 am from IP #
rockabye
Member

I think humans are also capable of amazing ingenuity when placed under pressure and now we have technology to drive change. That pressure is very close as peak oil, population, food and water shortages are beginning to bite. It won't be fun however the choices will be innovate or perish.

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 5:14:49 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Aye Rockabye I agree. We will survive.

Lance everyones upbringing differs.

Your pessimistic outlook is mostly due to not being capable of forcing people to change to what you want, just because you see it needs to be done in a certain way. People, including you and me, will only change if they can really see themselves for what they are. There are many good people that sacrifice themselves without reward. With your efforts in the ATA, you could be considered one of them. Don't let that potential go to waste by condemning yourself and all others, by not having hope. Your "trying to educate the public for over 30 years" endevour will otherwise be for naught, and with it possibly your life.

Something is only valuable with purpose. Without purpose everything becomes worthless.

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 5:29:15 am from IP #
Lance
Key Master

JB, wishful thinking I'm afraid, the people willing to make real changes so that the whole planet doesn't end up stuffed is less than 5% of the population, most don't care, refuse to believe the reality or are experts at willful ignorance. Yes, there's a lot of people trying to make the changes required, but they are a tiny fraction of the population and it's simply not enough. The fact that climate change has been known about and understood for decades yet global emissions just keep on climbing is a pretty good indicator of where we are headed. Indeed, as things get scarier, more people seem to be turning off to the message, instead going into denial, the proverbial head in the sand behaviour...

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 5:37:15 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Hey Lance
So what do you live for without any hope? Are you in denial too?
(I'm not trying to offensive, I'd just like to know what drives you regardless)

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 5:40:57 am from IP #
Lance
Key Master

Who say's I have no hope? All we need is a virus that wipes out 99% of the human population and we're good : )

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 6:32:02 am from IP #
Bearamundi
Member

This could be ATA's darkest hour

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 6:36:18 am from IP #
Lance
Key Master

Oh not really, but overpopulation is undoubtedly the foundation of our climate problems, unless we get the population under control, we simply will never reduce emissions, the population is growing faster than any per capita reductions can be made. This is the reality of it, the world is finite, we have to stop breeding like rabbits...

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 6:57:08 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Lance
Your position is flawed. Population has (nearly) nothing to do with pollution. Nearly all western industrialized polluting countries have a local bithrate regression. Population is only increasing in these through immigration from non-industrial nations. All of the worlds "poor" population is 99% RE, they cannot afford fossil goods, and rely on naturally "free" ones for survival. Plus there are billions more of them than us. The population mantra is pure political propaganda and spin, the number reality is completely the opposite. Show me one major fully industrialized nation with an increasing birthrate over 2.3.

BTW Do you have any kids? I have.

On virus epidemic: We already are the infestation. Many of us are at least...;)
If anything you'd only have to get rid of the industrial nations, the poor ones are already "sustainable", as such. Wait..Isn't that already happening?

My question on "hope" was genuine, but obviously the response was meant to deflect, because the issue is sensitive. I am naturally curious to what makes other people tick. As I said before, a person only changes when the person learns who they are themselves...sometimes the realization is frightening, but it can always be positively life changing, if you choose to use that potential "difference".

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 7:32:13 am from IP #
Lance
Key Master

Sorry JB, but it's just plain common sense, the more people you have to house, feed, clothe and transport, the more resources required. As developing countries steadily improve their standard of living, the amount of all those things listed above increases per capita. You can't look at the planet as separate regions, it has to be considered a whole entity.

Developing countries are not 99% renewable energy powered, most are heavy users of coal, oil (for lighting and heat) and unsustainably harvested wood (there's a tree, chop it down and move onto the next one). Sure, there's some hydro and solar in the mix (mostly supplied by developed countries, eg ATA's IPG, which has installed thousands of solar systems in Timor), but renewables are nowhere 99% of the energy mix. The problem is that people consider wood as renewable, but that's garbage when you chop down forests and don't replace them, which is happening faster than ever globally. When trees are treated like that they are worse than fossil fuels...

It's pure fantasy to think that our environmental issues would not be helped by reducing global population to something manageable like 1 billion or so.

I don't have kids, deliberately, just can't responsibly bring children into an already overpopulated world with a very uncertain future...

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 9:54:56 am from IP #
PeterReefman
Member

You're being pretty hard on Lance, Jeff - just because he does not share your unwavering optimism.

Yes we need to try to be as optimistic as possible and it's great that you're so sure things will all work out, but many people like Lance (and me) are doing the best they can despite being worried as hell that there's some things we're making very little progress on - or in fact still going backwards.

There's a song that sticks in my mind about the balance of life, and how we cope with them. From the Scarecrow album, and it goes -

"Between a laugh and a tear - smile on the mirror as you walk by
Between a laugh and a tear - and that's as good as it gets for us, and there ain't no reason to stop trying"

By the way - Yes I have kids (2), and have encountered enough death close to me to know my own mortality. We're all dying and life is very short, and we all need to contribute. In my mind we'll lose a LOT of really good people if we chastise them for trying to do the right thing even though they may not hold out a pure belief that they will be successful. This goes for environmental issues as well as many others.

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 10:45:55 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Lance
When I say renewables I don't just mean renewable energy like PV and Wind etc. I mean what we actually run on and need for survival. Food, clothing and shelter. On renewable energy in developing nations check out the effect of Biogas in India and China. You will be surprised how far ahead of us they already are.

Your assumption only works with your statement "As developing countries steadily improve their standard of living, the amount of all those things listed above increases per capita." The problem is that they are changing their habits to become like us western polluters. What we consider to be their "improvement" in quality of life is only currently possible through industrial use of our fossil fuels. But this is not how most of them are living, or developing, otherwise there wouldn't be that many starving. You should take a look at the "real" world some day, tourist destinations are not real.

So timber is renewable if we use it for luxury paneling in housing, but not when they use it to boil water to survive another day? Have you seen what plantation acidification does to healthy soil?

Yes the world is one biosphere, but not all live the same, nor reproduce the same, or consume the same or waste and pollute the same. Your "common sense" argument is only logical if you apply "your" consumption profile on the whole worlds population.

But this is clearly not the case yet. If you believe it is so or want to base your assumption on your version of the facts go ahead. Look a starving child in the eye and say that you wish they where struck with a virus. I'm sure your egocentric illusions would instantly disappear if you were in their shoes and truly understood what it meant not to have hope.

The fantasy is in the fanaticism: Save the planet but rid it of humans? If you are so "Green" then why don't you show us how it's done and leave the planet first?
(I know you're tough, you can take my comments)

But on a lighter note: Even I believe you have a purpose, even if you don't.
(BTW I mean that 100% positively, I believe all life is created sacred, even humans!)

Edit: Peter, How are my views harsher than those Lance states? I have been nothing but positive towards all here, and those absent and defenseless. Yet he is justified in wishing most of us dead without knowing them or their circumstances? Compassion is truly a rare and strange commodity if it is only expressed to those who believe the same. I will not be joining your club and be subdued by fear.

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 10:50:22 am from IP #
sun2steam
Member

JB, you crossed a line here!

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 10:59:46 am from IP #
Bearamundi
Member

It is always darkest before it goes completely black...

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 11:03:49 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

S2S & All incl Lance

Correct my morality then. I honestly wish to learn. But I cannot for the life of me understand what drives people to this. I tried to find out the nice way, even asked politely, just to be told that my views were wrong and I was a dreamer, and that in reality humans (including myself) are inherently evil and doomed.

Nobody even bothered to defend their assumption that population is the cause for pollution.

Radical statements are tolerable if they are not deemed the persistent truth. Lance even followed up with his statement that he holds firm to his belief:

"It's pure fantasy to think that our environmental issues would not be helped by reducing global population to something manageable like 1 billion or so."

My good humor ends when I get lectured into believing I should give up and go hang myself from the nearest tree because that is the environmentally friendly thing to do.

If you wish, then ban me from the forum, but if the moral values upheld here are that the environment is more valuable than one single life, be it that of an innocent starving and neglected child, or even a fat capitalist industrialist, I will be glad to call myself no longer affiliated. You all know that I am passionate about the environment, but not at the cost of humanity.

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 11:34:02 am from IP #
PeterReefman
Member

Population is growing by about 70 million per year in real terms and is headed for 9 Billion by 2040, and perhaps 11 billion only 10 years after that. And even though the approximate 1 billion people in industrialised countries is not increasing, far more people in developing countries are moving up the wealth ladder and living LIKE, er, us.

While at the same time resource depletion along with climate change impacts will continue to reduce the earth's capacity to support even today's population.

I'm sure no one here is advocating any kind of forced cull. I know I'm not! That's just ridiculous and offensive to even suggest.

But it's one plus one equals two to say that more people - along with more WEALTHY people - and less resources, is not a good combination. And it should be said again - even the most well intentioned of us should be able to harbour some level of pessimism without being vilified as anti-humanity.

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 11:45:41 am from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Peter
Thankyou for a considered response.

Would it be a fair assumption that we should be more concerned with how to stop developing countries from adopting our wasteful and polluting lifestyles, than blame them for pollution? I might be completely wrong, but wouldn't a possible solution be to save them from starvation and neglect by providing them with sustainable systems and solutions, rather than assisting, and even demanding that they adopt our polluting fossil fuel ways?

I am trying to understand your maths. How does one poor person + one poor person = two rich people? It's only more "wealthy" people that are causing pollution. The poor do not have the capacity without our industrialized assistance to implement any fossil technology or resulting emissions. It would take them decades to develop themselves to that level, even if they knew how. My math would look more like: 1 poor + 1 rich interested lender (ie WMF via UN) = 1 productive slave who thinks he is rich, and one rich person who can suck him dry! Thats about as pessimistic as I get.

My position is it is our economic activity that is making this happen. The new markets for economic growth and resource plundering, is the developing nations. Look at their turmoil. Look at who is investing there. Look at who is fighting over them. Look at the people suffer from our "slave" exports, even in our produce haven China.

I am not excluded from this evil in-action, despite my "best" efforts to make a difference. There is still much work to be done, but I will not give up or adopt a defeatist attitude, because things don't go my way, or because it is supposedly the Green thing to do.

All
I do not intend to offend anyone without due cause, but this and my previous run in with Lance, have left me with a serious concern for the state of morality around the environment issue, and those with Green extremest tendencies ie wipe the "human" problem out. I cannot comprehend this attitude. But that doesn't stop me from trying to understand and learn, or possibly help if I can, hence my questions.

I like to be upfront about these important questions, and no longer wish to continue with this conversation until everyone does the same. Thankyou Peter, for confirming that it is not your opinion that a humanity cull is a solution to the pollution problem. I am glad that this your opinion and I am not alone with mine!

Generally if it is not in agreement with my values, I will try to understand and adapt if I am proven wrong, should anybody be so kind and do so, alternatively, I will retract completely, if I see no hope for communality or agreement. Tolerance works both ways.

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 1:13:44 pm from IP #
PeterReefman
Member

Thanks Jeff.
Just to respond (in a constructive way).

One your first point – Oh yes we should definitely gear any assistance to helping them leapfrog our mistakes and develop as clean and sustainable as possible. That’s the obvious aspiration, and has happened in some countries (Costa Rica? Can ‘we’ claim credit?...), and others such as Cuba have developed their own version of sustainability clearly without ‘our’ help. But there’s many more that are unfortunately follow the worst of our mistakes and then some. Haiti before (and after the earthquake) springs to mind.

On your second point – sorry I may have written that badly, but you did misunderstand me. I didn’t mean 2 poor people equal 2 rich people. I meant that while there is a large increase in very poor people in booming population areas like sub-Saharan Africa who are genuinely living well below our consumption levels, there are other countries like China who have less of a population explosion in a real sense, but are having a huge lift of their existing population out of poverty. And they are – hundreds of million have risen above the UN poverty line in the last 30 years.

Even though one of the new Chinese affluent is NOT a new person on the planet, he/she is putting more strain through consumption than a newborn baby born into abject poverty. So we’re seeing both an increase in new people, and new large consumers. Going back to “leapfrog our mistakes” – let’s hope they are able to.

By the way I’m not suggesting people in poverty do not have the right to lift themselves out of that poverty – I’m simply stating the fact that they then put more load on the planet, like we already are.

In terms of the ways and means of ‘controlling’ population, I just wanted to talk briefly about Iran. Now I’m no fan of the way the Iranian state is run by any means, but they are an example of good and bad policies to influence population.
Before the Ayatollah Iran used to be progressive with population policy, and encouraged family planning and birth control for the good of the country.

Then when the Ayatollah took over the country was told to “Breed an army” and banned family planning, etc which created a massive increase in population. The country has since realised the population growth was very unsustainable and has now gone back to its old policies which are having great results again.

Read more detail here - http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/plan_b_updates/2001/update4ss

That to me shows the benefit that good government policy can bring. Not a cull - generational planning. Of course their population growth hasn’t gone backwards or stopped – it’s simply a much more sustainable level. This will hopefully become a model for other countries to follow.

Cheers,
Peter

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 2:25:58 pm from IP #
Jeffbloggs
Member

Peter
Thanks again. Sorry I didn't understand your second point correctly.

I completely agree with your generational population control method. As parents we need to act responsibly for our actions and teach our kids accordingly. My kids are heading exactly down this path. Our children's future will be an essential time in bringing about a change to sustainability.

There are things that humans can do that are natural and sustainable. We have plenty of potential left. Education does wonders for population control. Seems to have already worked in most industrialized nations. Thanks for links btw. Always good to get some different perspectives.

Regards
JB

Posted Monday 4 Apr 2011 @ 3:03:44 pm from IP #

RSS feed for this topic

12…8 Next »