Back to the basics of life.
Regular readers of Learning from Dogs will recall that just under a week ago I published an essay under the title of A bedtime story for mankind. The post centred around an essay from Patrice Ayme. Patrice’s essay could be summarised as follows: “At the present rate of greenhouse gases emissions, within nine years, massively lethal climate and oceanic changes are guaranteed.”
Then just last Sunday, Patrice published a second essay reinforcing that first one. The subsequent essay was called Ten Years to Catastrophe. I was minded to republish that but upon reflection thought that there was a better option. That was to explore the deep, core questions that both of Patrice’s essays raised in my mind and, presumably, must be raised in the minds of countless thousands of others. Questions along the lines of a comment I submitted to that subsequent post from Patrice.
Do you have an idea, even a sense, of when global leaders, elected Governments, the ‘movers and shakers’ in societies, will truly embrace the global catastrophe that is heading our way?
And a supplementary question: What would be the indicators that Governments were acknowledging the task ahead?
Frankly, they weren’t especially good questions but they were an attempt by me to open up a debate on whether or not this is the “beginning of the end” of life for us humans. Central to what was going through my mind was the core question of how did it all go wrong?
On Monday evening, I rang John Hurlburt, a close friend of Jean and me from our Payson, Arizona days and kicked around those questions . It was a most enlightening conversation. John is an active founder member of Transition Town Payson and Payson recently welcomed the Great March for Climate Action in their walk from Los Angeles to Washington D.C. (An essay on that event coming soon.)
Anyway, from out of that conversation with John came the idea of a series of essays here on Learning from Dogs about the past, present and future of man’s relationship with Nature. The aim is to offer an essay on a weekly basis but we’ll see how it goes. Wherever possible, I will use the essays and posts from other bloggers that reinforce the vision. As always, your feedback in the form of ‘Likes’ or comments will reflect on the value of the essays to you.
After John and I finished the call, he sent me an email with what could be best described as his vision for these essays. Here is that email [my emphasis].
Everything fits together. Otherwise, we’d simply be disassociated atoms.
Human beings are a consciously aware component of Nature. We have a DNA-level directive to survive as a species and as individual members of a species …. in that order!
We are consciously aware components of the conscious interaction between energy and matter in a predominently smoothly emerging cyclic universe with departures from time to time into pockets of chaos.
We disconnect from reality when we become self-centered, often during the various stages of our lives. When we are blessed we continue to live and learn.
Issues of ideology, rational thought, economics, politics, religion, history and science become insignificant in comparison to the whelming power of Nature.
Such is life. It comes with the territory. Spirituality, Nature and Science describe the metanexus in which we live.
Maintain an even strain,
an old lamplighter
Ref: Episcopal “Catechism of Creation”
Ideas, feedback and comments, as always, hugely welcomed.
6 thoughts on “The Natural order.”
Dear Paul: We are not just led by “leaders”. That we are led by leaders, is what Obama claims to believe. As the president, and many others in the leading oligarchy, have interest to believe that, the emotion is widely advertised, not to say imposed. However, it’s erroneous.
We are led by leading ideas. And leading mentalities. So far, saving the planet has lacked traction. OK, everybody acknowledge more or less that it has to be done (except for a fanatical minority propelled by fossil fuels). However the mentality that what needs to be done has to be done, namely carbon zero.
We have to save our spaceship, the hour is late, the pulsion has become suicidal.
These are elements of the mentality that needs to rule, and will lead to a morality. We have to construct a higher morality.
Only a debate will bring us there, so questions, however awkward, especially if awkward, are not just welcome, but the way to go.
I look forward the rest of the series…
Patrice, wise words indeed. Thank you. Your support is invaluable.
Wise words from all (Paul, John and Patrice).
I have been reading a lot about cognitive behavioural therapy. It identifies five common cognitive errors common to people suffering from anxiety and/or depression: (1) black and white thinking; (2) jumping to conclusions; (3) magnifying problems into catastrophes; (4) unwarranted generalisations; and 95) over-reliance on ‘should and ought statements. This makes me wonder: are we all anxious and/or depressed, or is the situation really as bad as Patrice suggests?
For the record: I feel like I have taken action to solve many of the things that had been troubling me. However, I am feel powerless in the face of the main thing that is troubling me, which is that: (1) this situation is hopeless: (2) humanity has screwed-up big style; (3) the sixth mass extinction is underway; (4) all our politicians are useless; and (5) we should prepare for the worst! 😉
Martin, very thoughtful feedback. Not sure if Patrice keeps an eye on comments, but fingers crossed he does, as I would enjoy his reply to your response.
If Patrice is like me, he may not notice these comments (because they are not direct replies to his). However, I hope all will appreciate that I was indulging in a spot of very black humour.
Sadly, having learned how to control my negativity regarding my personal circumstances, my main remaining problem is my pessimism regarding the consequences of the continued absence of radical global changes in human behaviour (e.g. see this comment of mine in response to PA’s recent ‘Terminal Greenhouse Crisis’ post.
Unfortunately, no longer just the lament of environmental doomsayers, this is the settled view of the vast majority of relevantly-qualified researchers; and anyone who disputes this is 100% a victim optimism bias (as identified by Dr Tali Sharot).
I’m sure Patrice will read your comment. That is much appreciated, of course.