Ecosocialism: the alternative that isn’t

Yes, I know I promised to go through the Way of Nature elements. But first, I want to write about an element that is not included in my Way of Nature analysis:

green Marx.jpgEcosocialism

Now, before you click away from here in disgust at the term, bear with me for a moment while I explain why I’ve not included ecosocialism as an element of the Way of Nature.

 

From Wikipedia:

“Eco-socialism, green socialism or socialist ecology is an ideology merging aspects of socialism with that of green politics, ecology and alter-globalization or anti-globalization. Eco-socialists generally believe that the expansion of the capitalist system is the cause of social exclusion, poverty, war and environmental degradation through globalization and imperialism, under the supervision of repressive states and transnational structures.

“Eco-socialists advocate dismantling capitalism, focusing on common ownership of the means of production by freely associated producers, and restoring the commons.”

Delving into ecosocialism is a lot like stepping into a steaming swamp where you can’t see the firm bottom. It’s chief proponents, Ian Angus in Canada, Derek Wall in the UK and the late Joel Kovel in the United States, have written voluminously on the subject, as it has evolved over the past 17 years. Ian Angus’s Climate and Capitalism website is the best place to explore the history and current development of ecosocialism.

Why do I exclude ecosocialism from my Way of Nature?

Ecosocialism began as a breakaway political philosophy from standard, everyday Marxism, an admirable attempt to align classic socialist economics with modern understandings of the effects of human social systems on the natural world. Unfortunately, because of its basic Marxist underpinnings, it falls short in two important respects: human population, and human consumption of natural resources.

Population Control

Adherents of ecosocialism are unswervingly opposed to any form of population stabilization or control. This roadblock to thought and rational analysis arises from Marxist focus on economic justice. Ecosocialists hold than any form of population control would preferentially affect people of color, people in poverty, people of the global south. This refusal to consider the detrimental effects of increasing population is extended to immigration as well, holding that people should be free to move from place to place at will.

Consumption

One of the basic Marxist assumptions of socialism is that with the elimination of capitalism, production will be for use and not for profit, and therefore increased technological production would create enough to satisfy everyone’s needs, equally in every part of the human world. In such a “post-scarcity” world, human consumption of natural resources would decline and reduce impacts on the natural world.

I = P x A x T

These two ecosocialist assumptions ignore the formula for measuring and predicting global human impacts on the natural world developed by Barry Commoner, Paul R. Ehrlich and John Holdren in the 1970s:

I = P x A x T – Impact on the nonhuman world is a function of affluence and technology, multiplied by population.

While it may be true that a socialist economy of use value eliminating production for profit value would reduce per capita production and consumption (this has never been demonstrated historically), this positive result would be held hostage to a growing population, which would overwhelm any gains through a reduction in production.

Stabilizing population growth, even unto the point of reducing human population globally, need not affect any particular population over any other. An ecosystem-based analysis of local human population pressures could be used to stabilize global population by reducing population levels in areas of high impact and stabilizing populations in areas of lower impact. Methods of such population control would be implemented based on local cultures and economies.

Lifting restrictions on immigration ignores the realities of local ecosystems and carrying capacities. If humans are free to drift from place to place, in response to population and social pressures, local ecosystems will quickly degrade in areas where the human drift accumulates. While restrictions on immigration by arbitrarily designated state boundaries might not be desirable from a social standpoint, an ecosystem-based analysis of human population pressures must be used to avoid undesirable negative impacts on the local ecosystem. If social relations in  a particular region are undesirable, humans should solve their problems in place, rather than exporting them to other ecosystems that may be less capable of withstanding increased human impacts.

In the end, despite its optimistic appellation, ecosocialism is yet another anthropocentric philosophy that begins and ends with human benefit as its primary concern and only tangentially addresses the detrimental effects of human growth and technology on the non-human world.

Socialism, even ecosocialism, offers no inherent alternatives to capitalism with regard to human consumption and destruction of natural habitats.

Now then, back to The Way of Nature.

Putting it all together or taking it all apart?

jigsaw-puzzle

On one of my other websites, The Way of Nature, I’ve described many of the elements of an ecosophy that seeks to balance human activity with the natural world. These are philosophies and practices that I find attractive when thinking about the horrible mess this human world has created at the expense of the broader biosphere.

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t see any way for the current dominant human way of life to continue much longer. There just aren’t enough resources on this the only planet we can inhabit to support 7+ billion human beings without destroying the habitats of the eleventy bazillion other inhabitants, including our own. The human world is caught up in social systems and philosophies antithetical to living in harmony with all other life. There is no sign at present of any serious movement to change to alternative lifestyles that offer any prospect for continuing into the foreseeable future.

Visualize Civilizational Collapse

A combination of environmental, social and economic collapse seems inevitable, most likely within the lifetime of those living today. A civilization (sic) based on unlimited growth coupled with exponentially increasing consumption of finite resources will inevitably expire in a much deserved collapse, just as previous civilizations and empires suffered the same ignominious end.

If there is such a thing as natural laws, this must be one of them. Any species that eats itself out of house and home will drag itself down the evolutionary porcelain parkway with alacrity. Rabbits do it. Caribou do it. Even plants do it.

The difference is that, unlike humans, non-human animals and plants have natural predators that keep their numbers in check, and that, providentially, strengthen the prey species by eliminating the halt and the weak and the diseased. But hubristic humans insist that “every sperm is sacred” and no individual shall be allowed to die without massive medical intervention to keep them alive and breeding… for a price.

So it seems truly well and good that human civilization should take its place in the good old dustbin of history and make way for what is to come afterwards.

What comes after Civilization?

It’s seems most likely that once human civilization has had its way with this planet, and descended into the abyss of evolutionary despair, there will be insufficient resources remaining for humans to claw their way back out of the hole they have dug for themselves and build a new shining city on the hill to hold dominion over all once again.

This is where the Way of Nature comes into the story.

Any future human world will, of necessity, be organized in harmony with natural cycles of resource availability, just as are all other extant species on the planet. It will be characterized by the same features as other species: diversity, adaptability, humility, cooperation and unswerving patience.

In other words, any post-collapse civilization will live by the Way of Nature.

Take some time to review the elements of the Way of Nature, and we’ll start going through them in the next post on Searching for Balance.

More reading on collapse:

  • Collapse, Jered Diamond
  • The Party’s Over, Richard Heinberg
  • The Enemy of Nature, Joel Kovel
  • Good News, Edward Abbey
  • Toward an Ecological Society, Murray Bookchin
  • Human Scale Revisited, Kirkpatrick Sale
  • The Twilight of American Culture, Morris Berman

Nature’s Way

e5dc0-horses
I’ve not been writing much of late, at least not in this forum. Tickling these plastic keys is less esthetically pleasing than scribbling in a notebook with a proper pen and ink. What to do with it then after it is written? It rarely survives the transition twixt page and screen.

But things must be said, after all. The state of the world hovers between chaos and collapse. It’s hard to tell which way we’re headed.

“More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” Woody Allen

If we’re lucky, we’ll have another recession soon, a good one, a thorough one, an economic collapse “with four part harmony and feeling.” Clear out the dross, bring down the high mucky-muck, unto the seventh generation. Everything is stretched thin and another economic blow might just break it permanently, with little resources left for recovery.

Yes, all will suffer, especially the high and mighty who have depended on this insane system of economic and environmental oppression at the the expense of trillions of living beings with no say in the outcome. Its about time. A season for everything. The pendulum swings.

We who still defend the wild and the wildlings stand on the shoulders of those who have lead the way before us. Those shoulders are dwindling, their voices stilled. And there are fewer shoulders growing up to take their places. Our voices are drowned out by the bombastic shouting of the growth maniacs and global economists, their political and military minions, and the general populace enthralled with consumerism.

Still, this too shall pass. That which cannot go on forever, doesn’t. A thousand years from now those still alive will be those who have accommodated to reality, learned to live in harmony with natural cycles, those who have settled back into living as one species among many, with no pretense of dominion over all.

It’s Nature’s Way, the only way there is.

The Wu Way

In my search for a sane and rational way of living that does not destroy biodiversity and natural habitats for all other species, I’ve looked to other worldviews and philosophies for examples of how other cultures and societies have thought and taught about the world we all live in.

The unfortunate thing about individually focusing on Taoism, quantum mechanics, consciousness, neuroanatomy or any other named discipline is that we can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s all of a piece; the names separate out the various parts. We get so mired down in the minutia, we don’t see the whole.

As it is in the Multiverse, so it is unto the quark.

Let me take this Way in striving for a model of the totality of reality, consciousness, the Multiverse/universes/Universe and everything.

In quantum physics we identify the Multiverse as the infinite set of infinite universes, which includes our own infinite Universe. Our Universe consists of eleven dimensions, time and three physical dimensions, plus seven other tightly wrapped dimensions of which we are not consciously aware. We use mathematics to describe our Universe, the Multiverse and their eleven dimensions, because mathematics is not burdened with symbolic meaning. The “words” of mathematics are clear, unambiguous and universally understood.

The universes of the Multiverse can and do interact in startling ways, as is demonstrated in the easily reproduced double slit experiment, which also shows us that human consciousness is an intimate part of the working of the Multiverse. The double slit experiment shows us the Multiverse/Consciousness in action. When we look for light as particles, we find particles. When we look for light as waves, we find waves.

In a like manner then, consciousness consists of the Universal Consciousness as the infinite set of consciousnesses, which includes our own personal Consciousness. What we identify in psychology as the subconscious is the connection between our personal Consciousness and the Universal Consciousness through the eleven dimensional computation matrix built into the structure of our brains, as a result of human evolution within the eleven dimensional Universe. Meditation, sleep dreaming, day dreaming, imagination, intuition, deja vu and altered states are descriptions of mental states that quiet the busyness of the brain’s internal dialog so that we can experience the connection to the Universal Consciousness. This experience is difficult if not impossible to relate in words because it transcends verbal expression, cannot be objectively verified and is meaningful only to the percipient. Yet the experience is universal.

This consciousness has been known for thousands of years, by people who have tried to express the experience in many ways, many of which have become distorted, manipulated and controlled as organized religions. Others maintain oral traditions, which we call myths, that are nonetheless grounded in experience with the ineffable, and combine them with practical experiences of being a human being in the natural region they inhabit. Raven stories, coyote stories, origin stories, all carry the seed of the contact with universal consciousness.

There are some who hold that this level of human consciousness is a fairly recent development in human evolution, which would fit in with the evolution of the human brain’s eleven dimensional computation matrix. One might speculate that this development may have been responsible for the success of Homo sapiens sapiens and the demise of Home sapiens neanderthalensis.

“Where are you going with this?” says the wag in the back.

Good question!

The point of Taoism is “The Way.” This is not a judgement call; there is no “Right Way” and there is no “Wrong Way.” There is only “The Way.”

The Way is the Multiverse. The Way is Consciousness. The Way is the eleven dimensional computation matrix we carry around in this head thing of ours.

When we go against The Way, when we force things, control things, lord it over others, when we push the rope, make it happen, press on regardless, we fight against the flow of the Multiverse.

When we go with The Way, when we allow things to rise of themselves, when we wait for the cusp, pause until grokking is, go with the flow, swim with the stream, we cooperate with the flow of the Multiverse.

Our Modern Western Civilization, if that’s what it is, goes against the Way in every respect. It is the antithesis of the flow of the Multiverse. It is the cause of immense suffering in humans and untold destruction of the non-human world.

An alternative approach is wu wei, not doing, arising of itself, doing what’s natural, going with the flow. If it doesn’t arise of itself, if it feels like pushing the rope, if it resists at every turn, don’t do that!

This is a simple approach, probably too simple to have any effect. We have to start somewhere.

NOTE: I’ve referenced a lot of esoteric stuff herein without citations. If something above piques your interest, or if you respond with “Huh?” let me know and I’ll supply a bibliography. It’s about time I worked one up anyway, so I can remember where I’ve read things.

Climatism is Industrialism, not Environmentalism

0614-07CrumbEcotopian-750452
The Eco-Alternative – R. Crumb

In a recent post, Climatist Manifesto, Ron Clutz gave me a hat-tip (Thanks, Ron!) for my earlier expression of the “dismay many environmentalists feel at the damage climatists have done both to science and to efforts to protect the planet from real pollution.”

In his Climate Manifesto post, Ron expresses concerns that climatism (belief in human caused climate change and its solutions) threatens present industrial society.

“Political leaders are willing, even enthusiastic dupes, while climatist tactics erode the foundations of industrial society.”

However, climatism derives from and defends that very same industrial society. It is the foundations of industrial society, industrialism, that are the ultimate cause of the myriad impacts on the non-human world, and that must be changed if humans are to reduce these impacts on all life on Earth. Climatism is the industrial approach to natural climate variation, assuming that climate change is caused by human action and is therefore subject to human control and technocratic solutions.

Industrialism is more than the technological results of the Industrial Revolution, ca. 1800. Industrialism is characterized by hierarchical social organization, the concept of progress, and technocracy based on science, technology and bureaucracy.

Industrialism embraces efficiency and expediency above all values, including the appropriation and exploitation for human use of raw materials, defined as “resources,” including living beings and the very air, water and soil on which all life depends. Industrialism goes beyond the dualities of capitalism/socialism, North/South, East/West, science/religion. Industrialism portrays technological change as progress, regardless of negative impacts on natural environments or human communities. Industrialism portrays economic and technocratic growth as desirable and inevitable and views lack of growth as stagnation. Industrialism is the basic assumption of all western societies, and, increasingly, those of Eastern traditions.

It is not the mission, nor even the intent of climatists to deindustrialize civilization. On the contrary, climatists seek means by which industrial society can continue unchanged, and define that as “sustainability.”

It is environmentalists who seek to move away from industrialism to reduce human pollution and destruction of natural habitats. It is environmentalists who propose non-hierarchical, decentralized human societies built on ecological principles, accommodating to natural cycles of resource availability and climate variation. It is environmentalists who threaten industrial society.

“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Albert Einstein

Climate Change and Road Congestion

action_area_cities

This is a post about cause and effect, or rather, the lack of cause and effect.

Climate change and road congestion are related, not in a causal relationship, as one might unthinkingly conclude, but as emergent phenomena in complex, chaotic systems far from equilibrium.

If you made it through that paragraph unscathed, I’ll explain further. If not, see my post on Chaos HERE.

Climate prognostication and traffic planning exist in a world of linear relationships, the “If you push something hard enough, it will fall over” world. Every effect has direct discernible cause(s), such that planners can always count on a predictable outcome from any given action. For instance, climate change is caused by human produced CO2 in the atmosphere; traffic congestion is caused by insufficient capacity in highways. Thus, the stories go, if we decrease human produced CO2, climate change will stop or at least decrease; if we add lanes to the highways, traffic congestion will decrease. It seems intuitive.

While this approach has served humans well for generations, in our modern world of 7 billions and counting, with our global societies and ubiquitous technological innovations, linear cause and effect is overcome by the complexity and chaos of our social and technological relationships.

Climate is an emergent phenomenon of chaotic nonlinear relationships among numerous variables and feedbacks, a spaghetti tangle of natural cycles on the Earth, in the solar system and beyond, including human industrial activity and land use changes.

We know that climate changed long before human activity had any other than very local effects. Assuming that modern observed climate variation is “caused” by human production of CO2 is not only factually wrong, it diverts attention from the reality of natural climate variation, misapplies enormous human resources and economies, and ignores the inescapable necessity that humans accommodate to natural cycles rather than attempting to control them.

We know from observation that traffic congestion is often the result of accidents or tailbacks at off and on ramps. Sometimes we run into a clot of cars on the freeway that has no discernable cause and that clears up for no discernable reason, leaving no car parts on the verge to reveal its dynamics. We also know that widening the highway may temporarily relieve existing traffic congestion, but in a relatively short period of time congestion returns in the newly created lanes and ramps.

These seemingly disparate observations are the result of increasing numbers of cars interacting within the complex system of individual driving habits and distractions, on and off ramps and local road conditions, resulting in non-linear responses to small changes in driving conditions. Increasing highway capacity only increases the complexity of these interactions and does not address the root causes of traffic congestion.

If humans fail to learn that we cannot control climate by reducing CO2 production, and that widening the highway will not reduce traffic congestion, then we fail to explore social changes that accommodate to natural climate variation, and reduce dependence on automobiles and truly reduce traffic congestion.

It’s time for a new approach to human growth and development, technology and society. It’s time to apply our growing understanding of chaos and complex, non-linear systems to everyday problems of moving about on a planet with highly variable and unpredictable climates.

 

Between the Hammer and the Nail

ed359-global_warming_or_global_coolingYes, I know everyone has jumped aboard the Global Warming bandwagon, hammered together the climate change apartment house and moved in lock stock and barrel to the CO2-causes-Climate-Change studio apartment. It’s a shame that such a ramshackle edifice dominates the climate science skyline.

“If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” Abraham Maslow, The Psychology of Science, 1966

Part One

Climate change has become the cause celebre of modern thought and action, the hammer employed to bang on almost everything else. Every Progressive cause from highway congestion to homelessness simply must be cast in the glare of Climate Change and/or Global Warming. Every organization from the United Nations to my local County Board of Supervisors is invested in the concept as the source of funding for addressing all social ills.

The basis for this totalitarian acceptance of human caused climate change, aka Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is the theory of radiative forcing of atmospheric warming, the so-called Greenhouse Effect. As we’ll see later, this is an instance of an attempt to prove an experiment by invoking a theory, rather than the accepted scientific process of proving a theory by experimentation and hypothesis testing.

Carbon dioxide radiative forcing was first proposed by Joseph Fourier in 1824, demonstrated by experiment by John Tyndall in 1859, and quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. The unfortunate and inaccurate descriptor “Greenhouse Effect” was first employed by Nils Gustaf Ekholm in 1901.

The basic premise of the “Greenhouse Gas” theory is that greenhouse gases raise the temperature at the surface of the Earth higher than it would be without them (+33º C). Without these gases in the atmosphere (water vapor (0 to 4%), Carbon dioxide (0.0402%), Methane (0.000179%), Nitrous oxide (0.0000325%) and Fluorinated gases (0.000007%) life on this planet would be impossible.

This basic theory is deployed to buttress the assumptions that increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations (mainly CO2) cause increased global average surface temperature, and, therefore lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations will reduce or even reverse increases in global average surface temperature.

Let’s look at the observations and assumptions that have led to this erroneous conclusion.

Observations and Assumptions

  1. Observation – Humans produce greenhouse gases through industrial activity, agriculture and respiration, increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 from ~300 ppmv to ~400 ppmv over the past 58 years
  2. Observation – The calculated measure of global average surface temperature has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880.
  3. Assumption – Adding more CO2 to the atmosphere causes an increase in global average surface temperature.
  4. Assumption – Increase in global average surface temperature will cause changes in global climates that will be catastrophic for all life on Earth.
  5. Conclusion – Therefore, reducing human CO2 production will result in a reduction in atmospheric CO2 concentration and a consequent reduction in increase of global average surface temperature, stabilizing global climates and preventing catastrophic climate change.

Items 1 and 2 are observations with which few climate scientists disagree, though there may be quibbles about the details. CO2 and temperature have both increased, since at least 1850.

Items 3 and 4 are assumptions because there is no evidence to support them. The correlation between global average surface temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration is not linear and it is not causal. In fact, deep glacial ice cores record that historical increases in CO2 concentration have lagged behind temperature rise by 200 to 800 years, suggesting that, if anything, atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by increase in global average surface temperature.

Nevertheless, the “consensus” pursued by global warming acolytes is that Svante Arrhenius’ 1896 “Greenhouse Gas” theory proves that rising CO2 causes rising temperature.

However, in the scientific method, we do not employ a theory to prove an experiment. Since we have only one coupled ocean/atmosphere system to observe, the experiment in this case is the Earth itself, human CO2 production, naturally occurring climate variation, and observed changes in atmospheric CO2 and global average surface temperature. There is no control with which to compare observations, thus we can make no scientifically valid conclusions as to causation. If we had a second, identical planet earth to compare atmospheric changes in the absence of human produced CO2, we would be able to reach valid conclusions about the role of CO2 in observed climate variation, and we would have an opportunity to weigh other causes of climate variation shared by the two systems.

To escape from our precarious position between the hammer and the nail, we should understand all possible causal factors, human caused, naturally occurring, from within and from without the biosphere in which all life lives.

Based on our current cosmology, it is my conclusion that we live in a chaotic, nonlinear, complex coupled ocean/atmospheric adaptive system, with its own set of naturally occurring and human created cycles that interact to produce the climate variation we observe. This variation is not the simple linear relationship touted by the IPCC and repeated in apocalyptic tones by those who profit from its dissemination, but rather is a complex interplay of varying influences, that results in unpredictable climate variation.

More about chaos and complexity in the next installment.