A MORE URGENT THREAT THAN CLIMATE CHANGE

A goal orientated self-organisational system (society) will drive to achieve its goal no matter what the population inside actually think or want or do. In fact, most people will not even notice the enormous forces involved in moulding society to fit its goal.

Knowing that goal is key to understanding what is happening. In society's case, that goal is monetary efficiency over all other things. The belief in growth forces us to throw the might of human ingenuity into finding increasingly better ways to achieve this. Efficiency is one of the key tools used in this pursuit, one that has been taken up by the 'green' organisations without question. 

Efficiency is good, right, because it will make us greener!

Are you sure? 

Because growth and efficiency are so important to us (because it is important to our self-organisational system) the climate change debate has become absurd on both sides.

In order to see what is going on at a deeper level, let's look at how our self-organisational process sees the idea of climate change/global warming. 

From the context of monetary efficiency, global warming is irrelevent as long as our response to it does not cause significant inefficiencies. It does not care whether the theory is right or not. However, the moment we try to divert resources from efficiency to 'global warming solutions', its enormous problem-solving machinery will swing into action.

You can see this working in society right now. The most obvious are the highly charged emotional arguments against action. Consider the size and strength of this opposition and just how effective it has been so far. Until recently it was headed by the President of the United States (George W Bush) with all the power that that entailed.

HOW SELF-ORGANISATION INFLUENCES THE 'NO' CAMP

The most interesting thing about the 'no' camp is that no one suggests that we should consider acting for safety's sake even if global warming is, in their view, almost certainly wrong. 

Safety is rarely a question of certainty, but rather of unlikely possibility. We don't put on seat belts because there is scientific proof that we will crash. In fact, the evidence is that most likely we will not crash on any given journey. Still, we endure the discomfort and personal expense (seat belts costs money) in order to avoid the consequences of the worst case scenario.  The reason self-organisation allows us to have seat belts is that seat belts do not impede economic efficiency whereas tackling global warming does. (further explanation)

There is one thing certain about climate change: If the worst case scenario happens, it will devastate human society.

The 'no' camp can be no more certain of their position than the 'yes' camp. So where does the force of their argument come from? The safety of people? Nope. The wellbeing of people? Well, if growth is good ...

So what is the worst case scenario? Well, if climate change is an issue over which we have influence then non action results in societal devastation. However, if climate change is simply wrong, or we have no influence over it, then action could easily become a grand monument to folly. 

In a society that treasures life, which consequence do you think most properly deserves our attention? Do we act to prevent folly at all costs or societal devastation? 

What do you think? Is the veil lifting yet?

Less obvious and more revealing is the action of those who believe global warming is a major threat.

Many people want to reduce CO2 emissions but keep running into the practical fact that acting rationally in today's society requires them to create CO2. Not burning energy means not acting rationally. That is why most of those who went to Copenhagen to protest that we aren't doing enough to reduce CO2 emissions burned CO2 to get there.

If even those who are so fervent in reducing CO2 emissions cannot act without generating CO2, what chance do you think there is of successfully changing the behaviour of people who are not convinced about global warming?

If you are reading this right now you are using (or used) electricity. According to one researcher, a single two word google search uses enough energy to boil a kettle (not only your computer, but all the computer and infrastructure that your search activates. (source) 

Modern global society creates a strong rationality to use energy. It very difficult to operate without doing so. Regardless of the truth of global warming or environmentalism, the shape of society now makes it nearly impossible for us to be truly 'green'. (See the NOTE to the right.) 

This is also why those who argue against action frequently point to the cost and loss of quality of life. Even those arguing that global warming is a serious threat usually accept this argument without question. 

The accepted argument for doing something to reduce CO2 emissions is based on the 'fact' that the threat of global warming supercedes the joys derived from emitting CO2. There exists no widely accepted arguments that society could be shaped differently. No one seriously considers that a successful, happy and properous society need not be based on maintaining a cheap access to enormous flows of energy. 

See this documentary video to see how fully embracing leading edge technology left Detroit with serious human issues.

The veil is such that very few ever question where this imperative comes from. It must simply be human nature most people think. 'I'm not going back into a cave with a fire!' one person told us. Either we must voraciously consume energy or we must live unhappy primitive lives. We equate energy consumption to happiness with such vigour that it seems nonsense to most people to even question it.

Were we really so miserable for all those thousands of years leading up to the last 300 or so?

However, if one were to create a competition for the best use of energy and reward the winner with more energy, it would create a fantastic cycle of evolution leading to energy efficiencies. 

What would energy efficiency mean if society was constructed in such a way that the we were very content with life and didn't really use much energy at all? This is another question never seriously asked. The veil says that the a quality life can only come from access to cheap abundant energy.

Are you ready to peak under this veil and see what's outside?

There are two videos on this page addressing the point of human happiness. One to the right looks at society as a whole and the one below looks at us as individuals.

Below is an entertaining video about Dan Gilbert's surprising research concerning your happiness.