The Switch has Been Flipped: It's Too Late For Solutions

...

No one who asks "What can I do?" really wants an answer-at least not a real answer. For this reason, the charade of political candidates, elections, and the corporate media that guarantees the success of that particular con game has hypnotically entranced the electorate who overwhelmingly prefer to remain delusional. The majority take little interest in the candidates anyway, perceiving them as yet another group of celebrities. Yet even more delusional are those who call themselves progressive. These individuals are desperate to keep the show on the road and sanction its validity, and they are the ones who least want to know the answer to "What can I do?" because of what it would cost them. Consequently, they must preoccupy themselves with "solutions" that have nothing to do with the actual state of the earth and its inhabitants but which offer a false sense of making a difference. When I think of them, I cannot help but note that as the Titanic was sinking it would have made no difference if hundreds of its passengers had collected endless buckets of water the ship had taken on and emptied it back into the sea, but it may have provided them with a momentary sense of participating in a "solution."

...

At the same time that I'm pleading for the end of "solution obsession", I'm suggesting re-focusing on options. We cannot "solve" the issues of climate change, energy depletion, species die-off, global pandemics, global government, or the rampant proliferation of fascism. For those awaiting a mass awakening or mass resistance, I fear you wait in vain. We would be hard-pressed to find any population in the history of the human race that is as comatose as that of the United States in this moment. In my opinion, focusing on "mass" anything is the opposite of where our attention must be, namely, local and community survival. Notice, I did not say local "solutions" but rather, survival.

...

"What can I do?" is not only not useful, it could actually get you dead.

...

more at http://carolynbaker.net/site/content/view/203/

Plus the five things you can do, not to "solve" the problem, but simply to survive.

Yet even more delusional are those who call themselves progressive. These individuals are desperate to keep the show on the road and sanction its validity, and they are the ones who least want to know the answer to "What can I do?" because of what it would cost them. Consequently, they must preoccupy themselves with "solutions" that have nothing to do with the actual state of the earth and its inhabitants but which offer a false sense of making a difference.

while we, ourselves, obsess over the biggest fake Reality Show of them all: U.S. Politics.

The plutocrats who rule don't mind a bit that we distract ourselves with "politics". It's harmless, to them, and distracts us from actually DOING anything. Silly humans. So easily lead astray; so easily convinced that their particular theatrical/political obsession actually matters. It doesn't. Who gets elected in 2008 matters about as much as Brittney's latest DUI. It's all political theater to lull the masses into thinking we matter. We don't. The plutocrats will stay in charge no matter who we "elect".

Kabuki theater, to quote nadinbresinski.

Speaking of old fiziwig: As Christmas approaches, and A Christmas Carol dominates the airwaves as it always does (or maybe the Bushigandists at the various networks will begin phasing it out now as bad PR), think about how identical the Bushievik Philosophy is to Scrooge's.

Literally, and with scarcely any exaggerating required. I mean...

Are their no prisons? Are there no workshouses? My taxes pay for those institutions, and that is enough.

Well, if they are going to die then let them die, and decrease the surplus population.

It would make a helluva skit for Mad TV or SNL.

... because of what it would cost you?

Science is about making the best guess we can. It's been clearly demonstrated that (for example) the latest best guess by the IPCC has not been entirely accurate.

We cannot know with certainty that we are doomed.

Compare it to "Pascal's Wager."

• If we try to do something, and we're successful beyond our expectations; then we can rejoice!
• If we try to do something, and it turns out that it wasn't sufficient; then at least we will have tried.
• If we don't try to do something, and the current best guesses are accurate; then we may all die miserable deaths.
• If we don't try to do something, and some years from now, we realize that if we had, we might have been able to make things better, how tragic would that be?

that it may be too late to undo the damage. In a little over 100 years we have raised atmospheric carbon from around 200 ppb to almost 400 ppb. Nature's carbon sinks, the rain forests, the oceans and the permafrost have been overwhelmed to the point that burning forests and melting tundra are now adding to atmospheric carbon, rather than absorbing it. Our own addition to atmospheric carbon is accelerating, as China and India industrialize, rather than declining. If we could effect a planet wide cut of 50% in carbon output (fat chance), the forces already set in motion might still be irreversible. We're on the proverbial slippery slope, and we're picking up speed. Momentum is not on our side.

Now, let's take an example:

Assuming that even remnants of humanity survive, energy sources will come in handy. We've gotten pretty handy at employing electricity for various purposes.

Switching our electricity to relatively easily maintained sources (like wind turbines and solar panels) makes sense today, as a way of reducing our carbon footprint, but they also make sense as a legacy to be left to the future.

True, both will degrade, and will eventually need to be replaced, but I think a future (presumably) energy-poor society will be much more likely to be able to maintain them than something like a fission reactor.

What if we are able to save ourselves, or even just a remnant? Wouldn't that be worth the effort?

Her point appears to be that it is unrealistic to believe that catastrophic climate change can be prevented. So you should take actions to focus on how you will survive the climate change.

increases, we're going to lose significant parts of our technology. You can't crank out photo-voltaic panels in a blacksmith shop. If social networks and commercial supply chains break down our ability to produce high tech goods will be seriously degraded.

AS to what we can do, at a broader level, Al Gore and Richard Branson have apparently offered a cash prize to anyone who figures out a way to remove large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere. That would be the high tech miracle that might avert the worst aspects of the crisis. Failing that, the carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere now is going to be keeping us toasty warm for the next 200,000 years.

On a local level, we should probably be restructuring our society to prepare for what's coming. The current drought in the southeastern US ought to serve as a warning shot. So should Katrina and it's aftermath. Anyone who thinks they can arm themselves, fort up and ride it out is delusional. Our hope lies in a communal effort

Amen! :toast: