We missed a chance we never really had

We have missed our chance.

Well, not really for we never, in fact, had a chance.

Rachel Carson wrote
'Silent Spring' warning
us that our
 capricious wants were
damaging the earth.

Humanity is headed in precisely the wrong direction for rather than improving the values under which humans flourish, they are worsening.

Inequality is greater now than ever; fewer people than ever control the world’s wealth, be that economic or material; class distinctions are greater than ever; and peace is more distant than ever.

What exists and the choices offered on Saturday, is and were contrary to what is needed if society is to thrive and arrive at a point from which we can build resilience.

A friend argues that “what” is without substance or reason until we understand the “how”; demonstrable realities, both big and small, refute that view, illustrating that until we understand “what” we want, “how” is hollow and irrational.

What we need is to escape from the environmentally destructive rigours of the corporatocracy that has routed democracy and in which the economy is sacrosanct, while the wellbeing of people is seemingly irrelevant.

We live in a world in which authoritarian or totalitarian governments are eschewed, but that is exactly the guise under which most of the world’s corporations and other successful businesses operate.

Solidarity and success for them comes through a command and control system, which, beyond a few rare instances and the constructed guise of democracy, are effectively despotic with an allegiance only to profit and growth.

Donella Meadows
told us about
the realities
of the 'Limits
to Growth'.

Rachel Carson, warned us in her 1962 book “Silent Spring” of how our industrial way of life was destroying nature at an alarming rate and a decade later, a team led by Donella Meadows, wrote and published “The Limits to Growth.

Carson and Meadows were castigated by the business as usual brigade, but the authors told truths, which today are being realised with the added complication that the ceaseless and careless burning of fossil fuels has damaged our climate to the extent that civilization itself is under threat.

Professor David Karoly from the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne recently warned at Swanpool that immediate cessation of our carbon dioxide emissions was our only hope of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

No option on Saturday offered anything remotely like that, in fact quite the reverse, and so now it falls upon us to gather under the umbrella of intergenerational responsibility and bond with those who want to preserve people rather than profit.

What do we do? We acknowledge that not all is not as is should be and that the promises that influenced our vote on Saturday will do naught to ease the situation; and stand and work with those mostly volunteer groups that aim to build resilient communities able to endure an unfolding age of scarcity.

Where are we now? What do we do? What do we want?

Our politicians, regardless of philosophy, right or left, or anywhere else on the political spectrum, appear disconnected from reality.

Albert Einstein - doing
the same thing and
 expecting a different
 result equates with
insanity.

The Greens are probably closest to being in the moment, but because we live in a liberal democracy, they too are powerless to make the changes needed if humanity is to flourish.

The voting process is a vital and if nothing else is a symbol that the idea of democracy is still intact and so whatever we may think or imagine, vote we must and vote we should.

We cannot ignore the September 7 election and hope that something will change, for doing nothing and expecting a different result echoes with the Albert Einstein observation that insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results.

So where are we now?

The world is in environmental, economic and resource disarray; food security for billions is a fantasy, happiness for an equal number rests with the fluff of consumerism, peace is always seemingly out of reach, and history, both ancient and contemporary, clearly illustrates that it is the rich, and responsible men, who decide on our future.

Interestingly the status quo, which has been, and is, the engine behind this shambles with which the world community presently wrestles, has many influential advocates, while the future is abandoned largely to silence and chance.

The future is an unknown place for no-one has ever been there, but our behaviour today is the building blocks from which tomorrow is constructed.

Sadly, most candidates on September 7 offer little or nothing to enable us to break the status quo shackles that bind us to a profit and growth paradigm that is destined only for chaos and disaster.

What do we do?

We need wake-up and arise from our entertainment induced slumber and understand that we are not powerless, rather not accepting responsibility and being powerless are either side of the one coin and so in accepting responsibility, we become powerful.

Our politicians, right, left or otherwise, must, beyond anything else, accept responsibility for the broad ethical, inequality and societal collapse that have engulfed Australia, and pressure from a responsible electorate, that is you and me, will force that attitudinal change.

What do we want?

We want acceptance and understanding from our government that all is not well with the world; we want them to acknowledge and act on the fact that our climate is in grave danger; we want them to also acknowledge that our economy is collapsing and can only be rescued through the implementation of a steady state economy; we want the decentralization of all services; the localization of food supplies; we want them to re-shape how we live, making traditional work less important; and to create and build resilient communities.

We don't need a new government, we need new and improved governance

Rather than a new government, Australia needs new and improved governance.

"Surviving the Century" - writings
 about what we will need to
 do to survive the 21st Century.

All the options open to us on September 7 are about more of the same and even a casual look at history illustrates that the liberal democracy of modern Australia is both regressive and inadequate, just as are their counterparts around the world.

The classical Greek philosopher, Plato, argued that democracy’s natural evolution was to that of an authoritarian government.

Australia has what by name is a democracy, but which in practice is an authoritarian government; a government which is manipulated by the elites for the elites making a lie of lie of Abraham Lincoln’s observation: “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

The most pressing problem facing Australia, and the world, is the constant corrosion of our climate, a dilemma that no liberal democracy anywhere in the world is able to address for it is deep in the embrace of the corporations’ “responsible men”.

Looked at closely and dispassionately, liberal democracies everywhere are beholden to corporate power and are subsequently powerless to stop the environmental degradation big business rains down upon us in the name of progress, profit and growth.

What is presently known as a liberal democracy is little more than a corporate puppet: its survival is intimately implicated in and dependent upon big business whose only responsibility is to ensuring a profit for its shareholders, with scant regard for the earth’s biosphere and or its finitude.

The externalities of business, being the environment upon which our survival depends, is not considered in any agreement and so what is known as “the commons” (our atmosphere, oceans and soils) along with every example of our flora and fauna, is left in a degraded condition.

Liberal democracy is a fine idea, but its corruption and distortion has littered the journey from conception to reality and so now what exists is a sliver of what was intended.

Discussing humanity’s survival in his book, “Surviving the Century: Facing Climate Chaos and Other Global Challenges” Herbert Girardet wrote: “If we embark on this, the most difficult journey humanity has ever undertaken, with the steering wheel still in the hands of the limited-liability corporations mandated to maximise profits, then we will never arrive”.  

The world’s corporations have liberal democracy in a choke hold and with this form of governance about to draw its last breath, those of us who value decency, fairness and truth, and who are eager to leave the world in a state in which our children and grandchildren, and their children, might flourish, need to step-up and do all they can to dilute the power and influence of those whose oxygen is growth, profit and dominance.  

PM's needs answered, mine drown in a veil of tears

Maybe Kevin Rudd has appeased his political needs, but mine have been drowned in a veil of tears.

Australia's PM, Kevin Rudd.

The present PM has declared this September 7 federal election will be about who can be trusted to handle the economy while protecting jobs.

“Handling” the economy, in traditional terms, is about more of the same and, frankly, that is exactly what Australia, and the world, does not need.

Contemporary behaviours illustrate that whoever is in charge, irrespective of which modern political philosophy they adhere to, Australia’s future, including that of the world, is far from comforting.

We need innovation; we need a government that understands the imperfections of democracy; we need a government that is cognitive of what a “full world” means; we need a government that has the courage to step back from those traditional mantras of growth, profit and jobs; and we need a government that will work to dismantle a mercantile, consumer-lead and driven way of life; a government which will build communities that are resilient and more relaxed about sharing and embracing the civility that is the rock of a society that clearly values the welfare of people ahead of profit.

Such ideals have nil chance of finding a foothold for the public, that is you and me, have been convinced that we can only flourish, both individually and as a community, if we have more: more profit, more growth and more stuff.

Profit, growth and stuff are all seriously problematic just as are the choices before us for next month’s election, for they are not truly options, rather simply alternatives from the business as usual spectrum.

September 7 is a democratic façade for no matter for whom we cast our vote, what exists will continue and the unfolding difficulties we face will continue to irritate us.

So, what do we do?

First up, we vote and then whatever the outcome we remain engaged; we write letters to the editor; talk with those elected to represent us; we align ourselves with others sympathetic to our views; we help others understand how and why they should remain engaged to rescue our country from the savaging and exhortations of those who imagine nirvana, along with the flourishing of our communities, is to be found in more of the same – it is clearly not.

The favoured few who understood the recipe have profited handsomely, but with the world tumbling into serious climatic difficulties; a rapidly unravelling economic superstructure; and violence expanding unabated as poverty and hunger march across the world, we each need to step up and engage to rebuild, reshape and renew democracy.

Your responsibility as a citizen does not end on September 7, putting your mark on the ballot paper is just the beginning.

 

 

Human construct stands between us and mitigating climate change

A human construct is what stands between us and moving toward mitigating human-induced climate change.

Humanity is surrounded
by an economy that was
once our servant, but
 now is now our master.

Humans, bit by bit, piece by piece have built an economy that now straddles the globe and while it was at first our servant, it has now, through the apparent fault of no-one, become our master.

The economy has been elevated to God-like status and to suggest anything likely to unseat it, borders on blasphemy and brings accusations of ignorance, naivety and even stupidity, arguing that such foolishness is a misunderstanding of what it is that gives humanity sustenance.

Such allegations arise from an addiction to the paradigm in which the world economy is embedded and with most governments, whether they be liberal democracies, communistic, despotic regimes, religion-based democratic facades or something of any other flavour, bowing before the might of money, to suggest something different is not only decried, but considered grossly irresponsible.

Humanity, or at least some of it, has been fortunate to escape from the daily trepidations of the hunter and gatherer life; something that has been achieved through the construction of an economy which has, in many ways served us well, but at the same time has ignored the subtle beauties of life; beauties that are sadly irrelevant to the simplistic brutalities of the economy.

Growth, a code word for exploitation, has seen man excavate the world’s ancient sunlight, and in the past two or three centuries use the fossil fuels we discovered with a rude rush of exuberance to see all the available environmental sinks on the earth filled to over-capacity, disrupting the earth’s atmosphere to create disarray in the world’s climate to manifest weather patterns with which humans are unfamiliar.

That unfamiliarity is of such a dimension that the future of humanity, along with most other species with which it shares the planet, is problematic.

The time for action is already a few decades past and certain weather related difficulties cannot be avoided, but it is time to bury our concerns about the world economy and change our rhetoric to align it with ideals that are about equality, philanthropy, altruism, sharing, kindness and an understanding of the other to ensure that life on earth can endure.

The world’s economy has evolved in such a way that the distribution of wealth is disturbingly wrong in that about 15 per cent of the population controls 80 per cent of the wealth and nearly half the population less than two per cent.

The economy has served a few on earth well, disadvantaged more and if we are unable to rein it in and return it to again being the servant, as opposed to a master, then climate change will continue its march to a rather gloomy conclusion.

 

The world needs more than thoughts and words

The thoughts of a friend and the words of a writer suggest more Australians should be aware that we live in the political slums of mediocrity.

Anthony Giddens
 book, "The
Politics of
Climate Change".

Shepparton’s Alan English just recently said, “The present political noise over asylum people is a great distraction from (the) lack of policy on essential services, not to mention climate change which is being put in the too hard basket.”

Alan did not mention “the political slums of mediocrity” and nor did Anthony Giddens in his book “The Politics of Climate Change”, but both were suggesting we inhabit something of political shantytown in which the poverty of considered thought is rife.

Alan, who is among those who gather Beneath the Wisteria each month in Shepparton, is another concerned about the quality of discussion among our politicians and often writes to our local representatives airing his disquiet.

The arrival of Alan’s note coincided with the reading Giddens’ observations about the inadequacies of present day pugnacious politics in addressing the most overwhelmingly difficult problem the world community has ever faced – climate change.

Writing in his book, “The Politics of Climate Change”, the British sociologist, who has been a prolific writer, said: “One should remember that global warming is no ordinary risk. It is an awesome prospect to acknowledge that, as collective humanity, we are on the verge of altering the world’s climate, perhaps in a profound manner.”

Giddens argues that the complexity and implications of climate change exceed anything we might consider normal and so any worthwhile response supplants the usual political paradigm.

Any success we might have in countering the evolving climatic changes that will bring an array of extreme weather events, hinges on us stepping beyond our usual confrontational and point-scoring politics to reach a concordant style through which humanity can muster its resources to address a climate that is quickly slipping beyond that which is adequate for human survival.

Giddens talks about the need for societal planning at a state level, aware that such is an anathema to many, but feels a workable solution depends upon us intellectually, emotionally and physically crossing ideological boundaries.

“Responding to climate change will prompt and require innovation in government itself and in the relation between the state, the markets and civil society,” Giddens wrote.

He writes: ‘It is normal and acceptable for political parties to claim that they, rather than their opponents, are the one to turn to for firm action on global warming.

“Yet beyond a certain area, and beyond the rhetoric of immediate party politics, there has to be agreement that the issue is so important that the usual party conflicts are largely suspended or muted”.

Rather than thoughts and words we need innovative society-wide alliances free of political pretence.

 

Desperate people need help, not a cold-shoulder

I'm uncertain why people object with such vigour to new arrivals, but oddly understand it perfectly.

We need to work
 together and share.

Humans, that is you and me, are tribal by nature and inherently suspicious of any newcomer who treads upon our territory.

The complications of new arrivals have lately filled our media leaving the world with the impression that we are jingoistic and hostile and so reluctant to share our largesse with anyone not of our "tribe".

The time is past, if it ever existed, when we could shunt people off to some remote island, rather than reconsider our societal structure and make these desperate people useful members of our community.

Obviously someone from a different culture will see life in a way with which we are unfamiliar, but rather than sidestep our responsibilities and humanity, and turn to the Australian tradition to give them a "fair go".

Most, it is known fear not so much a new idea, in this case asylum seekers, rather letting go of a known and understood tradition with which they are familiar and comfortable.

Those seeking asylum are obviously of a different culture and so view life through a markedly dissimilar prism than those already here and who are embedded in the traditional Australian way.

Declarations that we should “turn back the boats” or decisions that those same people should never make it to the Australian mainland and so be redirected to Papua New Guinea are simplistic political responses from a now dead era that pamper to a misinformed and shallow electorate.

The world is full, and will become even tighter until our number begins to plateau this century at about nine or 10 billion and so if we consider ourselves responsible world citizens then we should be prepared to make room on the bus.

Writing in his 2013 book, “Population 10 Billion”, Professor Danny Dorling said: “Humans can be at their most inhumane when they use geographical borders to define how other humans can be treated”.

We enjoy something of a privileged life in Australia as it is safe, economically secure and those traits engender a sense of hope and if nothing else we should be flattered that others in the world see it as somewhere worth fleeing to.

It is simply mean-spirited and child-like to want to keep it all for ourselves for as humanity is catapulted into a wholly different paradigm with the finitude of our finite world tightening its choker-hold and the certainties of our uncertain climate evolving to become pressing realities, survival will mean sharing.

Asylum seekers should not be sent to Papua New Guinea, rather we should be integrating them in our society, managing their arrival with intelligence and compassion, and sharing what we have.