Posted on Oct 22nd, 2009
by
Daroy
Though i do not believe that it's equivalent to the end of the world, i'm pretty certain by now that the Copenhagen talks on a follow-up treaty to the Kyoto protocol will be just that: talks. There won't be a binding, fair, and far-reaching agreement, even amidst large-scale, partly violent protests all over the world. Most political leaders won't even attend the summit in person. The reasons are simple, even though they are often overlooked:
- to begin with, the sheer number of people on this planet already makes the shift towards sustainabilty well-near impossible; meanwhile, wide-spread poverty produces too many new births, and insane medicine keeps pursuing the meaningless prolongation of human life expectancy;
- human beings are intrinsically selfish: they care about their own immediate well-being first;
- for all their media experience and ability to think ahead, most human beings still largely act according to immediate physical perception: they won't stop smoking till it hurts, they won't try the extinguisher till their house is on fire, they won't use public transport till petrol becomes unaffordable, and they won't invest in clean energy till storms and floods devastate their city;
- in terms of the theory of Spiral Dynamics, the large majority of human beings today live according to the blue (faith) or orange (business) meme-code; their consciousness is incapable of grasping the reality and urgency of global ecological challenges;
- for all its advantages over other forms of governance, representative democracy does not produce true leadership; as the term implies, the governments it produces represent and act on the will of the majority, so when the majority care about low taxes, limitless consumption, exquisite foods and cheap flights, that's what so-called 'leaders' will fight for.
In fact, the people getting together in Copenhagen will merely try to minimize restrictions for their own nations while at the same time putting on a clever 'Yes We Care' show for the media. There is no need even to bother the cliché (?) of bad multinational corporations trying to rule the world. The nature of the average individual explains it all. We just aren't ready to sustainably manage our planet yet. And the Earth will know how to get rid of us if we fail her for much longer.
image: Worldwide Fund for Nature
Access: Public
Print
views (56)
Posted on Oct 9th, 2009
by
Daroy
Is our species suicidal? Are we succombing to an inborn drive to usher ourselves out of the biosphere, now that we've almost used up the resources needed for our well-being? Are we - despite our superior intellect and our capacity of foresight - unable to withstand Mother Nature's call to self-destruct now that we've failed to adapt to her laws of sustainability? Is our subconscious obeying secret orders from a primeval, DNA-based safety device in making us do the exact opposite of what might ensure our collective survival? Or why does the majority of human beings ignore the warning signals and keep on doing business as usual? Why do we still allow our food to be produced as cheaply as possible, our meat consumption to soar, our oceans to be fished empty, our forests to be destroyed, our soil to be poisoned? Why do we let multinational corporations and backward governments do as they please, developing and selling weaponry and manipulating genes without restraint? Why do we accept to be lulled by irresponsible, irreverent, lustful media? Have we become 'comfortably numb'? Is our consciousness no longer receptive to positive visions and hopeful messages? Are we unable to pursue worth while goals beyond material inflation at the cost of everything else?
Is our dinosaur brain taking over?
picture: Daroy Lin
Access: Public
Print
views (16)
Posted on Aug 30th, 2009
by
Daroy
Today i heard that a 16-year-old friend of my stepson's was beaten up by three drunkards at a funfair in Luxembourg City. It's only the latest in a series of incidents involving alcohol, including fatal traffic accidents, domestic violence, street fights, and comatose teenagers. The putrid juices that make up alcoholic beverages wreak more and more havoc on society, destroying brain cells, freedom of choice, relationships, families, and many many lives, and i, as a staunch teetotaller, seriously wonder why politicians don't debate this urgent matter and act on it.
Of course i can guess why the issue is taboo: the majority of Luxembourgers, including politicians, teachers, and clergymen, are unable to socialize without drinking, and beer and wine are a huge business. I suspect that many of our representatives are themselves alcohol addicts. There seems to exist a long-standing silent consensus among those in power that the consumption of beer, wine, champagne, and schnapps is a cultural necessity whatever the costs. A tragic deadlock, and a threat for social progress and the prosperity of future generations.
On a global scale the situation is not much better; alcohol remains one of the deadliest enemies of our evolution as spiritual beings and stewards of planet Earth. No wonder that all religions (including Christianity before the Church corrupted Christ's teachings*) have banned its use except as medicine!
Prohibition didn't work in the 1920s in America, and it wouldn't work anywhere today. What is needed is a more meaningful, spiritual outlook on life, a more responsible and creative economy, and a more just distribution of resources. But when will humanity achieve this goal?
*cf. the Gospel of the Essenes, discovered by Edmond Szekely
picture: "Child's Prospect", collage by Daroy Lin
Access: Public
Print
views (11)
Posted on Aug 24th, 2009
by
Daroy
As far as i understand it, Claire Graves' (et al) theory on Spiral Dynamics surmises that different portions of humankind have different value systems, that they are at different stages of consciousness which act as filters for their interpretation of reality, and that humans are able, when forced by life conditions, to adapt to their environment by constructing new, more complex, conceptual models of the world that allow them to handle the new problems (wikipedia). This means you can only act upon what you perceive, and you can only perceive that which the quality of your awareness allows - the Estonian biologist and pioneering ecologist Jakob Johann von Uexküll (+ 1944) explored this topic in his fascinating book 'Streifzüge durch die Umwelten von Tieren und Menschen' ('Explorations of animal and human environments').
As opposed to widespread belief, it seems that a specific level of consciousness cannot be altered or intensified by another, more encompassing level of consciousness; in other words, one person's perception of reality cannot directly be changed through the influence of another person. You can force someone to do or say certain things under your control, but you cannot force them to think or perceive differently. Value systems change only through (often violent) clashes of the individual's interpretation of life with reality. In this sense, all education is self-education.
What is problematic about this is the fact that apparently, the majority of the world's population currently functions at a level of consciousness which creates unsustainable living on a global scale, and that waiting for the catalysing experiences which alone (?) could alter that consciousness may well prove to be fatal for all mankind!
Is there no other way?
picture: 'Greed' by Brittany Jackson
Access: Public
Print
views (26)
Posted on Aug 24th, 2009
by
Daroy
Homo insciens has a morbid tendency to increase their dependence on technology. Every new invention that replaces or supports one of their body functions is greeted and adopted with uncritical delight. Slowly but surely people lose their body's wonderful natural ability to protect itself, to move about, to perceive its environment, even to reflect and imagine and create.
Just a few examples: automobiles, sunglasses, skin milks, lifts, remote controls, calculators, books made into films.
How tragic that many people's leg muscles become atrophied and their bellies fat because they drive everywhere in their car and think it's primitive to walk or bike - and then they use expensive gym centres (another technological crutch) to 'get into shape'!
How sad that we often destroy our skin's natural defence against light and microorganisms by wearing sunglasses and using aggressive skin lotions and shower gels much too often!
How stupid that so many intelligent men and women resort to an electronic calculator for even the simplest operation, lulling their brain into increasing laziness and making themselves dependent on a primitive machine!
How tragic that most kids have stopped reading the ingenious Harry Potter books since these stories have appeared on screen where every detail is imagined for them, where every opportunity to let one's own mind re-create Mrs Rowling's loving, exciting, and detailed descriptions is lost!
I'm not against the fruits of technology per se, but we should stay alert and avoid becoming enslaved by our own helpers. Use them if you must - avoid them if you can!
picture: degenerated humans aboard the spaceship "Axiom" (from Pixar's "WALL·E")
Access: Public
Print
views (17)
Posted on Aug 23rd, 2009
by
Daroy
They claim that the 'crisis' is over, the economy is growing, consumption is increasing, and let's rejoice. But what is growth? What does it do? What does it mean? When we consume more, why are we told we should be happy? Why don't they ask whether what we consume is necessary for us? Whether it's useful? Nobody seems interested in WHAT is produced or what we buy - firearms, plastic toys, junk food, alcohol, carcinogenic toiletries, cheap furniture made from tropical wood, functionally oversized cell phones, ... . The superfluous abounds, while basic needs (good local food, clean water, safe energy, healthy communication, spiritual education, prophylactic health care) are neglected. It probably sounds a bit trite, but i think it's important to repeat it: infinite growth in a finite environment is eventually a killer. The term "sustainable growth" is a contradiction in itself. Only a cyclical process of wasteless construction-consumption/deconstruction is sustainable. Only Mother Nature knows how to do it. And only a fool would go on 'growing' into his grave like mankind still largely does at this point!
picture: The Sure near Arsdorf, Luxembourg
Access: Public
Print
views (55)
Posted on Aug 20th, 2009
by
Daroy
confused, restless, pessimistic
Access: Public
Print
views (44)