Ellsberg could have been the Creator for all that matters and couldn’t change the mindset of humanity any more than a mouse could change the mindset of elephants in a stampede.
For example, you will be hard-pressed to find comments on nuclear arsenals or climate issues in this forum. It would be easier to talk with the trees in the forest or with fish in the sea than find anyone in your city who talks about either topics on any given day.
Actually, I am fortunate to have been able to relocate and retire into a remote rural area with numerous highly-educated writers, musicians, philosophers and other retired “progressive” professionals, along with many hardcore MAGA farmers.
Many people are living in willful denial of the ongoing climate catastrophe that is literally destroying their crops and of the preventable looming nuclear disaster. In the USA neither of the two major political parties have been willing to raise those issues as top priorities.
I have personally spoken with scientists, meteorologists, geologists who work as civilian contractors for the US government — primarily NASA an NOAA — whose contracts prohibit them from publicly discussing or publishing their findings and dire predictions. The current administration is feverishly working to reduce or eliminate those organizations and troublesome contractors.
I am optimistic that Nature will prevail even if humanity does not.
I am also retired and live in a relatively remote community… At one time in the nineties I exchanged some comments with Helen Caldecott, a physician who dedicated her life and career to expose the dangers of nuclear war.
Even though her efforts once led to a million or more marchers leading a reuqyest to abolish nuclear arsenals, the marches did nothing to reduce the threat. I suggested that no matter how many marchers were protesting that if the reasons for their existence was not addressed, that the weapons would persist. She agreed but did so reluctantly.
I believe those reasons are simple… in that the existence of homelessness everywhere causes humans to shrink from opposing the status quo.
I have read several of Caldecott’s books and have listened to her recorded lectures.
Also, include books and lectures by Vandana Shiva.
Humans who shirk opposition to the status quo ensure the continuation of poverty and homelessness.
I think that contributing factors include the fact that most people— or at least Americans— cannot truly comprehend how much money billionaires and mega-millionaires control.
Many, consciously or subconsciously believe that, someday, they may become billionaires, too. Most could live very comfortably with total lifetime earnings of $15-million.
Many corporate executives pay themselves that amount, annually, if not more. Some take more than 100 times that amount.
I used to challenge my subordinates to explain how they could spend 100% of annual incomes of more than $15-million indefinitely without purchasing equities or real estate. My constraints included only one mansion, yacht and personal 747 airliner was allowed per lifetime.
In reality, most humans cannot figure out how to actually that amount of money, indefinitely. So, they are “forced” to hoard it in the form of “safe” equities and real estate holdings rather than investing in risky new inventions or new factories or anything that requires their active participation.
At that point, most of the nonsense taught in Economics classes begins to fail, resulting in massive inflation and little practical benefits for society.
Interesting CK. Somehow, the economic sciences and the nature of things can’t march together without destruction taking place. The various elements of the science are not understood by most and when you mix in environmental constraints with economic structures the components can’t mix… like Fire and Water.
I think I recall Ted Turner once explaining why it was a goal of his to make more billions. He related that he had seen extreme poverty in his youth and that he would never want to experience that condition during his life.. hence the desire to make more billions.. whether it was greedy or not is not as important as a sense that extreme poverty, homelessness for instance, is fearful enough to cause irrational monetary needs. Which was part of my debate with Ms Caldicitt
Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis had similar fears about living in poverty while never having actually lived in poverty. No amount of wealth could quench that fear for her, but she was honestly aware of it. It is an understandable mental disorder.
Strong, tightly-knit communities, even impoverished ones, can overcome that fear via mutual cooperation and sharing of scarce resources. There is no good excuse for such fear to exist in affluent societies, other than by design and purposeful alienation among the inhabitants.
There is no justifiable excuse for homelessness, poverty and unaffordable healthcare within the USA. Mentally ill people such as Ted Turner and most wealthy Capitalists, especially those in positions of power are a huge problem, even as they are worshipped with envy.
Philosophers throughout recorded history have understood this. Kings/Queens and Emperors can exist only with the consent of their subjects. Whenever the subjects realize that, collectively, they can freely choose between monarchy and democracy.
Nature is very powerful and long-lived, past several extinction events.
In the past five major extinctions, living beings had no choice.
Today, humans, collectively, can choose to mitigate their impending demise. Some are trying. Others are not. With some exceptions, individuals with the most power and wealth are choosing to ignore the problems they have created.
Yes, nature is indeed resilient and ever-changing. I don’t think life on the planet would be threatened with extinction, except perhaps as the aftermath of a nuclear war. The effects of a nuclear winter could, in theory, cause the extinction of life, but since some forms of exist in radioactive environments, I would assume that even a worst case scenario involving nuclear winter may not include all life on Earth.
The fact however that so-called intelligent beings could threaten each other with extinction brings into question the premise that intelligence is an asset of survival.
Intelligence, knowledge and wisdom are not synonymous.
Nature did quite well without humans for at least 3-billion years. Humans have existed for 500,000 or one million years. Scientists are not yet in agreement on the specifics.
1-million years is 0.03% of 3-billion years. Statistically insignificant.
Daniel Ellsberg’s book, “The Doomsday Machine” explains in great detail.
Unless all nuclear weapons are rendered inoperable, immediately, global nuclear catastrophe is statistically inevitable.
Ellsberg wasn’t a news reporter. He was a high ranking strategist and planner for the US government.
Ellsberg could have been the Creator for all that matters and couldn’t change the mindset of humanity any more than a mouse could change the mindset of elephants in a stampede.
For example, you will be hard-pressed to find comments on nuclear arsenals or climate issues in this forum. It would be easier to talk with the trees in the forest or with fish in the sea than find anyone in your city who talks about either topics on any given day.
Actually, I am fortunate to have been able to relocate and retire into a remote rural area with numerous highly-educated writers, musicians, philosophers and other retired “progressive” professionals, along with many hardcore MAGA farmers.
Many people are living in willful denial of the ongoing climate catastrophe that is literally destroying their crops and of the preventable looming nuclear disaster. In the USA neither of the two major political parties have been willing to raise those issues as top priorities.
I have personally spoken with scientists, meteorologists, geologists who work as civilian contractors for the US government — primarily NASA an NOAA — whose contracts prohibit them from publicly discussing or publishing their findings and dire predictions. The current administration is feverishly working to reduce or eliminate those organizations and troublesome contractors.
I am optimistic that Nature will prevail even if humanity does not.
I am also retired and live in a relatively remote community… At one time in the nineties I exchanged some comments with Helen Caldecott, a physician who dedicated her life and career to expose the dangers of nuclear war.
Even though her efforts once led to a million or more marchers leading a reuqyest to abolish nuclear arsenals, the marches did nothing to reduce the threat. I suggested that no matter how many marchers were protesting that if the reasons for their existence was not addressed, that the weapons would persist. She agreed but did so reluctantly.
I believe those reasons are simple… in that the existence of homelessness everywhere causes humans to shrink from opposing the status quo.
I have read several of Caldecott’s books and have listened to her recorded lectures.
Also, include books and lectures by Vandana Shiva.
Humans who shirk opposition to the status quo ensure the continuation of poverty and homelessness.
I think that contributing factors include the fact that most people— or at least Americans— cannot truly comprehend how much money billionaires and mega-millionaires control.
Many, consciously or subconsciously believe that, someday, they may become billionaires, too. Most could live very comfortably with total lifetime earnings of $15-million.
Many corporate executives pay themselves that amount, annually, if not more. Some take more than 100 times that amount.
I used to challenge my subordinates to explain how they could spend 100% of annual incomes of more than $15-million indefinitely without purchasing equities or real estate. My constraints included only one mansion, yacht and personal 747 airliner was allowed per lifetime.
In reality, most humans cannot figure out how to actually that amount of money, indefinitely. So, they are “forced” to hoard it in the form of “safe” equities and real estate holdings rather than investing in risky new inventions or new factories or anything that requires their active participation.
At that point, most of the nonsense taught in Economics classes begins to fail, resulting in massive inflation and little practical benefits for society.
Interesting CK. Somehow, the economic sciences and the nature of things can’t march together without destruction taking place. The various elements of the science are not understood by most and when you mix in environmental constraints with economic structures the components can’t mix… like Fire and Water.
I think I recall Ted Turner once explaining why it was a goal of his to make more billions. He related that he had seen extreme poverty in his youth and that he would never want to experience that condition during his life.. hence the desire to make more billions.. whether it was greedy or not is not as important as a sense that extreme poverty, homelessness for instance, is fearful enough to cause irrational monetary needs. Which was part of my debate with Ms Caldicitt
Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis had similar fears about living in poverty while never having actually lived in poverty. No amount of wealth could quench that fear for her, but she was honestly aware of it. It is an understandable mental disorder.
Strong, tightly-knit communities, even impoverished ones, can overcome that fear via mutual cooperation and sharing of scarce resources. There is no good excuse for such fear to exist in affluent societies, other than by design and purposeful alienation among the inhabitants.
There is no justifiable excuse for homelessness, poverty and unaffordable healthcare within the USA. Mentally ill people such as Ted Turner and most wealthy Capitalists, especially those in positions of power are a huge problem, even as they are worshipped with envy.
Philosophers throughout recorded history have understood this. Kings/Queens and Emperors can exist only with the consent of their subjects. Whenever the subjects realize that, collectively, they can freely choose between monarchy and democracy.
CK,
I can’t say I share your optimism…but I hope you are more right than I am..
Nature is very powerful and long-lived, past several extinction events.
In the past five major extinctions, living beings had no choice.
Today, humans, collectively, can choose to mitigate their impending demise. Some are trying. Others are not. With some exceptions, individuals with the most power and wealth are choosing to ignore the problems they have created.
Yes, nature is indeed resilient and ever-changing. I don’t think life on the planet would be threatened with extinction, except perhaps as the aftermath of a nuclear war. The effects of a nuclear winter could, in theory, cause the extinction of life, but since some forms of exist in radioactive environments, I would assume that even a worst case scenario involving nuclear winter may not include all life on Earth.
The fact however that so-called intelligent beings could threaten each other with extinction brings into question the premise that intelligence is an asset of survival.
Intelligence, knowledge and wisdom are not synonymous.
Nature did quite well without humans for at least 3-billion years. Humans have existed for 500,000 or one million years. Scientists are not yet in agreement on the specifics.
1-million years is 0.03% of 3-billion years. Statistically insignificant.