Mike Bell (left) writes that Earth Jurisprudence is ‘the concept that the planet and all of its species have rights–and they have those rights by virtue of their existence as component members of a single earth community.’ saving the world starts at home. how big is your home?
though ‘diogenes’ claims the world doesn’t want to be saved, some of us seem hardwired to want to save it anyway. in that case, he [assuming diogenes is male] notes that ‘the world isn’t supposed to be saved on a global scale. It must be saved at the level of the individual. And despite the fact that the level of the individual appears to be statistically insignificant, it is in fact the most significant, because it is only at the level of the individual that a creative synthesis of conflicting metaphors can occur. Once a connection is made at the individual level, the process of spreading successful new metaphors throughout society is essential automatic if the society is ready for them. If the society is not ready, the new metaphors will not be accepted under any circumstances. So don’t beat you head on a rock. Solve your own interpersonal communication problems. If the world is ready to benefit from your solutions, you will not be able to stop it from using them.’ what interpersonal communication problems do i have? some.
so i chose to write a piece on trees and how they represent a new way of thinking, which i call cyclical thinking, but is similar to holistic thinking or systems thinking, and lj read it to council. it along with other similar happenings has snowballed. what effect will it have? did i actually choose, or is everything fixed? is there meaning and purpose, really, or do i just make them up to make myself feel better? is my task is to both accept the world as it is [ootc?], and change what little i can [share?], and be happy?
more scientifically, paul chefurka [who looks very much like my gp] writes, ‘I would offer the following thoughts to those who are interested in trying to save civilization. Politics has nothing to offer this situation. The biophysical driver of fossil fuel energy transcends all political boundaries and philosophies. Fossil fuels have supplied 89% of the total primary energy used throughout the world over the last 55 years, and supply 87% of the energy used today, according to BP Statistical Review 2011. Agriculture started the ball rolling about 8,000 years ago, and got our population to 1.8 billion in 1900 without fossil fuels. But the logistical curve didn’t take off until the serious use of fossil fuels began in about 1900. Without fossil fuels we’d have seen some additional growth, but nothing like what we’ve seen in the last 100 years. That’s the message of the green line in the above graph [human popn growth/decline WITHOUT fossil fuels–a relatively gentle curve]. To a first approximation, everything we’ve done since 1900, including agriculture, has been the result of our use of fossil fuels. That’s the message of the red line [human popn growth/decline WITH fossil fuels–an abrupt spike up, followed by a crash].We are too close to the inflection point [2030?] (~20 years or less), and have built too much fossil-dependent infrastructure, for renewables to do more that act as a buffer in some places against the most egregious effects of the decline. As you can see in this graph, the correlation of primary energy (particularly its primary component of fossil fuel) and world population is blatantly obvious. As goes fossil fuel, so goes humanity.’ his answer next post
why don’t we do something about it? Jessie Henshaw writes, ‘the best answer to why we don’t act on such pressing common needs seemed to be from Dennis Meadows. He said he had studied it all his life and he didn’t know.’ this resonates with rev. tom honey’s pronouncement about god: ‘we don’t know.’ to know, know, know him is to control, -trol, -trol him. as paul simon sings, ‘that information is not available to the mortal man.’ or as a friend notes, us mere mortals have to give up the illusion of being water [control] when really we’re just leaves [letting go, trust, etc.] afloat on the water.
‘Since the dawn of consciousness, human societies,’ claims paul chefurka , ‘have been driven by a complex web of factors with their roots embedded deep in our evolved human nature. Power relationships and hierarchies, kinship and xenophobia, selfishness and altruism, competition and cooperation, curiosity and apathy, and countless other polarities mingle together to form the infinite variety of human dynamics.’
writing about food insecurity, chefurka concludes [my emphasis], ‘Despite our best intentions around family planning, educating and empowering women and raising the material circumstances of the poorest among us, these efforts are already being overtaken by the circumstances I describe here. We must continue these ameliorating efforts with the utmost urgency, however, because the more successful we are the more people we will be able to protect against the worst effects of the coming food storm. The storm is coming upon us faster than most of us realize. The time to act is now.’ he went through kubler-ross‘s classic 5 stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance–can i learn from his journey and shorten my own?
today [2012-06-08] i learned of another human journey/cycle: via positiva, via negativa, via creativa, via transforma (via negativa is also known as ‘the dark night of the soul’). we don’t value via negativa in the mainstream. our medical system tries everything to get back to via positiva, and not go forward thru via creativa and via transformia.
so, if the end is near–and it always is, just as the beginning is too–and there’s little i can do, but what i do matters a great deal to me, can i save the world, or even myself? or must i love you as i love myself and love god/dess with all my heart and mind and body and soul, for there is nothing else but paradox, humour, and change–and how will those save the world?
stay tuned for the answer
«double vision» 