Awakening From Your Anger

Category: Our Present Culture

  • The (Mis)Information Age, Part 1

    misinformation1

    I’ve been watching a fascinating series on Netflix: The Untold History of the United States (Oliver Stone, 2012), twelve presentations based on a particular interpretation of documented events during the 20th century, especially events related to the politics of war, specifically the cold war. I find it fascinating because it seems well researched and well presented, and it also reinforces my biases regarding the duplicity of modern politics (and probably ancient politics also). And as a result, I am challenged again to decide if the information is actually mis-information — hence my title The (Mis)Information Age.

    Reviews[1] of the series were mixed, with claims that there was really nothing new presented in the interpretations provided, and that there was much selective cherry-picking of the information presented. Perhaps this is true, but I still find that it provides me with much information that I had not previously encountered, and as a result that I have been reflecting a lot on how do I process information in the modern age.

    My Experience of Trust

    When I was a young boy, if I wanted to know something about a topic, I went to the encyclopedia; if needed, I went to the local library and searched for the topic in the Encyclopedia Britannica — the definitive source of the time. There I would find a concise three to five page article on the topic, and I had a sense of trust that I had now found useful information, actual knowledge of the state of the world at the current time. And that there was not easily a better source available.

    Almost certainly this was a gross error, and if reviewed now, the information would undoubtedly be considered heavily biased (male perspective, British Empire perspective, et cetera). However, it was a world in which there was a sense of trust. Such trust was manifest in many ways. Many days as a child, I wandered freely over the neighborhood, perhaps blocks away, with no sense of fear. As a much younger child, I frequently visited with the “neighborhood grand-father,” where together with eight or ten other four-year-olds he would read us stories on Saturday mornings. I also recall going to school alone on the bus when I was seven or eight, perhaps younger. My older brother and I, he then perhaps nine or ten years old, would hop on the bus and go downtown to the Saturday morning movies, alone. When somewhat older, I cannot recall that I ever locked a bicycle or a car; most of the time the house door was unlocked, unless we were planning to be away for a few days.

    In the interim, in my lifetime, I have watched the erosion of trust, both within myself, and within society in general. As I am sure you the reader know, almost no one fails to lock their home or their car anymore, or if they do, they worry until they return, fearful that it will be vandalized or stolen. Who today would think of leaving a younger child to go to the movies by themselves? Or allowing a young child to take public transit alone?

    Nor do I trust modern communications, especially the media, and also much of professional literature. I have six university degrees, all of them in some way related to science; hence I generally understand scientific reports, but I do not trust many of the conclusions presented in modern scientific reports. I am very aware of the ways in which the language used in reports are heavily biased in subtle ways. Especially I do not trust the writings in psycho-pharmacology or nutrition (I also have a 1000 hours training as a cook, and know the politics of the culinary field).

    Thus, I have my own issues with (mis)information.

    To be continued (Cognitive Biases and Whom To Trust).

    [1] The Untold History of the United States,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Untold_History_of_the_United_States, accessed 2017 February 14

  • Why We Ignore Climate Change, Part 5

    distrust03
    The Central Issue of Our Civilization

    These posts explore a précis I did of George Marshall’s book Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired To Ignore Climate Change (2014), starting 20170122. Much of the information disheartens me, but it also clarifies the possibility of better outcome.

    Chapter 31. Precedents and presidents. How climate policy lost the plot. The issue of climate change emerged at the time of unusual optimism, when there were three very recent precedents of proven success and international cooperation: reduction of nuclear arms, reduction of ozone-depleting chemicals, and reduction of acid rain pollution. All were resolved with improved technology. In retrospect, these issues had such strong metaphorical similarities to climate change that policymakers failed to notice the glaring and important differences — the differences between solvable tame problems and multifactorial wicked problems. Unfortunately, these precedents were of an entirely more manageable scale than climate change. As with all frames, these precedents focused the attention, and defined the areas of disattention — thus, climate change could be defined entirely and exclusively is a problem of gases.

    Precedents can be unintended disinformation. Only very slowly is our culture coming to recognize the complexity of climate disruption, especially the issues that relate to cultural maturity — my stance that global warming is not a technological issue; rather it arises from the underpinning of our civilization.

    Chapter 32. Wellhead and tailpipe. Why we keep fueling the fire we want to put old. From the very beginning, fossil fuel production was outside the frame of climate change. The focus on tailpipe gases ignored wellhead production, including exploration and development. Because climate change is multivalent and wicked, it can have multiple interpretations, but exists only in the frame that people choose to have.

    Climate disruption is much more than a greenhouse gas issue. How blind we are to our own follies!

    Chapter 33. The black gooey stuff. Why oil companies await our permission to go out of business. The social construction of risk generates CRAP (a.k.a. compulsive risk assessment psychosis). This allows the fossil fuel industry to focus on the future development of technology, especially Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), as a solution to global warming — the optimism of technology and consumerism.

    Again, our blindness.

    Chapter 34. Moral imperatives. How we diffuse responsibility for climate change. The use of passive voice allows confusion of responsibility. Obfuscation allows governments to create the impression that something is being done, while simultaneously preventing anything from happening.

    And unfortunately, some of the blindness occurs by deliberately putting on dark glasses.

    Chapter 35. What did you do in the great climate work, daddy? Why we don’t really care what our children think. Professionals assume that their privileged position in the world will immunize their children from the worst impacts of climate change. The choice to have children compels those who have children to write a narrative around climate change in which the overall prognosis becomes more optimistic, their own emissions become less significant, they become less vulnerable, and they accept a world of extreme inequality of future outcomes on their behalf.

    Wow. Our biases come to the surface in many diverse ways, especially moved by moralistic slogans.

    Chapter 36. The power of one. How climate change became your fault. Climate change is unique in that our individual contributions can be measured down to the last gram; no other global issue has this characteristic. In reality, the promotion of personal responsibility was a narrative gambit to define climate change as a problem that lay at the very furthest end of the tailpipe in the purchasing decisions of the individual. Creating personal responsibility leads to blame and resentment. It is conservatives who have the greatest moral emphasis on personal responsibility; and it is liberal individualists, with their highly individualized values, who are actually the group least suited to working together for a shared goal. Small changes in lifestyle lend license to tomorrow, justifying excess in other areas. What is needed is the power of all, not the power of one.

    Guilt is not an effective motivator. There are so many different factors in the way in which narrative is received, and these factors vary from group to group. My experience over the years is that what motivates people is a sense that they can do something in a way that is successful; unfortunately, the super-wicked nature of global warming is such that it will always be two steps forward, and three backwards, and only occasionally will it be four steps forward, perhaps to long-term success. This is not a recipe for engagement.

    Chapter 37. Degrees of separation. How climate experts cope with what they know. They cope as human beings, with all the anxieties and inconsistencies of each of us.

    As Pogo said: “We have found the enemy. And he is us!” The only way I myself have managed is to bracket my issues. Human like the rest of us.

    To be continued.

  • Donald Trump — Endless Possibilities

    civildisobedience2

    Donald Trump — the possibilities are endless (from dangerous strong man to major statesman — see below).

    However, given:

    • that Donald Trump is soon to be inaugurated as US President, and
    • the intelligence report jointly released on 2017 January 6th by US intelligence services (jointly by the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA) indicating illegal activities in the electoral program by the Russian government, and
      • possibly with the collaboration of the President-elect,

    there is a growing movement in the United States (and abroad):

    • to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of Donald Trump as President of the United States, and
    • to insist upon a full and comprehensive investigation of these illegal activities.

    For example, US Congressman John Lewis has recently stated publically that Trump is not a legitimate President. Another example is this blog post from Jim Garrison, President of Ubiquity University, promoting an important petition. (I totally agree with all that Jim states in this latter example — see below for another post by Jim.)

    One outcome of such investigations could be the potential impeachment of the President, followed by a government more in alignment with the dangers we face from global warming. Whether such movement will have this impact is unclear, but from my perspective, at the very least, they will assist in legitimizing the electoral process. Given the chaos of this process last year, such legitimization is essential.

    Potentially these processes are also the beginning of non-violent civil disobedience, both as regards maturation of our culture and for their impact on global warming. Given that I do not know of other healthier processes, I hope that this is the case.

    Yet, the inauguration of Donald Trump could be transformational in a positive sense — greatness is within his grasp. Here, Jim Garrison has also written a brilliant summary of what Trump could accomplish if he has the maturity to transform from strong man to statesman.

    We live in such interesting times!

  • A Number of Interesting Articles

    technology7
    Technology: dazzling, but distracting

    There have been a number of interesting articles have come across my desk in the past few months (some technological, one on civil disobedience), so I thought I would describe them briefly. I recommend that the interested reader explore them all from the original sources listed.

    First, some fascinating technological results:

    20161128 A way to turn our carbon emissions into rock

    As regular readers of this blog will likely know, I do not accept that global warming is a technological issue. However, we have been so resistant to deal with the problem, that our major current need requires technological solutions. Most importantly, we need to stop the production of the greenhouse gas sources of climate disruption. And at this stage, we likely also will need ways in which to safely remove carbon dioxide (amongst other gases) from the atmosphere; most of the possible means of geoengineering a cooler planet as simply too unexplored, and consequently of high risk to unexpected, and dangerous, outcomes.

    This article describes a process that is still in the developmental stages, but likely can be safely scaled up to global levels for safe permanent removal. Unfortunately, part of the developmental process is currently through the US Department of Energy, and thus will likely require approval by the new Trump administration.

    20170109 The Vertical Farm

    One of the major needs of our growing world population will be reliable food production. This article describes a fascinating process, utilizing aeroponic farming (more efficient than hydroponic) in vertical layers, again likely one that can be scaled to global levels. To quote from the article:

    a complex of two hundred buildings, each twenty stories high and measuring eighty feet by fifty feet at its base, situated in some wide-open outlying spot . . . could grow enough vegetables and rice to feed everybody who will be living in New York City in the year 2050.

    The footprint of such an buildings would only be a few city blocks, yet provide food for many millions. Amazing. (Incidentally, typical of The New Yorker, there are a number of cartoons scattered throughout the article. Enjoy.)

    20170111 Your Breakfast Is About to Take a Weird Turn

    Again in the line of food production, this article describes some of the many ways in which genetically-modified organisms are contributing to our culture. Although I have some reservations concerning GMO processes (the underlying safety is still poorly explored — but for me it will take several hundred years to have adequate information; I also recognize that modern technology offers fascinating opportunities.

    GMO yeast are now able to produce what is likely to be an adequate “milk,” with 98% less water consumption and 65% fewer greenhouse gas emissions. It remains to be seen as to what such substitutes will offer, but as indicated earlier, it is one of the fascinating technological advances that may offer considerable relief of the consequences of our culture.

    Now some comments.

    From my perspective, the problem of technology is that it is both potentially part of the solution and part of the problem. Modern technology is both dazzling, and distracting from the issues with which we need to deal.

    Even one hundred years ago, many major philosophers (Bredyeav, Ellul, Lewis — see my book Acedia for details) recognized that technology was dehumanizing and took on a life of its own, distracting from the issues of how to have a mature culture. Even at its best, technology is a means to reduce greenhouse gases, perhaps also to reduce cultural impact in other ways — but technology does not manage our incessant need for consumer products, nor over-population. On the force field of change, technology moves us away from negativity, but does not move us to a vision of who or how we want to be as a culture.

    A final reference, then, on some cultural movement — an interview with several individuals who are engaged in civil disobedience, to which I append an open letter to former President Obama written by one of these individuals.

    We have a choice as to how we live our values. As indicated earlier, I believe that civil disobedience is a necessary exploration in our current cultural psychosis.

     

  • Civil Disobedience

    civildisobedience1

    One of the issues I am pondering these days is that of civil disobedience. The central issue is that of how to respond to a breach of law when the law goes along with the breach. As such, if we are to resolve our cultural dilemma of climate disruption, we must deal with the negative forces that are leading to global warming. In particular, we must recognize that these negative forces are currently poised in the dominator roles of our culture. These powers are in the position to mandate the continuance of:

    1. consumerism,
    2. the military-industrial complex, and
    3. the fossil fuel industry

    via legal means, imposed by government forces which are in alignment with these forces; it also means that to resist these forces often requires stepping outside the bounds of legality. To oppose these forces thus requires some form of civil disobedience.

    Such disobedience can be placed on a spectrum between sabotage and non-violent civil disobedience (NVCD). Much has been written on NVCD, the earliest being the play Antigone by Sophocles (5th century BCE). The modern writings on NVCD have mainly begun with Thoreau in [On the Duty of] Civil Disobedience, 1848. Thoreau was essentially questioning the distinction between legality and justice, wherein:

    It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do what I think right. . . . Law never made men a whit more just; and by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.

    There is much to be explored in Thoreau’s writing, but essentially he was an advocate of NVCD when government and legal systems were acting in ways that are unjust. His primary suggestions, as elucidated by Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr, were to:

    • use only moral or legal means to oppose unjust law
      • boycotting, picketing, blocking traffic, non-violent resistance, non-payment of taxes
    • first make an effort to bring about change through legal means
      • work within the system before and during
    • be open and public about actions
      • the disobedience must be fully revealed and public
    • be willing to accept the consequences of such actions
      • prison, fines, deportation, loss of job, social disapproval

    The intention behind NVCD is to induce shame in the dominator by highlighting the discordance between legality and justice. The difficulty is that these processes are slow to induce social change: witness the years required before the British Empire released India from colonialization (Gandhi), or the years of societal demonstration before significant reduction of racial inequality (Martin Luther King Jr). The major difficulty with NVCD in regard to global warming is that we probably do not have time for slow resolution; we are too close to the edge of irreversible global catastrophe.

    Sabotage, on the other hand, is usually illegal, likely violent or violating, action engaged in secretly, and often such that the perpetrators attempt to avoid the personal consequences of their actions. While sabotage might be somewhat satisfying to the perpetrators, I am not sure it does anything other than anger the recipients, and provide a justification on the part of the dominator for the suppression of any kind of civil disobedience.

    In this regard, I have been networking with a group of individuals who seek to offer protection services for groups that engage in civil demonstration, with the purpose being to maintain the principles of NVCD wherein these protest rallies occur. I believe that such protection service is very important, providing safety for all — but it is very easy for individuals to become provocative, or for spectators to provoke, which then leads to antagonistic responses. In particular in the Vancouver area, it appears that a number of neo-Nazi groups are now attempting to be provocative in just this fashion.

    Even for the people who offer such protection services, there is a range of responses. Some say that actions such as sabotage can be done without danger to those who simply practice of NVCD. I totally disagree with this — I doubt that the dominator society makes this distinction, and it is likely that if sabotage occurs at the same time as NVCD, repressive responses will be imposed on all, not just the saboteurs.

    So, what to do? I do not know. What is fundamentally needed is a massive mobilization of the general populous towards all types of civil disobedience, but forty years of attempting this on the part of many parties has been largely unsuccessful. Sooner or later, enough angst from environmental devastation will occur, but likely it will then be too late.

    Sad!

  • It Does Not Yet Appear What We Shall Be

    Acedia1
    It’s all too much.

    It is so difficult to coordinate my thoughts; I am still grieving the consequences of the election of Donald Trump as future President of the United States. It is so challenging, and unexpected (and yet so expected, given what I know about emotional process). It also is a disaster as regards the management of global warming.

    Pertinent responses by others include:

    The best metaphor I have encountered regarding this situation is that this is the Pearl Harbor of our times. And if I truly accept this, it ultimately means either civil war, military coup, or world war. Sooner or later, one of these is likely to be the outcome as the Trump Organization pushes its brand of tyranny.

    Alternatively, it might mean maturity of our species, if we can see beyond the struggle for power. Aside from the huge outcry that is occurring in the many other responses I have seen, I have always maintained that global warming is not a technological issue; it is a symptom of our immaturity as a species. As such, the long-term impact of this election and the consequences are yet to be determined.

    In any event, two things stand out for me:

    • tyranny is not responsive to rationality; the needed response is that of self-differentiation, and
    • in the tradition of the Chinese curse, we are living in interesting times.

    =========================

    I am currently reading George Marshall’s Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired To Ignore Climate Change (2014, New York, NY: Bloomsbury). It is offering me some fascinating insights into the difficulty of response to these kinds of issues. I will be commenting on it further in the next few posts.

     

     

  • The State Of The World

    sadness3
    Sadness, perhaps despair, perhaps giving up.

    I’ve been away a lot in the past six weeks, and have not been doing blog entries. And now that I am back, it is time to reflect on the state of the world.

    • First I am deeply saddened by the US election results — it almost certainly means the end of our civilization, if not the end for our species. Given the political situation, the likelihood for resolving global warming is poor.
      • As a result, I find it very difficult to write much at present. I’m still processing, mainly at an other-than-conscious level.
    • I encourage you to look at two YouTube videos, both rather dry and factual, but with up-to-date good data:

    To reiterate, although it seems a small change, the danger of exceeding 1.5°C is that of run-away positive feedback loops, the risk rising as the temperature rises. As Peter notes, we must start eliminating fossil fuels NOW — we have delayed too long already.

    And if the campaign promises of the US election hold true, the US will continue on a course of action that spells disaster, socially and environmentally (see Here’s Everything Donald Trump Has Promised to Do on His First Day as President, for example). Even the present Paris Accord is inadequate; for the US to exit from this (likely), we will have many more years of argument rather than moving in a safer direction — whether or not even that would actually be safe is very uncertain.

  • What Will It Take To Recognize Danger

    ClimateStatus
    The Dangers of Climate Change

    The latest estimates of carbon utilization show that we are over-budget regardless of what we do regarding new sources of fossil fuels.

    We are still playing with fire!

    A new study from Oil Change International reveals how we are doing so. Bill McKibben [comments on]: Trudeau can’t charm his way around the mathematics of climate change, reflecting on The Sky’s Limit: Why the Paris Climate Goals Require a Managed Decline of Fossil Fuel Production (a 20160922 summary of a downloadable pdf article available as a link at this site).

    The key findings:

    • The potential carbon emissions from the oil, gas, and coal in the world’s currently operating fields and mines would take us beyond 2°C of warming.
    • The reserves in currently operating oil and gas fields alone, even with no coal, would take the world beyond 1.5°C.
    • With the necessary decline in production over the coming decades to meet climate goals, clean energy can be scaled up at a corresponding pace, expanding the total number of energy jobs.

    As such, McKibben points out the duplicity of the Canadian government in its current fossil fuel plans; it simply is not compatible with a healthy world, despite the rhetoric of the Paris goals.

    And McKibben is not even as aggressive in his suggestions of “war-time mobilization” as is The Climate Mobilization of which I am an advocate.

    What will it take for a wide-spread demand for effective responses? More super-storms? A national/international catastrophe? Likely Canada will not act until the USA acts.

    At this time in history, we need states-persons, not politicians! States-persons look to what is needed in the future (not simply what is wanted); politicians look to the next election!

  • Being A Resource Seeking A Need, Part 3

    contribution6
    The difficulty is to match the pieces.

    In these posts, I am exploring the impact of retirement, that of being a resource looking for a need. Potentially, retirement (re-attire-ment) is a change to a new direction in my life. It is an interesting exploration, but because of the difficulty of finding a new way to be a resource, it is not very satisfying. However, as always, life is in evolution.

    In the last post, I indicated that up until the 1980s, therapy was a field that varied from brilliance to abusive. In my own work, I strived to practice the brilliance. Therapy itself is about risking — the client was/is generally seeking resolution of major life issues, wherein there is no set pattern or protocol. At the same time, the client is always intent (at an other-than-conscious level) on avoiding this life issues — because of the pain they represent.

    My job as therapist was often to be supportive while at the same time, in metaphoric fashion, I was setting a trap that reproduced the difficulty with which the client struggled. The traps challenged the client to be authentic, and to find creative resolution to the issues. Sometimes the work was very gentle, but at other times, it could be very confronting. Yet always I was seeking authenticity of experience. As therapist, I would often risk as much as the client, wherein the traps I set could have been misinterpreted by an outside observer. But I worked well, and many people wanted to work with me.

    Overall, I practiced under the radar. The field of therapy was becoming much more regulated, and risk aversive. On several occasions, the ways in which I worked with people were challenged by hierarchies, and I was able to successfully defend myself. But I was aware that I was gradually restricting the ways in which I worked with people. Still good work, but … (defensive driving is generally a good thing, but defensive therapy is not).

    I actually wrote my first book Blowing Out The Darkness as a result of this. One day, I received an unsolicited email advertisement from someone who claimed that they had the best anger management program in North America. But in the body of the text, it also said that the methodology was not effective for the “more hardened characters.” I took offense at this, and said to myself “Bull. My process is effective!” I was also aware of the arrogance of the email, discounting the “more hardened characters” because the program was ineffective. Hence, my book.

    Thus, I was able to contribute in ways that were very satisfying to me. In many respects, these years were the happiest and most satisfying of any in my life.

    As well, during my career as therapist, I attempted on a number of occasions to take my work to a higher level, to a larger audience, but for reasons that still elude me, I was unsuccessful. Opportunities arose to work with the Canadian Army, the American Army, Air Canada, and a number of other organizations but always they faded. People said they liked my work and my book, and that they would get back to me, but somehow they didn’t. Perhaps someone criticized me in the background, or perhaps people wanted more of a quick fix. And again, people have busy lives — that was the explanation given in a few cases.

    I also did my PhD from this perspective. Again, I wanted to take my work to a higher level, and I thought that by getting back into an academic environment, I would find a way to network more effectively. I also wanted to research the issues that had limited me as a therapist, those of laziness and fearfulness.

    To be continued.

  • The Current Status of Global Warming

    ClimateChange4
    We are at war, and we are losing.

    For a recent excellent review of the current status of global warming, go to Scientists Sound Alarm on Climate but US Still Toys With Skepticism. in Truthout by Dahr Jamail (20161003). I recommend it, but it is also very discouraging. Sad!