What can we do?
The question is often asked about the environment and what some feel (including this writer) is an emergency upon us even right now: what can we do? Some of the measures that are being proposed are great stop gaps (e.g. carbon tax) that ideally will lead us in the right direction but perhaps don't totally afford us the true long term vision we need to fully address this problem and in the process hopefully lead to survival of humanity. The difficult truth that we have to get to, alluded to in this interview recently, is a difficult question of population. “This is a topic most environmental groups won’t touch,” Weisman said, but of course they need to. And with that some of my thoughts on solutions:
1. Humanity needs to break free of old, outdated models of nation-states when it comes to the most pressing problems affecting humanity today.
I know the libertarian minded among us will hate to hear it, but the plain truth is this: now that we have reached 7 billion people (side note: wow, what a cool google resource) on the planet we act, when it comes to our environment and in many various ways, as one organism. Don't get me wrong: I would love to close myself off to this point and just worry about my own family or city but unfortunately due to our amount of procreation in the past that simply is not a luxury we are afforded any longer even if, ironically, as things become more populated the natural inclination is one of wanting to wall oneself off. A commercial fisherman in Japan now affects a shlub like me in San Jose just as in our earlier days as humans the local tribal hunter and gatherer affected the local tribe.
2. We need to embrace our shared humanity and establish mechanisms and apparatuses that allow us to make decisions as a people in the most democratic and transparent way possible.
The time may very well be right for us to create a new inter-governmental apparatus from the ground up that allows all of the worlds people to weigh in on incredibly important questions that know no nation-state bounds including, but not limited to, questions of over-fishing, setting certain emission criteria, setting pollution limits in all their forms and wildlife and habitat preservation targets. The super set of all these problems however and the biggest challenge this apparatus would have before it is sensible human population limits. In the interview referenced above the projected target whereby human life would be sustainable on this earth is around 2 billion people. I can't say that I know the right limits or implementation plan, but it would be a profound question we could all answer together in the most transparent way possible.
Related to point one above I can expect the usual guffawing to come from some quarters about: 'Yes, just what we need is more bureaucrats and government inefficiencies!' I would respond with two key points one of which is alluded to already: the real world calls and she is telling us that we are already acting as one whether we would really want to admit it or not. It is silly to continue to deny this reality even if it is somewhat comforting to do so. Secondarily I would say that with the right minds on this problem this apparatus could be like something we have never seen before where technology allows us voting from any device and instant access to all important meeting notes, decisions and budgets. Think outside of the government apparatuses set up in the past and realize that the time is right for a whole new paradigm which could transform the very idea of government, democracy, human decision making and accountability.
It will not be easy by any means to get an interconnected web of humanity to break free of very old modes of thought and even frankly to deny or question some of the most fundamental evolutionary aspects of our humanity including the desire to procreate, but the time is now for us to embark upon this vision. We have the technical tools, we have the common driver before us, we have the science but the last remaining question is: do we have it in us? Our children and future ancestors wait anxiously for the answer.
Link Directly to Interview on YouTube
1. Humanity needs to break free of old, outdated models of nation-states when it comes to the most pressing problems affecting humanity today.
I know the libertarian minded among us will hate to hear it, but the plain truth is this: now that we have reached 7 billion people (side note: wow, what a cool google resource) on the planet we act, when it comes to our environment and in many various ways, as one organism. Don't get me wrong: I would love to close myself off to this point and just worry about my own family or city but unfortunately due to our amount of procreation in the past that simply is not a luxury we are afforded any longer even if, ironically, as things become more populated the natural inclination is one of wanting to wall oneself off. A commercial fisherman in Japan now affects a shlub like me in San Jose just as in our earlier days as humans the local tribal hunter and gatherer affected the local tribe.
2. We need to embrace our shared humanity and establish mechanisms and apparatuses that allow us to make decisions as a people in the most democratic and transparent way possible.
The time may very well be right for us to create a new inter-governmental apparatus from the ground up that allows all of the worlds people to weigh in on incredibly important questions that know no nation-state bounds including, but not limited to, questions of over-fishing, setting certain emission criteria, setting pollution limits in all their forms and wildlife and habitat preservation targets. The super set of all these problems however and the biggest challenge this apparatus would have before it is sensible human population limits. In the interview referenced above the projected target whereby human life would be sustainable on this earth is around 2 billion people. I can't say that I know the right limits or implementation plan, but it would be a profound question we could all answer together in the most transparent way possible.
Related to point one above I can expect the usual guffawing to come from some quarters about: 'Yes, just what we need is more bureaucrats and government inefficiencies!' I would respond with two key points one of which is alluded to already: the real world calls and she is telling us that we are already acting as one whether we would really want to admit it or not. It is silly to continue to deny this reality even if it is somewhat comforting to do so. Secondarily I would say that with the right minds on this problem this apparatus could be like something we have never seen before where technology allows us voting from any device and instant access to all important meeting notes, decisions and budgets. Think outside of the government apparatuses set up in the past and realize that the time is right for a whole new paradigm which could transform the very idea of government, democracy, human decision making and accountability.
It will not be easy by any means to get an interconnected web of humanity to break free of very old modes of thought and even frankly to deny or question some of the most fundamental evolutionary aspects of our humanity including the desire to procreate, but the time is now for us to embark upon this vision. We have the technical tools, we have the common driver before us, we have the science but the last remaining question is: do we have it in us? Our children and future ancestors wait anxiously for the answer.
Link Directly to Interview on YouTube
| Permalink | 
