Arthur Noll
Yes, this is a problem. People also look at how gasoline prices fell this summer, and how blackouts were avoided, and think that the basic problems are under control, they think that this shows that the concerns voiced earlier were false alarms. This adds to the “immune system response”, to messages of trouble. Any small amount of evidence that things are OK, are given status far out of proportion to their real importance.
A big problem is that warnings of danger are common, but what to do, what the solutions are, are not talked about very much. It is very common that people will say, we must do this and that, but they don’t say how it is going to happen. Scientists warn but leave change up to politicians, who look at the results of polls and elections, and leave serious change strictly alone. The sense of well being from fossil fuel driven technology goes very deep, and politicians don’t want to mess with a situation that is working on the surface. People love their technology, and the sentiment of the bumper sticker that said, “you can have my gun when you pry my cold dead fingers off of it”, also applies to steering wheels of cars and tractors, and many other fossil fuel driven devices. Refrigerators, washers and dryers, microwaves, TVs, the list goes on and on. That these things are a shiny veneer on serious internal rot is not what people want to hear. So they don’t. The pain has to be very severe to cut back on these things.
Even if a scientist were to give scientific solutions, which we have, many people would refuse to make serious changes in their life on the basis of science, they don´t trust science on general principles. For them, answers to problems are found in their religion, and they will hear nothing else. Pain can be passed off as a test of their faith, not an indication to make changes of that faith. The amount of pain that people will endure for their deep held beliefs is amazing to see.
We didn’t get to this point by rational thought, so we shouldn’t be surprised if irrational thought continues to the end, killing itself off in the end.
We have rational solutions to deal with everything, I believe. The question is whether we ourselves are willing to implement those solutions. Are we willing to be rational ourselves? What would we give?
I´d be in favor of going down the street here, going door to door, and giving people an abstract of my solutions to our problems, finding the ones not so deeply intoxicated by technology or mysticism or money, who would join me. The trouble is, I know where I got information, the years of research and thinking involved, I know how it stands up, from many discussions and debates, but most people don´t know that, they need more assurance that I know what I´m talking about. I can say this is the problem, here is the solution, and the response is, who are you? Why should I believe you? Most people specialize in something. They understand that one area, and only vaguely understand other areas of knowledge. If I talk about something foreign to them, they need assurance from someone they can trust in that field, that I am speaking the truth. If I talk about energy, I need someone with status in that field, to back what I say, a physicist, or engineering professor. If I talk about biology, I need a biologist. If I talk about philosophy, religion, anthropology, history, then I need backing in the same way. And I need to talk about all these things, they are all woven together in my understanding of our problems and the solutions. But my hands are tied, I cannot get the people from these fields to help. In the past, people have read, said it seemed true from their perspective but could not judge other fields, then simply turned away, perhaps claiming they are too busy to have a meeting and hammer out the truth. Strange actions for supposed scientists. Too busy to get at the truth?
Well, that was then, and this is now. Once more, I ask for a meeting to hammer out what is true. I do not ask at this point that anyone believe in the solutions I´ve outlined in Harmony. I only ask that if you cannot say why it is wrong, from your own area of knowledge, that you would support the idea of further investigation, support calling a meeting to bring the diversity together that is needed, and come to a resolution. We cannot be scientists and be afraid to ask questions.
Could we write a letter to send to various people, asking them to join an online meeting, and get some signatures on it from here? Some names come to mind. Albert Bartlett, a physicist who has written about the problem of infinite economic growth on a finite planet. Bernd Heinrich, a biologist, has written books about energy economics in nature. David Pimental, a biologist who has written warnings. Many more names could be found. Lets do this, one small step at a time.
Arthur
Good proposal Arthur, I agree we need to start developing our recommendations for action. It seems that there are many points we could quickly come to consensus on. Also we could approach the scientists whose signatures are found on the paper Scientists for a Sustainable Energy Future.
Timothy