Re: So happy to see the ethics of this club
On Sat, Dec 19, 2020 at 07:10 AM, KAREN SHRAGG wrote:
A Call to Solve OverpopulaitonA call not merely to do the unthinkable and maybe, like you know, talk about 'it', the word starting with 'o' with 'population' in it. No, a call to solve as in find viable solutions to... something, I'm not sure what, and where's that latte I ordered?
I would like to suggest a subtext meme (or theme) for BPC of 'real solutions' as distinct from feel-good politically sellable memes of salvation and solutions that are sure to come if only enough people join BPC and vote BPC Party (to come) lines. Sorry, but Gaia doesn't care what we believe. True believers don't need a better movement to join, but better stories to tell as told by Gaia who has all the answers. [E.g. 'For the first time in history a conviction has developed among those who can actually think more than a decade ahead that we are playing a global endgame. Humanity's grasp on the planet is not strong. It is growing weaker. Our population is too large....' — Edward O. Wilson, Half Earth: Our Planet's Fight for Life 2016]
Our thinking, our informing of ourselves and others, and envisioning's of a better world, i.e. one that is actually sustainable because it is not based on pretend science and deeply held beliefs in political solutions (or religious salvation) that are sure to come if we vote correctly for the next truly great leader, i.e. alpha chest-beater with promises to believe in.
In 12th century Europe, so far as anyone knew, everyone believed in religious salvation, and if you didn't, you didn't say so if you wanted to life. Things are so much better now, however. You can say anything, you can loudly declare and march in the streets with a sign proclaiming that you don't believe in political solutions. You can now just be ignored, then ridiculed, then marginalized, then obfuscated.... (at least until you write a bestselling book, e.g. Limits to Growth, that is viewed as a threat to the consensus view such that you need to be canceled).
We need people who can tell better stories (i.e. systems science-based ones such as Rees, Wilson, Heinberg... tell that are not based on the pretend science of NCE Anthropocene enthusiasts, woke or not. The currently dominate consensus narrative is that there are true stories (to believe in, die for, kill for...). The only different story is that there are no true stories—the paradigm of no true paradigms, which is itself a paradigm [Donella Meadows, see Dark Mountain Manifesto review where Aluna=Gaia].
There are better stories that are more likely to allow some to pass through the bottleneck with information and functional, viable cultural memes/behaviors intact (e.g. trust, cooperation, love, understanding). We need people who can listen to Nature, and to those who endeavor to listen to Nature, who can then retell the better stories (e.g. such as H.T. Odum endeavored to tell) in a manner that enough of the intelligentsia storytellers can understand and maybe sort of retell to the public they serve with or without being paid to. This is not happening, but there is no biophysical reason to think that our consensus narrative is sustainable and, when it falters (based as it is on false domains of discourse, i.e. delusional storytelling) that we can't tell better stories, ones future QAnons can't tell but will pretend to tell as true stories,
Telling better stories will change the consensus view and change our world. But if the change is to be for the better, the stories need to be about the what-is (aka reality that is different from our view of it) based on evidence which alone can (eventually) disconfirm deeply held beliefs (science is the endeavor to tell the most likely story) as Nature (aka evidence, the nature of things) alone determines. That we don't get a vote is a better story, as is that we, hubris Man (hu-mans), need to stand down and listen to Gaia.