Please don’t take on all comers; there are real problems and shooting your allies who appear to be concerned but more flexible, have more experience of life and history, and are more compassionate does not help.

I don’t believe there is any culture in the history of the world that has not made stories about how things work and used them to find meaning.

I’d agree that this practice could be a lot more open and should not be used to justify destruction.

If you perceive the potentially dangerous path we are taking, you would do well to stop threatening one of the things that help a large majority of the population get through the day.

As you said, arguing about this is irrelevant. In fact, although I am firm about science being a discipline about facts and truth, I see a good many scientists treating their disciplines as articles of faith rather than of meaning in a more limited sense. I think this is a problem.

Chris Mooney, I know it must be hard, knowing as much as you do and having been a leader for years, to see the gallimaufry that is the current discussion, but please don’t start shooting at your own side. This is me, stepping in when angels fear to tread; apologies in advance.

The reason I talk about religion and population control is that I don’t think one can separate those from any meaningful solution to the sustainability problem.

This is where we disagree then. I think replacing the economic concept of infinite growth with something more rational and sane, is much more of a meaningful AND realistic solution (still very hard though, as neoclassical economic thinking is a bit of a religion in this respect).

114. Neven Says:
July 11th, 2011 at 2:40 pm

The reason I talk about religion and population control is that I don’t think one can separate those from any meaningful solution to the sustainability problem. Just as it is a mistake to solely focus on climate change while forgetting resource depletion, soil and ecosystem degradation and everything else, it is also a mistake to separate those issues from the establishment of a steady state economy.

The reason you absolutely need population control and that it is certain enough that the reduction has to be quite drastic is that you actually can not afford to cut down per capita consumption by too much relative to what an average European consumes. You can cut down a lot, but it should never be to the level of Sub-Saharan Africa. This is because in order to maintain the population stable and in relative harmony with the environment, you need absolutely to be sufficiently educated to understand the need for exercising constraint on the size of human activity. It takes a minimal consumption level to achieve that. And “everyone” here indeed means everyone, all over the world.

The reason why no form of religion is compatible with a sustainable society is that, as I mentioned above, such a society has to understand its proper place in the cosmological order. All religions spread some serious falsehoods when it comes to that subject. Some are much worse than others (unfortunately the ones that the majority of people on the planet believe in are the worst offenders) but the fact remains that none of them gets it right. So you simply can not get from where we are now to where we should be while religion exercises such influence on them minds of the general population. A lot of the denial in the US actually originates precisely from the influence of Christianity on people’s thinking. Many would call this is “extreme” but it is a very nice illustration of the phenomenon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGEOFipx70U

Of course, given the magnitude of the change needed, there is pretty much no hope it can possibly happen. All I can do is say it as it is and I do it.

Saying that we need to have a look at the effects the dominant economic concept of infinite growth is having on our society and planet, and that we need a radically different economic concept, isn’t extreme in the least. It is the most sensible option out there.

If you rather listen to very smart Americans, you can also check out CASSE, the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy. These guys know what they are talking about.

You want to beat professional liars like Horner and Morano? Take the fight to their turf. Talk economics.

But by going on philosophical rants on religion and population control you start entering the realm of personal opinion. Because no one knows exactly what the carrying capacity of the planet is. There is a difference between organized religion and personal religion. Collapse? Extinction? Sure, could be. But you can’t be certain either way. The only thing that is for certain is that under business-as-usual, ie by not changing the core of our economy, culture and society (aka the concept of infinite growth), there will be ever more misery. So harp on that, as a first step. People can grasp that. It’s as close to fact as you can get in the debate on real solutions.

I said: don’t calculate too much. But don’t not calculate at all. Taking on the sacred cow of infinite growth is enough in-your-face as it is.

111. Neven Says:
July 11th, 2011 at 8:33 am

2) We both know that there is more behind this root cause, but I’d leave as much of it out of your discourse as you can. If you start to bash religion (without emphasizing that what you mean is organized religion for instance) or call for a 90% reduction in global population, you’ll give people room to flip back in their natural psychological defenses and ridicule/marginalize you, regardless of whether what you say, is right or not.

But it is not just organized religion that is the problem, it is all religion.

And the reduction to a few hundred million or even less is absolutely serious, and in fact inevitable. The question is do we do it by limiting the birth rate voluntarily and in an organized way or by letting the birth rate skyrocket in a chaotic and unpleasant way.

I am perfectly aware of the psychological mechanisms that kick in in a lot of people’s minds when you mention these things. That’s precisely the reason why you have to talk about them all the time – mentioning it here and there or not mentioning it at all won’t do much difference. Talking about it all the time isn’t very likely do achieve much either, but I think the chances are better.

One of the most misinterpreted quotes that’s floating around is someone saying that people need to be scared for change to happen, which is taken by the denialists as “We’re going to lie and overstate the severity of the crisis” when what it means is that the situation is truly scary and people have to be fully aware of that if they are to do anything (which is not guaranteed to happen even then, but you have to at least try).

As you mention, the crisis cocktail is very rarely if ever mentioned as a whole, which is a big problem. And the whole discussion is very rarely framed in terms of global civilizational collapse and human extinction, which it should be, and which is also a big problem. I do what I can to change that.

This has nothing to do with left or right, which is just a trap, part of a divide-and-conquer strategy. You are nuts if you are afraid of how Horner and Morano will spin what you or your commenters write. Even if you do everything perfect, they will find something to exploit. That’s because they are criminal liars.

But their behaviour tells us something. This is what they are afraid of. This is what has to be pounded, by everyone who wants to solve a particular, isolated problem. Every environmental organisation, every social organisation, every politician that is here for the people, not the god of GDP (an arbitrary calculation full of holes).

Make the root cause the subject of debate, not the symptoms. As we bump into more limits, more and more people will start to realize the systemic failings of the current socio-economic system. It is of paramount importance that they know what lies at the heart of these failings: a backward, ideological economic concept that defies the laws of physics. Or else everyone will only see a fragment of the problem and point fingers at each other. All will be truly lost then.

Step out of the box, be transparant, don’t calculate too much.