4 ms·

> “When you have two concurrent existential crises, you don’t get to pick only one to focus on — you must address both no matter how challenging,” said Brian O’

> “When you have two concurrent existential crises, you don’t get to pick only one to focus on — you must address both no matter how challenging,” said Brian O’Donnell Climate change and biodiversity loss are aspects of one problem: we don't see the world. Ours is fundamentally a psychological or spiritual crisis. Civilization as we know it is a kind of hypnotic trance. The real world is fantastically beautiful. Nature supplies all our needs though a self-regulating autonomic system made of self-improving four-billion-year-old nanotechnology that's driven by a zero-maintenance fusion reactor so powerful that it can burn out your retinas from 150 gigameters away. "All the world's problems can be solved in a garden" - Geoff Lawton Food, medicine, clothing, structural materials all grow naturally. It's also very fun and fulfilling to live in harmony with nature. So the question is, what's preventing us from seeing that and changing our ways? Why doesn't e.g. Gabe Brown's neighbor adopt his methods? (Gabe Brown is a farmer in North Dakota who practices regenerative agriculture. He make more money, increases soil fertility and biodiversity, does less work, and his farm is more resilient than conventional farms, so why don't more people pick up on this faster? "Treating the Farm as an Ecosystem with Gabe Brown Part 1, The 5 Tenets of Soil Health" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUmIdq0D6-A ) We have all the technology we need already, so that's not the limiting factor. It seems to me to be, as I said above, a perceptual/psychological problem.

da39a3ee 5y ago
I don’t know what you’re trying to say but whatever it is, try saying it more clearly and succinctly, or desist. No it is not a perceptual/psychological problem: the problem is that humans are destroying natural habitat.
- carapace 5y ago
  That was pretty clear and succinct in my opinion. > the problem is that humans are destroying natural habitat. Right, but why?
  - spacemark 5y ago
    Despite the rude response from the previous commenter, I agree with the general response. It seems like you're suggesting we all revert to subsistence living by growing our own food on little family farms or something. Fact is people actually like civilization. Modern civilization has led to an unprecedented quality of life for a larger portion of the human population than ever before in recorded history. People are hard pressed to give that up. Put another way, humans prefer to reduce their current misery than ensure all the future's climate issues are solved. Stepping away from modern civilization and our systems would result in unimaginable suffering.
    - carapace 5y ago
      Cheers! I appreciate the constructive feedback. > It seems like you're suggesting we all revert to subsistence living by growing our own food on little family farms or something. Ah, no, not at all. I do think we should integrate natural systems into our homes and cities to a much greater degree. E.g. Village Homes, urban Permaculture, Integral Urban House, food forests, etc. > Village Homes is a planned community in Davis, Yolo County, California. It is designed to be ecologically sustainable by harnessing the energies and natural resources that exist in the landscape, especially stormwater and solar energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes "Urban Permaculture with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXgbrIYcFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXgbrIYcFE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_House "Amazing 23-Year-Old Permaculture Food Forest - An Invitation for Wildness" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc I also think we should try to live within our "solar budget", the incoming solar energy per m², rather than burning fossil fuels. However, I hope clean atomic power becomes available too. (And rockets.) > Modern civilization has led to an unprecedented quality of life for a larger portion of the human population than ever before in recorded history. I agree, but it's not without its discontents, eh? When I said "Civilization as we know it is a kind of hypnotic trance." I wasn't referring to the technology, rather to the cultural influences that keep us from applying science and technology to make our civilization work in harmony with Nature instead of against it. > Put another way, humans prefer to reduce their current misery than ensure all the future's climate issues are solved. That's my point: we can reduce misery and solve our climate issues. It's the same solution, eh? Living in harmony with nature feels great! It's fun and fulfilling. I don't want to go backwards to some previous harsh lifestyle, I want to go forwards to a better (technological) civilization. (For example, the folks in the "Amazing 23-Year-Old Permaculture Food Forest" video above seem pretty happy and fulfilled and they haven't turned their backs on the benefits of modern civilization, eh?) Ecology is a science, after all. We can apply what we've learned about how natural systems work to improve our civilization. We can reduce misery, increase happiness, protect and even increase biodiversity, solve our climate problems, all by application of ecology. My puzzle is why don't we? What's preventing the rapid and widespread application of ecological knowledge and practice?

da39a3ee 5y ago

I don’t know what you’re trying to say but whatever it is, try saying it more clearly and succinctly, or desist. No it is not a perceptual/psychological problem: the problem is that humans are destroying natural habitat.

carapace 5y ago
That was pretty clear and succinct in my opinion. > the problem is that humans are destroying natural habitat. Right, but why?
- spacemark 5y ago
  Despite the rude response from the previous commenter, I agree with the general response. It seems like you're suggesting we all revert to subsistence living by growing our own food on little family farms or something. Fact is people actually like civilization. Modern civilization has led to an unprecedented quality of life for a larger portion of the human population than ever before in recorded history. People are hard pressed to give that up. Put another way, humans prefer to reduce their current misery than ensure all the future's climate issues are solved. Stepping away from modern civilization and our systems would result in unimaginable suffering.
  - carapace 5y ago
    Cheers! I appreciate the constructive feedback. > It seems like you're suggesting we all revert to subsistence living by growing our own food on little family farms or something. Ah, no, not at all. I do think we should integrate natural systems into our homes and cities to a much greater degree. E.g. Village Homes, urban Permaculture, Integral Urban House, food forests, etc. > Village Homes is a planned community in Davis, Yolo County, California. It is designed to be ecologically sustainable by harnessing the energies and natural resources that exist in the landscape, especially stormwater and solar energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Village_Homes "Urban Permaculture with Geoff Lawton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXgbrIYcFE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qXgbrIYcFE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_House https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Urban_House "Amazing 23-Year-Old Permaculture Food Forest - An Invitation for Wildness" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GJFL0MD9fc I also think we should try to live within our "solar budget", the incoming solar energy per m², rather than burning fossil fuels. However, I hope clean atomic power becomes available too. (And rockets.) > Modern civilization has led to an unprecedented quality of life for a larger portion of the human population than ever before in recorded history. I agree, but it's not without its discontents, eh? When I said "Civilization as we know it is a kind of hypnotic trance." I wasn't referring to the technology, rather to the cultural influences that keep us from applying science and technology to make our civilization work in harmony with Nature instead of against it. > Put another way, humans prefer to reduce their current misery than ensure all the future's climate issues are solved. That's my point: we can reduce misery and solve our climate issues. It's the same solution, eh? Living in harmony with nature feels great! It's fun and fulfilling. I don't want to go backwards to some previous harsh lifestyle, I want to go forwards to a better (technological) civilization. (For example, the folks in the "Amazing 23-Year-Old Permaculture Food Forest" video above seem pretty happy and fulfilled and they haven't turned their backs on the benefits of modern civilization, eh?) Ecology is a science, after all. We can apply what we've learned about how natural systems work to improve our civilization. We can reduce misery, increase happiness, protect and even increase biodiversity, solve our climate problems, all by application of ecology. My puzzle is why don't we? What's preventing the rapid and widespread application of ecological knowledge and practice?