Connections of Conflicts

I see a lot of the conflict that is going on in the world as a reaction to global warming, it’s effects, and people’s (probably mostly unconscious) reactions to perceived future effects. This can be seen in the reaction against population control, against environmentalism, anti-regulation in pro-gun advocacy, and with the demonization of those who are outside of one’s group. Nearly everything that the Republicans stand for is in staunch denial of Global Warming and it’s effects.

The Population Bomb was published in 1968 by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich and his wife, Anne Ehrlich. “It warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s due to overpopulation, as well as other major societal upheavals, and advocated immediate action to limit population growth.” Birth control was not legalized for all Americans until 1972. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal in 1973. The pro-environmental idea at the time was that it would be best for parents to not have more than 2 children - as a way for people to voluntarily participate in population control. While the drastic effects of overpopulation did not happen within the time line that the Ehrlich’s laid out - the effects have been gradually developing. (Detractors use the time inaccuracies to discredit the whole thing).

Anti-abortion fanaticism may be a form of radical denial & stem from worry that society’s concern about over-population will reduce their group and therefore their security. The old idea was that there is security in numbers - more possible warriors, more power in being the majority, etc. Which is not altogether untrue. Such an argument could be reasonably made as long as there are not catastrophic Global consequences. Such an argument breaks down with the Global Warming problem - where over-population / over-consumption cannot be sustained, but will result in mass death and destruction. 

If honest, some might say, but our group needs to the be the biggest, and it’s all the others who should reduce their numbers. And they may intend to enforce that idea with a large military. They had better use drones at that rate.

One or a few small groups could get away with massive consumption. But in the past few decades, American consumption has exploded, and China, India, and many other countries with many more people and groups are trying to catch up. It is not sustainable globally - it would require many more planets and resources. Meanwhile, many corporate executives and stockholders are making fortunes off of the increased consumption of people both within the USA and around the world.

The anti-abortion POV is pushed that ‘we must have more and more babies, we must deny that having more people & more people is a problem.’ I doubt that most anti-abortion people are thinking about societal or group security consciously. But such a POV does explain, what seems inexplicable about anti-abortion arguments, which is the anti-birth control stance. If the desire was to lessen abortions, then of course, people should use more birth control. However, if the desire is actually for women (that is - women within their group) to have more children (for ‘security’, power, or whatever), then, of course, birth control as well as abortion, must be fought against. 

The anti-abortion groups are usually Christian, and generally, the sort of Christians who fight against abortion are mostly concerned about those in their group. Pro-choice advocates have said all along, that it is the people who are alive who must receive help and consideration. And weirdly, this does not concern most anti-abortion fighters. We see this in the reduced taxes on the wealthy and reduced services provided by the government for the needy. At the same time, people who are anti-abortion tend to be pro-military and advocate people in the military getting the help and consideration that liberals would want spread around to those in need. The effect of this is that the disabled and elderly poor, as well as marginalized minority groups, and even women, are left out of the security group. Those who are protected are the wealthy, healthy (men, esp.) and those in the military. 

Anti-environmentalism is similar - with the same people who are against abortion and who are pro-military - radically denying that people should care about the environment. The suggested idea is that people could only care about themselves and we could ‘never’ make the planet inhospitable to life - no matter how many toxins we add to the water, the land, & the atmosphere - and no matter how many eco-systems we wipe out. The level of animosity is bizarre which is hurled toward those who see the earth as an eco-system that life is dependent on, worthy of concern. Also the scorn and derision levied toward renewable energy makes no sense.

Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published in 1962. “The book documented the detrimental effects on the environment—particularly on birds—of the indiscriminate use of pesticides. Carson accused the chemical industry of spreading disinformation and public officials of accepting industry claims unquestioningly.” Since then we have more detrimental effects on people and animals - more cancers and various health problems. 

The Keeling Curve graph has been illustrating the effects of increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere since 1958. During the 70s, many people were connecting the dots that described the effects of fossil fuel use, over-population and consumption, overfishing & erasing of habitats, and pollution. National Geographic reported recently, “A study of catch data… grimly predicted that if fishing rates continue apace, all the world’s fisheries will have collapsed by the year 2048.” It was not difficult to predict that as weather events such as floods & droughts became more of a problem, as over-fishing and the erasure of habitats became more of a problem, that there would be refugees, there would be strife, there would be wars. 

By the year 2100 or even 2050, the effects of Global Warming and the resulting Climate Changes are expected to be drastic. Coastal areas are already having problems with sea level rise. Those problems are expected to get much worse as time goes on, with Southern Florida expected to be underwater before the century is over. We are seeing droughts as a problem in the farming areas of California. We have 1000 year storms and floods fairly frequently. There are often problems that are supposedly ‘worse than anticipated’. 

Many had been anticipating problems for quite awhile. Apparently much of the Carbon Dioxide was absorbed by the oceans over the years - making them more acidic. This will be a great problem for coral and shellfish. It was predicted long age that  the haves will want to hold on to their privileges, the have-nots will try to stay alive. It was be a mess. It will be like musical chairs - where chairs are being thrown out by the thousands, and people will fight over getting one before the bell rings. The wealthy hope that by buying many extra chairs, they will be safe.

Society has been anticipating problems - consciously by some, unconsciously by others. The more conscious ones live ‘Off the Grid’, and practice organic gardening, and encourage native habitats and healthy eco-systems whenever possible. Many (but not enough) live simply - avoiding over-consumption of meat, of mass-produced things, and fuel - even travel. Liberals have been trying to encourage mass transit, and renewable energy, which is sorely lacking in the USA.

The unconscious Republicans and large corporate interests have worked on getting people to be fearful, buy guns, buy Hummers, get pit bulls, think militia-like - and deny that there are any problems with American capitalism and mindless consumption. They also rail against regulations, against birth control & abortion, against environmentalists, and they say Global Warming is a hoax and the International Scientific community is lying. 

It takes regulations to reduce all the problems that need reducing to maintain a healthy planet - whether it’s overfishing, over-polluting, habitat erosion, and the use of fossil fuels. We have too much antibiotics in our meat and our milk. We have poisons in our make-up and in pet food that goes unregulated. The way it is now, you have to be fairly well off to afford food that is safe and not toxic. Without regulations - some groups take so much that habitats are destroyed, animals become extinct, land is worthless for farming and pollution makes (healthy) fishing impossible. Without regulations, some pollute more than the planet can tolerate.

Consumption could also be regulated - so that some don’t monopolize the resources and contribute more than their share to the problems. Here in the USA, most people, and esp. the wealthy, consume much more than necessary. Where once civilization and production grew and grew and grew - it needs to stop growing. Even if corporations can find and dig up the resources, we need to find peaceful ways to shrink, and to do with less. 

We are using so much money, and resources on the Military - emitting massive amounts of fossil fuels, that it is obscene. A strong military becomes all the more necessary by those who want their country to have more than their share of fossil fuels, or metals, & whatever resources they desire - to maintain their lifestyle. The bloated military, USA, makes global warming worse and it makes strife around the world worse. 

One of the things we are seeing in the USA are Republicans who encourage people to be anti-community - if that community includes people ‘who are not like them’. They want to draw a circle around their group as ‘Christians’ and leave everyone else out. The argument is that if someone needs help, they should join a church (and follow the ‘rules’ - not be gay, for women to be submissive). 

Conservatives and some Libertarians have made people who sell hate and divisiveness, such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, rich. The latest is that Donald Trump, hate-monger in chief, is the front runner for the Republican primary elections. The hate and derision that is expressed already make violence more likely toward those the that Republicans see as ‘outsiders’ more likely. That includes violence against the LGBTQ community, as well as Muslims, and even women.

In my opinion, it is the creative, liberal people, who have, for the most part, been working on solutions. It has been the Republicans and conservatives who have been blocking, or trying to block) those solutions (though some have gotten through). We need to be more creative. We need to be more inclusive. We all need to live more simply.

'Back to the Future Day' Oct. 21, 2015

Predictions for 2045 (in 2015)

[In 2045] There is no more coal burning, and very little oil burning. Electricity comes from solar, wind, and other renewables. Most people live in either small towns, or if in cities or suburbs - have grocery stores within walking distance, like in the 'old days'. Bicycles are the norm. Buildings are smaller and closer together. High speed electric trains and smaller electric transport vehicles are there for longer distance travel. But long distance travel is restricted by rationing (more below). Large areas are preserved as wildlife habitats and as respite areas within and around all towns.

It is normal for most people to grow their own lettuce and basic vegetables and to have a chicken for eggs. Many have small beehives. People who eat meat, eat it one day a week - on Sundays. It is known to not be healthy to eat it more often, and it causes too much green house gas to have more meat production than that. Now - meat is grown locally, to avoid the problems of huge, overcrowded, anti-biotic intensive feedlots, and to reduce transportation costs.

There is little sea-life left in the oceans - as they suffered greatly from industrial fishing and acidification before countries all agreed to lower CO2 emissions. It took many major storms along with sea-level rise of 4 feet since 2015, to get everyone to co-operate. Northern Europe is quite a bit colder now, as the ocean currents changed with the melting going on in the Arctic and Greenland. 

Central America, Mexico and Southern California are all desert, like the Sahara, except at the very edge of the coast. Most of the once flourishing agricultural districts are abandoned. New Orleans, Galveston, Miami, & Norfolk (VA) and  similarly situated coastal cities around the world have all been permanently evacuated. Most of the people fleeing on this continent ended up in Canada. Those people in the Middle East, India and China who survived the wars, famine and flu, have been moving to Siberia. 

What with WW3 and WW4, as people fought over water supplies, agricultural land and and reduced resources, and as many died from influenza when antibiotics became ineffective - the world population has been reduced to 2.5 billion. People figured out that the planet cannot tolerate more people than that - and even that many may be too much.

All the countries agreed at a world congress that no person (each woman and each man - whether as a couple or separate) will have more than 2 children. So that helps. Most people have children fairly young, by the time they are 20, to have the healthiest children (various pollutants in the environment mean more birth defects in offspring as parents age). Once a person has 2 children he or she is ‘fixed’ so they cannot have more. People generally go to college while their children are young. By the time their children are in school, they are ready to join the work force.

People are generally happier, as society has matched everyone to a job. This is done with computers - analyzing aptitudes relative to anticipated needs for the society - so that people know where to put their efforts. Work weeks are 25 hours. Everyone learns at least one creative activity for their leisure time.  Many play some sort of musical instrument. Most people do some photography or movie-making, writing, or digital game design.

Almost nobody believes in God anymore. WW3 was Patriarchy’s Last Stand - the war of the Judeo-Christian-Muslim big God religions - and they all lost. So the churches all became yoga and meditation community centers and/or homeless shelters - until societies finally fixed the inequality problems. Female genital mutilation was eradicated from places who were holding on to that practice. Women’s equality is accepted world-wide. 

Racial equality is not even as issue, as most people accept that they are mixed race, anyways. It’s difficult for people to comprehend, nowadays, how a person’s skin color was a reason to treat the person badly.

All countries have adopted some sort of Socialism. Following Iceland’s lead, the bank CEOs were finally imprisoned after the Bank disaster of 2018. To fund WW3, the wealthy were required to pay taxes on bank and trading transactions, all monies, plus luxuries. Following the War, all the countries banded together to tax the wealthy regardless of where they lived, or where they put their money. The trillions that were being held in Swiss and Cayman Islands types of banks were used to equalize the world-wide monetary system and implement universal education, universal healthcare and clean water, as well as solar, and wind power - worldwide. Reasonable banking & trading reforms were implemented. There are no more ‘Hedge Fund’ billionaires.

“Developed countries’ came to terms with the fact that having people work for some cents per hour on the other side of the world (with goods sold at Walmart) was tantamount to slavery whether we could see it or not. It did not make sense to be transporting things back and forth (in light of our better understanding of global warming), so while it was difficult to implement, esp. for ‘developed’ nations, there is now a world-wide minimum wage. 

Energy use is rationed, so that nobody in the world can hoard at the expense of others. People finally accepted that the world is finite, and one persons overuse affects everyone and the planet. There is serious peer pressure for everyone to cooperate. Plus the punishments is having to go without power relative to how much power was over-used. Since this can be monitored easily, it is easily enforceable.

There is no advertising for consumer goods. Once it was proven that overconsumption was killing the planet, and ourselves, methods were implemented to reduce it. Advertising had to go. There are still ads for things like music and community events. But there is no longer an NFL or any of the big sports things. They were mostly paid for by ads. People attend local games and events - mostly as participants. The internet continues as a means of connection, but it’s not as big of a time killer as it was when it first started. People got tired of it. People like to interact with actual, live, people.

While people in developed countries live simpler lives, overall, there have been some exciting medical advancements. A certain amount of energy is allocated for medical research. Alzheimer’s is identified and treated when people are in their 30s. Most Cancers have cures. Various immunological diseases were eradicated once the link of the lymphatic system and the brain was discovered (in 2015). There is less stress inherent within society, so there is less anxiety and depression, and less mental illness. 

With better diets, and exercise, people are generally healthier. People decided that they didn’t think it was so great to live a super long time - such as over 90, and medicine does not try to prolong life unreasonably after that age. Older people are appreciated for their wisdom, but medical resources are mostly used for younger people.

Intro - 'When God Was a Woman'

I read somewhere that some of the Proverbs, etc. that are in the 'Bible', were originally written for the 'Goddess' prior to the patriarchy. I like them more, thinking of them in that light. And it makes me curious about what other ideas that are intrinsic to our culture were formed prior to the time that men were given credit for nearly everything we know and think, and do.

If you think that the patriarchy is a given, start by reading, When God Was a Woman, by Merlin Stone.

One thing I've noticed over the years is the way that many traditional, (mostly) male archeologists are willing to speculate and accept ideas that they are prone to liking - ideas that support their ideas of the patriarchy. But when it comes to possibilities where women may have had power, may have been the artist or inventor, they are not so willing to give the same sort of consideration or acceptance.

So now, whenever I see ideas of women's agency, authorship, or similar, being dismissed, I am skeptical of their skepticism.