Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Time to go on the record [View all]GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)36. I put it this way:
"The main cause of problems is solutions."
Craig Dilworth's book Too Smart for our Own Good outlines how this works in what he calls the "Vicious Circle Principle":
1. Humanity encounters a problem;
2. We apply our boundless innovative drive and cleverness to solving the problem;
3. We come up with a solution, one that usually increases the technical or social complexity of our civilization.
4. The solution removes the barrier, and allows humanity's population and consumption to keep growing.
5. Continued growth guarantees that we will eventually encounter another problem: Go to 1.
Of course during the post-solution period we also have to deal with the unexpected consequences of the solution. A classic example is global warming, the unintended consequence of solving the problem of energy availability by using fossil fuels.
As the system gets larger, the problems get bigger; the solutions scale up to meet them; and the unintended consequences become more severe. Eventually, it is virtually guaranteed that we will encounter a problem we can't solve: one that is too large, too complex or too immediate to allow us to solve it within the constraints of our resources, knowledge and the time available.
My position is that we would probably be better off in the long run if everyone took a break from problem-solving and let things ride for a while. It arose out of my conclusion that we have already encountered the sort of problem I described above. Climate change is too big, complex and immediate to be soluble - given our resources, knowledge and the time available. Every proposal I've seen so far has either been technically unfeasible (like the balloon idea or CCS), politically unfeasible (shut down the global economy by 80% or more), or involves violations of the Precautionary Principle (eg. geoengineering). To the extent that we do implement any of them, we are guaranteed to encounter more problems down the road as a result.
We also have to consider that climate change is only one of a large set of equally complex (wicked) problems, all of which are interlocked so that addressing one may worsen others, and all of which are converging on us right now. We are not facing a problem or even a set of problems but rather a predicament. As a result, mitigation might be possible (though not guaranteed), but solutions are out of the question. That leaves adaptation as the only path forward that has a high chance of actually working and a low likelihood of unintended consequences.
If we insist on trying to "solve" the problem, we will probably fail and we will - with 100% certainty - create unintended consequences that make our problems worse later. So, as I say in my sig line, I advise against attempts to solve the top-level problem(s).
This position is, as our friendly geek named Bob reminds us, anathema to the very large number of human beings who believe that we have both the ability and responsibility to do something - anything - to fix what we broke. It's a reaction that springs from equal measures of hubris and guilt.
In the end my position is driven by a recognition of the scale of the problems; the inevitability of their impact on civilization; the equal inevitability of our attempts to fix them - thereby breaking things worse; and my own inability to alter the course of these events. As a result I have chosen another path entirely: to act as a shamanic witness to the catastrophe and as a "psychopomp" both for individuals and my culture as we enter what promises to be a very Dark Night of the Soul. It's not a path for everyone, but it's one I see more and more people adopting as they come to these same conclusions.
Craig Dilworth's book Too Smart for our Own Good outlines how this works in what he calls the "Vicious Circle Principle":
1. Humanity encounters a problem;
2. We apply our boundless innovative drive and cleverness to solving the problem;
3. We come up with a solution, one that usually increases the technical or social complexity of our civilization.
4. The solution removes the barrier, and allows humanity's population and consumption to keep growing.
5. Continued growth guarantees that we will eventually encounter another problem: Go to 1.
Of course during the post-solution period we also have to deal with the unexpected consequences of the solution. A classic example is global warming, the unintended consequence of solving the problem of energy availability by using fossil fuels.
As the system gets larger, the problems get bigger; the solutions scale up to meet them; and the unintended consequences become more severe. Eventually, it is virtually guaranteed that we will encounter a problem we can't solve: one that is too large, too complex or too immediate to allow us to solve it within the constraints of our resources, knowledge and the time available.
My position is that we would probably be better off in the long run if everyone took a break from problem-solving and let things ride for a while. It arose out of my conclusion that we have already encountered the sort of problem I described above. Climate change is too big, complex and immediate to be soluble - given our resources, knowledge and the time available. Every proposal I've seen so far has either been technically unfeasible (like the balloon idea or CCS), politically unfeasible (shut down the global economy by 80% or more), or involves violations of the Precautionary Principle (eg. geoengineering). To the extent that we do implement any of them, we are guaranteed to encounter more problems down the road as a result.
We also have to consider that climate change is only one of a large set of equally complex (wicked) problems, all of which are interlocked so that addressing one may worsen others, and all of which are converging on us right now. We are not facing a problem or even a set of problems but rather a predicament. As a result, mitigation might be possible (though not guaranteed), but solutions are out of the question. That leaves adaptation as the only path forward that has a high chance of actually working and a low likelihood of unintended consequences.
If we insist on trying to "solve" the problem, we will probably fail and we will - with 100% certainty - create unintended consequences that make our problems worse later. So, as I say in my sig line, I advise against attempts to solve the top-level problem(s).
This position is, as our friendly geek named Bob reminds us, anathema to the very large number of human beings who believe that we have both the ability and responsibility to do something - anything - to fix what we broke. It's a reaction that springs from equal measures of hubris and guilt.
In the end my position is driven by a recognition of the scale of the problems; the inevitability of their impact on civilization; the equal inevitability of our attempts to fix them - thereby breaking things worse; and my own inability to alter the course of these events. As a result I have chosen another path entirely: to act as a shamanic witness to the catastrophe and as a "psychopomp" both for individuals and my culture as we enter what promises to be a very Dark Night of the Soul. It's not a path for everyone, but it's one I see more and more people adopting as they come to these same conclusions.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
116 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I'm guessing you've set out your balloon project somewhere on DU already
muriel_volestrangler
Sep 2012
#12
Sometimes, private efforts really can be as good, and even better than the government's.......nt
AverageJoe90
Sep 2012
#68
I've a couple of questions that keep rattling around in my poor addled head...
a geek named Bob
Sep 2012
#72
Re: "My position is that we would probably be better off in the long run if everyone took a break"..
AverageJoe90
Sep 2012
#73
An opportunity to become sustainable for the first time in our species' history.
GliderGuider
Sep 2012
#64
The system you describe does not exist. If it did you could colonize the galaxy.
joshcryer
Sep 2012
#75
My prediction for an ice-free Arctic year-round? 2040, maybe 2060 if we're lucky.
AverageJoe90
Sep 2012
#25