We're reaching some common ground here (though it won't extend all the way to Obama, so let's leave that one for now).
handofdave wrote: This really kind of gets to the heart of the matter... climate change isn't rolling tanks over borders or shooting scuds into our neighborhoods. It's more subtle. People who aren't looking closely don't even see it happening. So they're not feeling acutely anxious about it.
I'd guess that most people, even the ones aware of the problem and acknowledging it as such, are more concerned at present with those issues that are paradoxically more tangible AND more abstract simultaneously... where the market will go, will they keep their jobs, etc.
I couldn't agree with you more. This is one of the major problems to be overcome when dealing with Climate Change. The notion that by leaving my TV set on standby, I am somehow contributing to drought in East Africa. Not only that, but I'm simultaneously contributing to flooding in Bangladesh...?
It's just so utterly anti-intuitive that it's not difficult to see why people have such a hard time with it. And even if you convince them, on an intellectual level, that the theory is correct it's still no guarantee of a shift in behaviour. Because -- and this is a major reason I decided to study psychodynamics -- people's behaviour is not governed by their conscious thoughts. Certainly they have an influence on our behaviour, but they are not the prime motivating factor for most of what we do (for that you need to look to unconscious drives, values and beliefs).
Consequently I have decided to research the subject in the hope of uncovering something -- anything at all -- that could help guide us towards a shift in that area. There are plenty of people already trying to get across the message in rational, conscious-mind-friendly terms. I can't do any better than them in that regard. And I am not convinced that such an approach will generate much success, though my fingers are crossed.
But I'm not sure there's nearly enough people looking into ways of shifting our collective values and drives. That may be an equally dead-end. But it's something that needs to be explored.
handofdave wrote: What's problematic about the analogy with WW2 is that, well, that was back during a time when many civil rights hadn't been invented yet (Few questioned mass internment of Japanese Americans then).
Well, yes and no handofdave. There certainly were plenty of people who disagreed with the internment policies adopted post-Pearl Harbour. Admittedly most of them disagreed on constitutional rather than strictly 'civil rights' grounds, but the questions were asked by many. However, because of the emergency powers adopted by the president at the time (the powers that included his suspension of habeas corpus in the first place), such objections were silenced rather quickly.
But I was actually talking more about the measures introduced by the British government at the time, of which strict rationing was only the most obvious. Powers were introduced that allowed the government to dictate most aspects of civil life, and there's almost no question that without those measures, Britain would have significantly lessened its chances of prevailing long enough for the US to come to its aid and the Soviets to grind down the fascist forces in the East.
handofdave wrote: What sort of emergency measures do we use today? Do we seize all farms and force vegetarianism on everyone? Do we bulldoze the suburbs and turn them into agricultural work camps? Do we sterilize everyone after their first child? Is there any army willing to carry out orders to use harsh tactics on their own people over warnings?
On the one hand, we could certainly start by looking at the wartime experience of Britain and ask what lessons can be learnt there. There was no overt "seizure" of farms, but there was strict guidelines as to what farms should produce, the amount they could charge for it, and the amount that any individual could acquire.
There were relocations of people (mostly to ensure that the cities were emptied of non-essential people in order to lessen the strain on the emergency services who had to deal with the bombing).
There were considerable limitations placed upon what kinds of goods could be produced (luxury goods were replaced by essential goods and most factories that could not be re-tooled were simply shut down... not all of course, as morale was also an issue, but any economic activity that was not directly beneficial to the war effort was seen as being a waste of resources that could be directed elsewhere).
I'm not suggesting that an identical set of policies would be adopted to deal with Climate Change and peak oil, but much can be learnt from the experience of Britain in World War 2.
handofdave wrote: Totalitarianism would only come after the disaster hits, not before.
It would be far better to shift collective values so that these things were adopted without the imposition of force. There is much to be said for the theory that had the western powers acted to curtail Hitler in 1936 when it became crystal clear he was a growing threat, we would never have ended up at Auschwitz. But hindsight is 20:20 as they say.
Nonetheless, it probably wouldn't hurt if we tried to learn the lessons of history. Waiting for the totalitarian reaction to this particular disaster will be to ensure it's already too late for effective action.
If a profound shift in values cannot be achieved, then totalitarian pre-emption might well be the only hope.
However, it's not one we're likely to see. I am seeking a way out of this dilemma, handofdave, I'm not proposing any specific course of action... merely mulling over the possibilities. It's just that I am convinced that business-as-usual is a guarantee of failure. In fact, it guarantees the disaster that will lead to totalitarianism.
|
