Showing posts with label Bottleneck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bottleneck. Show all posts

Another Bottle Neck Approaches

SUBHEAD: The inability to focus on (or even realize) the source of our near term extinction makes it more likely happen.

By Juan Wilson on 8 January 2020 for Island Breath -
(https://islandbreath.blogspot.com/2020/01/another-bottle-neck-approaches.html)


Image above: Photo of four women inside the indigenous fight to save the Amazon rainforest. From (https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/45703/1/the-fight-to-save-the-amazon-rainforest-youth-activist-protest).

Before we get any farther let me say "Here's Wishing You Happy New Year!"

And that is about as optimistic as I can put it. I actually don't think this year is going work out as rosy as many are hoping. Why?

We are facing the results of our wild success as a species. We have overpopulated the world and consequently have demanded too much of the Earth's resources for ourselves.  This has meant the development of "agriculture" that consumes the forests that are the "lungs" of the planet.

It has meant the destructive acquisition as well as the poisonous consumption of water, minerals, fossil fuels and other resources. Add to all that - the pollution and contamination from burning and dumping all those resources once they are "garbage".

Okay, Okay! We are selfish monkeys too greedy to get out of our own way.

 Historians often categorize human history in the Three-Age System - Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages.

The Stone Age is the longest period of human history lasting from about 2.6 million years ago to about 5,000 years ago. During the latter part of the Stone Age agriculture was developed.
 
The Stone Age amounts to about 99% of human time on Earth. Most tools and materials humans employed were from found objects modified by hand - materials like stone, wood, grass, shells, bone, pelts and sinew made up all we had.

The Bronze Age began about 2,500BC. The relatively low melting point of tin and copper allowed Neolithic pottery kilns to produce bronze that was used for tools, decorations and weapons. During the Bronze Age writing began, in part to account for trading.

The Iron Age required the technology of higher temperature furnaces than the Bronze Age. The production of iron meant better tools and weapons. Larger more stable communities

But wait there's more... The Iron Age lead to the Steam Age, Coal Age, Oil Age and Atomic Age.

With each step "up?" this ladder human population increased, as well as our demands for land, resources and places to throw out all our crap. We have come to the end of that trail.

The only way for humans to flourish in the near future is to climb down from our high impact on Mother Earth. That is about to happen whether humans want it or not and whether or not the future even includes us.

We have been cornered before. See One Time Through the Bottle Neck - Ea O Ka Aina 7/21/10.

The article describes when humanity was reduced to a few families living at the southern tip of Africa eating shellfish and living in a mammoth cave 200,000 years ago.

We're coming up to another bottleneck and nobody is safe.
  • With the unemployed, uneducated, lower-class facing homelessness, no healthcare, opioid addiction, violence etc...
  • With the white christian, heterosexual, middle-class mired in debt, racial anxiety, self delusion and self absorption ...
  • With the elite, educated, privileged, upper-class worried about being over-run and fearful of total ecosystem collapse...
The real threats are the results of human beings snuffing the deciduous forest covering much of Mississippi Basin (North America), the killing the Amazon Rain Forest (South America), as well as the Congolian Rain Forest (Africa), the Western Ghats (India), and threats to the Tongass Rain Forest (Alaska) et cetera, et cetera.

My advice... find a place where the biosphere is thick and the human population is thin. Be sure their is food, water and shelter locally accessible. Go indigenous. Make friends. Share what you have and hunker down.

It's going to be a bumpy ride.

See also:
Facing Extinction - Ea O Ka Aina  5/4/19
Kunstler Predictions for 2019 - Ea O Ka Aina 12/31/18
In the Face of Extinction - Ea O Ka Aina 12/4/18
Biodiversity loss is our extinction - Ea O Ka Aina 
11/6/18
Too Late Too Little - Ea O Ka Aina 6/20/18
Civilization as Asteroid - Ea O Ka Aina 6/19/18
NTHE is a four letter word - Ea O Ka Aina 3/27/18
Half-Earth, Half-Baked - Ea O Ka Aina 3/25/18
On the Road to Extinction - Ea O Ka Aina  9/13/17
Sixth Mass Extinction Underway - Ea O Ka Aikna 7/11/17
Arctic Methane "May be apocalyptic" - Ea O Ka Aina 3/24/17
Mass Extinction and Mass Insanity - Ea O Ka Aina
12/10/16
Global warming and woolly mammoth - Ea O Ka Aina 7/25/15
Resisting Near-Term-Extinction - Ea O Ka Aina 5/19/13
The Pleasures of Extinction - Ea O Ka Aina
  5/17/13
Preparing for Near Term Extinction - Ea O Ka Aina 5/7/13
Extinction Event? - Ea O Ka Aina
  2/8/11







Wildlife loss of 58% since 1970

SUBHEAD: Absent radical system change, world faces two-thirds wildlife loss by 2020.

By Nadia Prupius on 27 October 2016 for Common Dreams -
(http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/10/27/absent-radical-system-change-world-faces-two-thirds-wildlife-loss-2020)


Image above: Mountain gorillas are threatened with extinction as they have been reduced to two isolated populations in Central Africa. From (http://www.nature.com/news/mountain-gorillas-stuck-in-genetic-bottleneck-1.17277).

We are at a decisive moment in time when we can seize the solutions to steer our food, energy, and finance systems in a more sustainable direction'
Global populations of wild animals could be down by two-thirds by 2020 without reform to food and energy systems, according to a devastating new report out Thursday.

The analysis by the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) and the Zoological Society of London finds that animal populations dropped 58 percent between 1970 and 2012. Without radical action, the world could witness a decline of 67 percent by 2020.

The annual Living Planet Index is the most comprehensive study to date, the organizations said. Since the mid-twentieth century, use of natural resources has gone up dramatically, harming biodiversity and other critical ecosystems.

And now, as scientists suggest we've entered into a new geological epoch created by human activity—the Anthropocene—the report states that we are endangering the natural systems we rely upon, and are faced with a "dual challenge" to keep the earth habitable for animals and people.

"Wildlife is disappearing within our lifetimes at an unprecedented rate," said Marco Lambertini, director general of WWF International. "This is not just about the wonderful species we all love; biodiversity forms the foundation of healthy forests, rivers, and oceans. Take away species, and these ecosystems will collapse along with the clean air, water, food, and climate services that they provide us."

"We have the tools to fix this problem and we need to start using them now if we are serious about preserving a living planet for our own survival and prosperity," Lambertini said.

The top threats to species identified in the report—fish, birds, mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, from gorillas to salamanders—are directly linked to human activity. That includes habitat loss and over-exploitation of wildlife, both of which are in part a result of global food production for a booming population. The report notes that agriculture takes up about one-third of the Earth's territory and accounts for 70 percent of water use.

The Guardian also summarizes other findings:
Pollution is also a significant problem with, for example, killer whales and dolphins in European seas being seriously harmed by long-lived industrial pollutants. Vultures in south-east Asia have been decimated over the last 20 years, dying after eating the carcasses of cattle dosed with an anti-inflammatory drug. Amphibians have suffered one of the greatest declines of all animals due to a fungal disease thought to be spread around the world by the trade in frogs and newts.
But the report also offers some auspicious statistics, such as the measures small-scale farmers in developing countries are taking to protect their regional lakes and other biodiversity hotspots. And it notes that some species, such as the tiger and the giant panda, are starting to recover, suggesting that drastic action would make a significant impact.

The researchers hope the report will serve as a global wake-up call on conservation.

"Human behavior continues to drive the decline of wildlife populations globally, with particular impact in freshwater habitats. Importantly however, these are declines, they are not yet extinctions—and this should be a wake-up call to marshal efforts to promote the recovery of these populations," said Professor Ken Norris, director of science at the zoological society.

The report outlines some of the most necessary systemic changes that need to occur to prevent the massive species damage: expanding the global network of protected places; creating legal and policy frameworks that support equitable access to food, water, and energy; divesting from fossil fuels and redirecting financial flows to conservation and ecosystem management; producing and consuming more sustainable goods; and, in particular, transitioning into a resilient food system that does not rely on factory farms and agriculture.

Lambertini said, "No matter how you add it up, the math does not look good. The more we continue to exceed Earth's limits, the more damage we do to our own future. We are at a decisive moment in time when we can seize the solutions to steer our food, energy, and finance systems in a more sustainable direction."

.

Most & Least Likely Scenarios

SUBHEAD: Having not acted in time we now can choose to face either the rock or the hard place. By George Mobus on 19 May 2011 in Question Everything (http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2011/05/two-scenarios.html) [Publisher's note: This is the last half of a long article detailing our failure to act on overpopulation and resource depletion when we had he chance to mitigate their ensuing problems. The portion of the article reproduced here describes the resulting options left to us. A Most and Least likely scenario. Use link above for complete article.] Image above: Detail of illustration of "Fat Man's Misery" passage in Mammoth Cave, from 1875. From (http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/king/ill471.html).
"Sapience is often defined as wisdom, or the ability of an organism or entity to act with appropriate judgment, a mental faculty which is a component of intelligence." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom#Sapience)

In the end, our predicament has been caused by a lack of adequate sapience to manage our over-exuberant cleverness and lust for profits. So a lack of adequate sapience is the root or causal liability. Just as once long ago sapience was the root of our success, given the disparity in rates of cultural evolution compared with biological evolution it has turned into a weakness. A major weakness. Perhaps the ultimate weakness.

What Can We Expect? Two Scenarios

Let us examine two scenarios that play out from the above starting conditions. We will look also at the relative likelihood for each and the consequences that ensue from each.

I have chosen these two scenarios (both of which discount any miracle breakthrough in energy production) to contrast the effects on humanity of a bottleneck condition. That is, in both of these scenarios humans go through an evolutionary bottleneck that reduces the population to a very small fraction of the current level.

One bottleneck results from humans continuing to act as they do now (the so-called business as usual attempt), don't take any anticipatory action, and basically let nature take its course. The other scenario assumes a specific intervention taken early enough to make a difference in the quality of life lived as we go through the bottleneck.

In the former case the bottleneck will be steep and rapid in culling the unfit. In the second case, the bottleneck, which is inevitable, is engineered so as to minimize suffering as much as possible. A bottleneck cannot be avoided in any case. The population of humans cannot be sustained at anything like current levels even if we were to discover a reasonably cheap energy source. We are doing irreparable damage to the planet just by virtue of our numbers and the rate at which we produce wastes. Something has to give, and that something will be us (and likely countless other species as well).

This being the case, we have to make a choice. Do we do nothing and go out hard, or do we do something to make our reductions in numbers the least painful possible?

Most Likely — Scenario One

I also think of this as the pain and suffering scenario.

The majority of humans, if they perceive anything being wrong in the world believe they are living in a bad dream and hold onto the belief that they will wake up (things will eventually return to ‘normal’). With this belief driving their judgments they will fail to act in any kind of timely way. They will not anticipate the future and will suffer the consequences. The lucky ones will succumb quickly, perhaps from some early violence or a pandemic disease. But many will survive past the early cataclysmic events to face lives of hardship and grueling subsistence.

By 2020 the effects of depleting net energy will be clear to those who understand its relation to economic work. The first effects will be seen (are even now being seen) in the food supply to poor people. The cost of food produced in industrial agriculture will continue to climb through the decade. The floor cost will be established by declining oil products (or the costs of those products as scarcity increases). The fluctuations above the floor will be caused by weather and climate shifts, draught, floods, etc. making monoculture fail more frequently.

Within twenty-five years net energy available to do useful work could be less than ten percent of what it is today. That means we will be producing ten percent less wealth and/or failing to maintain what physical wealth we have now. Almost certainly within this time frame the financial system, which depends entirely on the hope that real wealth production (backing with real assets) will resume will have collapsed. I would think it likely that the fiat currencies of nations, especially the United States, will have failed and there will be a massive reversion to some kind of barter/local currency-effected trading commerce.

An early response to this failure of the financial system will be very rapid closure of business everywhere. That will mean loss of jobs and incomes (with money that is no good anyway). By 2030 we will see a massive attempt at relocalization restructuring in the OECD countries. Naturally, the dates will vary depending on what sorts of local conditions and resources prevail. For example Japan has little in the way of local natural resources, certainly no energy sources, so we could expect Japan to undergo paroxysmal reorganization as the internal powers seek some new kind of equilibrium. It will be more pronounced for an island nation than a continentally-based one.

Relocalization is the only available response in light of diminishing supplies of energy for transportation. However it has many serious flaws. Its success depends entirely on the local resources available, and things such as climate stability and local population sizes. Unless a locality has the benefits of good soils, mild climate and sufficient growing season, reachable forests, etc. it will not provide a sustainable base for residents. And then, too, if the local population is quite large relative to the local resources, that spells disaster.

I see many discussions about transition towns and relocalization that assumes an adaptation of an existing locale to local-only food and necessities production is feasible. Some have argued that the lawns of suburbia might be converted into crop lands, for example. That thinking is grossly naĆ­ve. Most residential lawns are possible only because grasses have shallow root systems and require copious helpings of fertilizers and water to stay green. The underlying soils are generally pretty poor and in no condition to grow food crops in any kind of quantity.

Much as I hate to say this, most of the people who attempt to relocalize in their current neighborhoods are going to die in situ from malnutrition or dehydration. The amount of food crops needed to provide an annual caloric input per person is far greater than most weekend and patio container gardeners can imagine. Most would-be farmers have no idea what crop mixes to grow to achieve a balanced diet, especially providing for the essential amino acids that our bodies do not manufacture. Indeed how many people even know what those amino acids are?

And then there is climate change. Try to imagine the folk in New Orleans eeking out a bare minimum living raising okra in their back yards to have another Cat 5 hurricane swipe across their relocalized homesteads. Or consider, over a longer time scale, admittedly, the folk in southern Florida trying to keep their oranges growing as the sea infiltrates their water table and eventually their land.

By 2050 I am seeing most transportation coming to a standstill. The dreams of an electrified transportation system powered by wind and some solar will be dashed as the transportation necessary to service the wind turbines in remote locations cannot be sustained with diesel prices in the stratosphere. What is happening now that will aggravate this situation is a sudden turn to electric vehicles and things like high-speed rail systems. The latter are truly boondoggles.

They are meant to make a show of doing something proactive for political gain, and to perpetuate the myth that there is a technological solution to every problem. These high-speed rail proposals that Obama is touting are nothing more than his version of Ronald Reagan's "Morning in America" theme (the one that temporarily blinded me in one of my lesser sapient periods!) Considering the overall scale (running between a few cities where the major ridership will be financial types anxious to get to the next ‘deal’), compared with the scale of trying to fix the standard rail system that actually carries supplies between regions that have and those that don't, this is blatant window dressing (these sentiments have been expressed by James Howard Kunstler, perhaps using similar rhetoric, though much more eloquent that I can muster!)

The climate impacts on regions of the world where many people are going to be literally stranded will begin to take their toll within the next few decades. As I said above, the first to suffer will be those in poorer regions. When the cost of a boat trip across the Gibraltar Straits or across the Arizona desert gets to be unaffordable, refugees will be stranded (we will likely see a resurgence of indentured servitude and outright slavery for a while as long as someone can afford the fuel to make the trips). Far more will be left in this condition than will get out. And those that do can expect nothing but hostilities from otherwise host countries.

Even people in the developed world where climate change will be drastic will suffer the same basic fate. The American eastern and western south lands are incredibly vulnerable to drought and increased average temperatures. The southwest is already arid, but supports a huge population due to imports of drinking water from northern regions, like the San Francisco Bay area or the Colorado River. Even now these sources are under severe stress and not likely to hold out beyond 2030 or 2040.

Something has to give. It seems more likely that Americans living in these areas are going to be somewhat able to pack up and leave for northern realms more readily than peoples in the global south (or Mexico). But what will be the effects of massive migrations north on the communities struggling to relocalize? For the US, the south will not rise again. It will find itself begging the north for shelter. And I make no bets on how generous the northerners will be.

Even if many people from the negatively impacted climate zones make it to milder climes, they will contribute to the further increase in population density exactly at a time when health services will be in rapid decline. The opportunities for huge pandemics will increase and there will be little in the way of prevention of the spread, or treatment of the afflicted. It has happened before (Black Plague) and it would be foolish to suggest it couldn't happen again. Indeed under the conditions I envision, it almost certainly must happen again.

Under the dynamics of this scenario I am thinking that by 2075 more than three quarters of the world's population today will be dead, most from traumatic causes. By 2100 the population may be down to little more than a few million individuals scattered among the last regions that have some level of climate stability. The bottleneck event will have transpired. After this time almost anything can happen. With a radical enough change in the living conditions of the Earth, humans may go extinct. The bottleneck could be as severe as the last one supported by some evidence. We could go down to a mere several hundred individuals! Then what?

There are many well intentioned people today who do see the problems arising and who are trying their best to offer possible solutions. They are to be commended for their sincerity and efforts, but condemned for their inability to see this whole situation systemically. They offer false hope and only exacerbate the situation with respect to getting other people to take any kind of realistic action by reinforcing in them the hope that something will be done and therefore they don't need to do anything differently. As long as someone is taking care of the problem they are content to do nothing. As a result, this ‘do nothing’ action plan will be the most likely to be followed. I don't really blame anyone. This is just our human nature with minimal sapience. But it still sucks.

Least Likely — Scenario Two

Suppose the above scenario represents a reality that will obtain if we do nothing now. This is what we could anticipate by taking no action. We could say these are predictions of what will happen because we don't attempt to alter the future with preemptive actions now. Then the question should be, what if we do take some action now? Would that alter the outcomes in some favorable way? And if so, what actions should we take?

I feel this is the least likely scenario because it requires humans to exercise a level of sapience I doubt that they possess. It would require a level of unprecedented cooperation that I suspect we cannot muster. But I cannot help but wonder, ‘What If?’

The objective of intervention cannot be to prevent a bottleneck. We are in population overshoot and there simply will not be enough resources, especially energy, to do that. Instead, the objective needs to be to minimize the pain and suffering of going through such a bottleneck (without of course simply everyone committing suicide which would be the easy way out).

Along these lines, the objective is to extend over a longer period of time the reduction of population by virtue of allowing a natural death rate to exceed (considerably) the birth rate. In other words, we would undertake an engineered population reduction that would achieve getting that population down to a sustainable level in a short enough time scale that would allow the preservation of at least some natural resources for future generations to build upon.

The population reduction rate has to be fast enough to prevent total depletion of resources such that future generations might not be able to have anything to power anything like what we might call a civilization. What rate might that be?

It is determined by the depletion level of fossil fuels, the rate of change in climate impacts, and the depletion levels of all of the other resources mentioned above. If we had evidence that there would be adequate resources for the next hundred years, it would be reasonable to think that we could come up with a planned reduction with a population halving every hundred years or so. That would translate to an intervention that would affect only a fraction (about one fifth) of the world's people in each generation time period over that several hundred years. Of course we would have to target those in the areas currently suffering the largest population growth rates, which is a political quagmire, as in politically incorrect since it would also be viewed as targeting specific racial or ethnic groups. This would be repugnant to liberals and progressives.

Unfortunately, certainly as far as energy is concerned, our evidence suggests something more radical is called for. We don't have several hundred years. We have, at best, forty or so years before the depletion rate exceeds any possible potential for mitigation by engineered (as opposed to violent) population reduction. This is based on my model (mentioned above) which suggests that the energy decline curve will be much more severe than most others now think likely. If I am wrong, hurrah. If I am right...

Using a pretty standard population dynamics model I estimate that something like ninety percent of the current child-bearing population would need to be sterilized in order to force the population size down sufficiently fast to avoid the worst scenario (above). That is admittedly extremely radical, I do not deny it. The model could be wrong. But what if it isn't? We are playing what if after all. What if I am right?

Suppose we did engineer a radical reduction in the population over the next fifty years. Would that be sufficient? Unfortunately no. This would only be a basic action that we could take to assure a managed bottleneck. In addition we would have to make provisions for how to handle an aging population. There would be no new young people to take over the farms and relocalized manufacturing. What we would gain from the reduction is a conservation of energy and material resources that would allow us to stretch out the time scale of reduction. Instead of a catastrophic reduction in, say, ten years, we could have the same percentage reduction stretched over twenty to thirty years or more. The key would be how many reproducing adults were still in the population.

It is feasible that if we do manage to conserve resources we could redirect some of them to developing technologies that would compensate for not having young workers to replace aging ones. I think we are very close to producing workable robots that could take over the more physical tasks directed at producing just the assets we actually need to live reasonably comfortably, not in luxury. Those robots would be used to assist the aging population until the last sterile individual succumbed to old age (or disease). Robots would need to be powered, of course. So their practicality requires that the remaining flows of energy (especially, say, from wind, solar, and hydroelectric) be used to run them and maintain them in working order. The latter task might be taken on by the non-sterile remaining people forming the breeding population.

An interesting possibility for work that people would be engaged in during this time of contraction is dismantling the human built infrastructure and preserving the reusable resources, steel, copper, etc. for future generations. This would be meaningful work. Granted it isn't meaningful in the same sense as building the world. It would be meaningful as a contribution to future generations of humans who will need these resources but won't have the fossil fuels needed to extract them on their own. Spending time now, dismantling the buildings and machines no longer needed and aggregating those resources would serve humanity in the future. It would be a worthy legacy not unlike a fortune's bequeathal to an heir.

Of course the majority of able bodied will initially be needed in the food production industry because it will become increasingly labor intensive. By drastically reducing the population size it should be feasible to find productive land in spite of the depletion of soil quality throughout the industrial agriculture world. Many folk could be put to meaningful (though hard) work restoring additional soils to permaculture standards. As the population declines, the robots, mentioned above would replace the aging workers in this most necessary work.

An engineered bottleneck would have the advantage of reducing the pain and suffering of starvation, etc. but it would have the obvious negative effects of mental trauma from a denial of childbearing. Which is worse? Moreover, it cannot eliminate all physical suffering because that is already underway and would carry forward no matter what we did. It is really a matter of choosing the least painful alternative. There is no way to avoid some pain.

Survivors of the Bottleneck

This leads us to a consideration of the nature of survival of the bottleneck event. In Scenario One I have already indicated that there is a non-zero probability that any survivors would eventually succumb and the human species would be finished forever. There is some chance that some survivors would remain and find ways to procreate, but starting from the genetic pool of today, it is problematic as to what form evolution would take after that. My guess is devolution toward primitivation rather than advancement. Of course this may just be the natural course of things after all so what would it matter?

In scenario Two we have something of an option. An engineered bottleneck allows us an opportunity to choose the characteristics of our species' progeny. And if we did that (wisely) we might seed a future evolutionary process with a gene pool that promotes those very best characteristics of our kind. My vote goes for high sapience.

Yes Virginia this is eugenics! I admit it. But what else would we do? We might choose higher intelligence, but we already know what high intelligence without higher wisdom produces. Better capitalists! And better capitalists rape the world faster than less bright capitalists.

I realize that very many people will question the genetic basis of sapience and wonder if there isn't some kind of education that could prepare the selected survivors. Then we could just use a lottery system for choosing and our only real action would be to set up that educational system.

This amounts to asking "Are people educable to wisdom?" Certainly, to some degree, some aspects of wisdom could be instilled in anyone. But only some aspects. One might as well ask if people with IQs of 75 might not be trained to do calculus. They are certainly capable of being taught intuitions about rates of change (going faster vs. going slower). But this isn't exactly the same thing as doing calculus is it? Holistic wisdom comes from a native ability to learn veridical tacit knowledge and having the facilities for using that knowledge for judgment in decision making. This is a rare capacity in we humans.

Fortunately we are developing the very tools we would need to answer this question and a basis for making selection decisions if we collectively decided that this would be the better route to take. See Overpopulation: Here is the Solution (http://questioneverything.typepad.com/question_everything/2011/04/overpopulation-here-is-the-solution.html).

If we selected high sapient individuals of breeding age (please bear in mind I am not of breeding age!) and provided protections for them, as well as resources to nurture their establishment, they would survive an engineered bottleneck and have a much better chance of surviving the future changes in the environment due to climate change and massive ecosystems alterations. We could bequeath them the fruits of our civilization (the appropriate technologies and knowledge) with the hope that they will succeed in preserving the genetic heritage of our genus into the distant future.

Feasibility

How likely is Scenario Two? Not very, I'm afraid. Not only do we lack, as a species, the wisdom to act appropriately, we lack the intestinal fortitude to practice the kind of triage that would be necessary. Our political structures, at least in the West, do not even allow the subject to come up let alone make necessary decisions.

The feasibility of determining something like sapience level as a selection criterion is, I think, relatively high given our access to information about the brain functions, brain development, and genetic basis for development. Our understanding of judgment is now high and growing, so the possibility of developing psychological probes that would discriminate sapient judgment from mere intellectual decision making is quite high.

But, we won't even try it. We are, collectively, cowards. We won't even face up to the consequences of what we have wrought until it is too late. Moreover, I expect the majority of people to panic when those consequences start to be felt in earnest. Look at how many people are already reacting to high fuel prices. Instead of seeking information and education on the situation, instead of thinking through the various causes and seeing the naturalness of the effect, what do people do? They complain that they can't consume more. They whine about how hard life is for them. Wait until it really starts to get hard. Then let's see how they react.

So once again I offer this as little more than an intellectual exercise knowing full well that my species will be unable to deal with the forces at hand. Which leaves us with Scenario One, the pain and suffering scenario. Now my only hope is that somewhere out there a few really sapient individuals will be thinking clearly and planning ahead, anticipating the worst and preparing for it.

Older individuals, such as myself, can only try to make younger high sapient people aware and trust to their level of sapience that they will be able to make the right choices. This is a hit and miss proposition. No guarantees. Younger people, even with high sapience, have not accumulated the wisdom of experience. Their sapience can only help them obtain that experience. But then hit and miss always was the nature of evolution! The ultimate question will be whether such a process will produce viable survivors with the right qualities to provide a basis for progress in the development of our genus.

.

Monsanto simply does not care

SUBHEAD: Would vested interests starve the world, setting us up for a major crop failure worldwide? It seems so. By Kurt Cobb on 15 May 2011 in Resource Insight (http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2011/05/would-vested-interests-starve-world.html) Image above: John Deere RoundUp spraying operation. From (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html). In his latest book entitled Bottleneck sociologist and ecologist William Catton Jr. explains in detail why he believes human society is destined for a major dieoff, a "bottleneck" from which few survivors will emerge.

One cause, he says, is an array of vested interests who manipulate the media and the power structure, oblivious to the consequences of their actions. Many would say that this is business-as-usual. After all, what do we expect when governments are thoroughly dominated by the industries they are supposed to regulate? As a result, we may say, a few more people will be maimed or killed or maybe just ripped off than would otherwise be the case. But, would such interests be so crazy as to persist in their manipulations when faced with compelling evidence that suggests their actions could result in widespread starvation? Apparently the answer is yes. Two examples illustrate this possibility. Many readers may be familiar with the rapid decline in honeybee populations worldwide due to what is now called Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). CCD has been attributed to various causes including mite infestations, climate change, cell phones and pesticides. New evidence and observations suggest that the main culprit is a class of pesticides called neonicotinoids--which you might rightly guess are related to nicotine. These pesticides are neurotoxins designed to disorient and paralyze insects. They are not only sprayed, but also applied to seeds and therefore become lodged in the fibers and nectars of plants, killing insects who suck nutrients from such plants. (One of the reasons these pesticides are so popular is that their toxicity to mammals is low.) France, Germany, Italy, and Slovenia have severely restricted or banned this class of pesticides. Ironically, Germany is home to Bayer, one of the largest manufacturers of neonicotinoids, a company which continues to profit from hefty sales abroad. In the aftermath of the bans and restrictions, bee populations have quickly recovered. Naturally, this is not absolute proof that the bans generated the revival. But as the evidence continued to mount that neonicotinoids are strongly implicated in CCD, these European countries applied the so-called precautionary principle. Better to be safe than sorry when it comes to something as critical as food, and honeybees are pollinators for as much as a third of the world's food supply. Other nations have been slow to act because of pressure from the agricultural chemicals industry. The industry's hue and cry is that there is no definitive proof that neonicotinoids are a central cause of CCD. But, of course, the industry has the burden of proof backwards. If the industry is going to put one-third of the world's food supply at risk, then it ought to prove that its products are harmless. That would cost money, lots of money, and it would mean that many new chemicals with expensive development costs might never be approved. Naturally, the industry wants the burden of proof to fall on government and university scientists spending public money to prove a pesticide is dangerous. Nice arrangement! For the industry, that is. A more recent revelation is that glyphosate, the world's most widely used herbicide, may be setting us up for a major crop failure worldwide. Sold primarily under the trade name Roundup, the herbicide has been central to chemical and seed giant Monsanto's strategy to lock-in alfalfa, corn, cotton, canola, soybean, and sugar beet growers who must buy the company's genetically engineered and patent-protected seeds every year from Monsanto if they want to reseed their fields with herbicide-proof crops. Now a leaked private letter from an agricultural researcher to the secretary of agriculture seeking funds to research possible connections between the herbicide and increased levels of plant and animal disease has called into question the safety of this herbicide (http://www.alternet.org/story/150733/why_is_damning_new_evidence_about_monsanto's_most_widely_used_herbicide_being_silenced/). Apparently, glyphosate promotes what is now being called Sudden Death Syndrome in plants by making them more susceptible to soil-borne diseases (http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/664). This might not be so urgent an issue if it were relegated to crops that were of minor importance in the food supply or if the size of the genetically engineered crop were small. But neither is the case. Keep in mind that some 80 percent of all calories consumed by humans originate as grains or oilseeds. (A significant portion of these, of course, is used as feed for dairy and meat production).

In 2010 in the United States, the world's major grain and oilseed exporter, 90 percent of the soybean crop was Roundup Ready (i.e. glyphosate-resistant) as was 70 percent of the corn (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/04/business/energy-environment/04weed.html). For the world the numbers were lower but considerable: 77 percent for soybeans and 26 percent for corn. A major decline in yields of these crops could certainly result in sky-high food prices and therefore hunger and starvation for many of the poorest in the world. One would think that authorities would be rushing to determine whether such dangers exist and how severe they are. But while many agricultural governmental agencies are aware of the concerns, little is being done. Perhaps it will take a major harvest catastrophe to convince policymakers that the dangers are real. By then, of course, it will be too late for many. But, at least the agricultural chemical interests will be pleased that their political and financial muscle extended profits right up to the moment when it became clear to everyone why the harvest failed.

See also: Ea O Ka Aina: Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto 5/11/11 .

One Time Through the Bottleneck

SUBHEAD: Almost 200,000 years ago humans faced extinction. Only a few hundred were saved along the coast of Cape Horn.  

By Curtiss W. Marean on 21 July 2010 for Scientific American - 
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-the-sea-saved-humanity


Image above: The shoreline near Cape Horn, South Africa. From (http://www.holidaydestinationsa2z.org/index.php?section=pages&item=Western-Cape).

Shortly after Homo sapiens arose harsh climate conditions nearly extinguished our species. Recent finds suggest that the small population that gave rise to all humans alive today survived by exploiting a unique combination of resources along the southern coast of Africa.

With the global population of humans currently approaching seven billion, it is difficult to imagine that Homo sapiens was once an endangered species. Yet studies of the DNA of modern-day people indicate that, once upon a time, our ancestors did in fact undergo a dramatic population decline.

Although scientists lack a precise timeline for the origin and near extinction of our species, we can surmise from the fossil record that our forebears arose throughout Africa shortly before 195,000 years ago.

Back then the climate was mild and food was plentiful; life was good. But around 195,000 years ago, conditions began to deteriorate. The planet entered a long glacial stage known as Marine Isotope Stage 6 (MIS6) that lasted until roughly 123,000 years ago.

A detailed record of Africa’s environmental conditions during Glacial Stage 6 does not exist, but based on more recent, better-known glacial stages, climatologists surmise that it was almost certainly cool and arid and that its deserts were probably significantly expanded relative to their modern extents.

Much of the landmass would have been uninhabitable. While the planet was in the grip of this icy regime, the number of people plummeted perilously—from more than 10,000 breeding individuals to just hundreds.

Estimates of exactly when this bottleneck occurred and how small the population became vary among genetic studies, but all of them indicate that everyone alive today is descended from a small population that lived in one region of Africa sometime during this global cooling phase.

I began my career as an archaeologist working in East Africa and studying the origin of modern humans.

But my interests began to shift when I learned of the population bottleneck that geneticists had started talking about in the early 1990s.

Humans today exhibit very low genetic diversity relative to many other species with much smaller population sizes and geographic ranges—a phenomenon best explained by the occurrence of a population crash in early H. sapiens.

Where, I wondered, did our ancestors manage to survive during the climate catastrophe? Only a handful of regions could have had the natural resources to support hunter-gatherers.

Paleoanthropologists argue vociferously over which of these areas was the ideal spot. The southern coast of Africa, rich in shellfish and edible plants year-round, seemed to me as if it would have been a particularly good refuge in tough times.

So, in 1991, I decided I would go there and look for sites with remains dating to Glacial Stage 6.

My search within that coastal area was not random. I had to find a shelter close enough to the ancient coastline to provide easy access to shellfish and elevated enough that its archaeological deposits would not have been washed away 123,000 years ago when the climate warmed and sea levels surged.

In 1999 my South African colleague Peter Nilssen and I decided to investigate some caves he had spotted at a place called Pinnacle Point, a promontory near the town of Mossel Bay that juts into the Indian Ocean.

Scrambling down the sheer cliff face, we came across a cave that looked particularly promising—one known simply as PP13B. Erosion of the sedimentary deposits located near the mouth of the cave had exposed clear layers of archaeological remains, including hearths and stone tools.

Even better, a sand dune and a layer of stalagmite capped these remnants of human activity, suggesting that they were quite old. By all appearances, we had hit the jackpot. The following year, after a local ostrich farmer built us a 180-step wooden staircase to allow safer access to the site, we began to dig.

Since then, my team’s excavations at PP13B and other nearby sites have recovered a remarkable record of the activities undertaken by the people who inhabited this area between approximately 164,000 and 35,000 years ago, hence during the bottleneck and after the population began to recover.

The deposits in these caves, combined with analyses of the ancient environment there, have enabled us to piece together a plausible account of how the prehistoric residents of Pinnacle Point eked out a living during a grim climate crisis.

The remains also debunk the abiding notion that cognitive modernity evolved long after anatomical modernity: evidence of behavioral sophistication abounds in even the oldest archaeological levels at PP13B. This advanced intellect no doubt contributed significantly to the survival of the species, enabling our forebears to take advantage of the resources available on the coast.

While elsewhere on the continent populations of H. sapiens died out as cold and drought claimed the animals and plants they hunted and gathered, the lucky denizens of Pinnacle Point were feasting on the seafood and carbohydrate-rich plants that proliferated there despite the hostile climate.

As Glacial Stage 6 cycled through its relatively warmer and colder phases, the seas rose and fell, and the ancient coastline advanced and retreated. But so long as people tracked the shore, they had access to an enviable bounty.

A Coastal Cornucopia
From a survival standpoint, what makes the southern edge of Africa attractive is its unique combination of plants and animals. There a thin strip of land containing the highest diversity of flora for its size in the world hugs the shoreline. Known as the Cape Floral Region, this 90,000- square-kilometer strip contains an astonishing 9,000 plant species, some 64 percent of which live only there.

Indeed, the famous Table Mountain that rises above Cape Town in the heart of the Cape Floral Region has more species of plants than does the entire U.K. Of the vegetation groups that occur in this realm, the two most extensive are the fynbos and the renosterveld, which consist largely of shrubs.

To a human forager equipped with a digging stick, they offer a valuable commodity: the plants in these groups produce the world’s greatest diversity of geophytes—underground energy-storage organs such as tubers, bulbs and corms.

Geophytes are an important food source for modern-day hunter-gatherers for several reasons. They contain high amounts of carbohydrate; they attain their peak carbohydrate content reliably at certain times of year; and, unlike aboveground fruits, nuts and seeds, they have few predators.

The bulbs and corms that dominate the Cape Floral Region are additionally appealing because in contrast to the many geophytes that are highly fibrous, they are low in fiber relative to the amount of energy-rich carbohydrate they contain, making them more easily digested by children. (Cooking further enhances their digestibility.)

And because geophytes are adaptations to dry conditions, they would have been readily available during arid glacial phases.

The southern coast also has an excellent source of protein to offer, despite not being a prime hunting ground for large mammals. Just offshore, the collision of nutrient-rich cold waters from the Benguela upwelling and the warm Agul­has current creates a mix of cold and warm eddies along the southern coast.

This varied ocean environment nurtures diverse and dense beds of shellfish in the rocky intertidal zones and sandy beaches. Shellfish are a very high quality source of protein and omega-3 fatty acids. And as with geophytes, glacial cooling does not depress their numbers. Rather, lower ocean temperatures result in a greater abundance of shellfish.


Image above:Kirstenbosch Botanic Gardens in the Cape Flora highlands of South Africa. From (http://www.fotopedia.com/items/flickr-4274271451).

Survival Skills
With its combination of calorically dense, nutrient-rich protein from the shellfish and low-fiber, energy-laden carbs from the geophytes, the southern coast would have provided an ideal diet for early modern humans during Glacial Stage 6.

Furthermore, women could obtain both these resources on their own, freeing them from relying on men to provision them and their children with high-quality food.

We have yet to unearth proof that the occupants of PP13B were eating geophytes—sites this old rarely preserve organic remains—although younger sites in the area contain extensive evidence of geophyte consumption. But we have found clear evidence that they were dining on shellfish.

Studies of the shells found at the site conducted by Antonieta Jerardino of the University of Barcelona show that people were gathering brown mussels and local sea snails called alikreukel from the seashore. They also ate marine mammals such as seals and whales on occasion.

Previously the oldest known examples of humans systematically using marine resources dated to less than 120,000 years ago.

But dating analyses performed by Miryam Bar-Matthews of the Geological Survey of Israel and Zenobia Jacobs of University of Wollongong in Australia have revealed that the PP13B people lived off the sea far earlier than that: as we reported in 2007 in the journal Nature, marine foraging there dates back to a stunning 164,000 years ago. By 110,000 years ago the menu had expanded to include species such as limpets and sand mussels.

This kind of foraging is harder than it might seem. The mussels, limpets and sea snails live on the rocks in the treacherous intertidal zone, where an incoming swell could easily knock over a hapless collector.

Along the southern coast, safe harvesting with sufficiently high returns is only possible during low spring tides, when the sun and moon align, exerting their maximum gravitational force on the ebb and flow of the water.

Because the tides are linked to the phases of the moon, advancing by 50 minutes a day, I surmise that the people who lived at PP13B—which 164,000 years ago was located much farther inland, two to five kilometers from the water, because of lower sea levels—scheduled their trips to the shore using a lunar calendar of sorts, just as modern coastal people have done for ages.

Harvesting shellfish is not the only advanced behavior in evidence at Pinnacle Point as early as 164,000 years ago. Among the stone tools are significant numbers of “bladelets”—tiny flakes twice as long as they are wide—that are too small to wield by hand. Instead they must have been attached to shafts of wood and used as projectile weapons.

Composite toolmaking is indicative of considerable technological know-how, and the blade­lets at PP13B are among the oldest examples of it. But we soon learned that these tiny implements were even more complex than we thought.

Most of the stone tools found at coastal South African archaeological sites are made from a type of stone called quartzite. This coarse-grained rock is great for making large flakes, but it is difficult to shape into small, refined tools.

To manufacture the bladelets, people used fine-grained rock called silcrete. There was something odd about the archaeological silcrete, though, as observed by Kyle S. Brown of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, an expert stone tool flaker on my team.

After years of collecting silcrete from all over the coast, Brown determined that in its raw form the rock never has the lustrous red and gray coloring seen in the silcrete implements at Pinnacle Point and elsewhere. Furthermore, the raw silcrete is virtually impossible to shape into bladelets. Where, we wondered, did the toolmakers find their superior silcrete?

A possible answer to this question came from Pinnacle Point Cave 5-6, where one day in 2008 we found a large piece of silcrete embedded in ash. It had the same color and luster seen in the silcrete found at other archaeological deposits in the region.

Given the association of the stone with the ash, we asked ourselves whether the ancient toolmakers might have exposed the silcrete to fire to make it easier to work with—a strategy that has been documented in ethnographic accounts of native North Americans and Australians.

To find out, Brown carefully “cooked” some raw silcrete and then attempted to knap it. It flaked wonderfully, and the flaked surfaces shone with the same luster seen in the artifacts from our sites.

We thus concluded that the Stone Age silcrete was also heat-treated.

We faced an uphill battle to convince our colleagues of this remarkable claim, however. It was archaeology gospel that the Solutrean people in France invented heat treatment about 20,000 years ago, using it to make their beautiful tools.

To bolster our case, we used three independent techniques. Chantal Tribolo of the University of Bordeaux performed what is called thermoluminescence analysis to determine whether the silcrete tools from Pinnacle Point were intentionally heated.

Then Andy Herries of the University of New South Wales in Australia employed magnetic susceptibility, which looks for changes in the ability of rock to be magnetized—another indicator of heat exposure among iron-rich rocks.

Finally, Brown used a gloss meter to measure the luster that develops after heating and flaking and compare it with the luster on the tools he made. Our results, detailed last year in the journal Science, showed that intentional heat treatment was a dominant technology at Pinnacle Point by 72,000 years ago and that people there employed it intermittently as far back as 164,000 years ago.

The process of treating by heat testifies to two uniquely modern human cognitive abilities.

First, people recognized that they could substantially alter a raw material to make it useful—in this case, engineering the properties of stone by heating it, thereby turning a poor-quality rock into high-quality raw material. Second, they could invent and execute a long chain of processes.

The making of silcrete blades requires a complex series of carefully designed steps: building a sand pit to insulate the silcrete, bringing the heat slowly up to 350 degrees Celsius, holding the temperature steady and then dropping it down slowly.

Creating and carrying out the sequence and passing technologies down from generation to generation probably required language. Once established, these abilities no doubt helped our ancestors outcompete the archaic human species they encountered once they dispersed from Africa.

In particular, the complex pyrotechnology detected at Pinnacle Point would have given early modern humans a distinct advantage as they entered the cold lands of the Neandertals, who seem to have lacked this technique.


Image above: Pinnacle Point Cave (PP13B) as it appears today. From (http://scopeweb.mit.edu/?p=151#more-151).

 
Smart from the Start
In addition to being technologically savvy, the prehistoric denizens of Pinnacle Point had an artistic side. In the oldest layers of the PP13B sequence, my team has unearthed dozens of pieces of red ochre (iron oxide) that were variously carved and ground to create a fine powder that was probably mixed with a binder such as animal fat to make paint that could be applied to the body or other surfaces.

Such decorations typically encode information about social identity or other important aspects of culture—that is, they are symbolic. Many of my colleagues and I think that this ochre constitutes the earliest unequivocal example of symbolic behavior on record and pushes the origin of such practices back by tens of thousands of years.

Evidence of symbolic activities also appears later in the sequence. Deposits dating to around 110,00 years ago include both red ochre and seashells that were clearly collected for their aesthetic appeal, because by the time they washed ashore from their deepwater home, any flesh would have been long gone.

I think these decorative seashells, along with the evidence for marine foraging, signal that people had, for the first time, begun to embed in their worldview and rituals a clear commitment to the sea.
 
The precocious expressions of both symbolism and sophisticated technology at Pinnacle Point have major implications for understanding the origin of our species.

Fossils from Ethiopia show that anatomically modern humans had evolved by at least 195,000 years ago. The emergence of the modern mind, however, is more difficult to establish.

Paleoanthropologists use various proxies in the archaeological record to try to identify the presence and scope of cognitive modernity.

Artifacts made using technologies that require outside-the-box connections of seemingly unrelated phenomena and long chains of production—like heat treatment of rock for tool manufacture—are one proxy. Evidence of art or other symbolic activities is another, as is the tracking of time through proxies such as lunar phases.

For years the earliest examples of these behaviors were all found in Europe and dated to after 40,000 years ago. Based on that record, researchers concluded that there was a long lag between the origin of our species and the emergence of our peerless creativity.
 
But over the past 10 years archaeologists working at a number of sites in South Africa have found examples of sophisticated behaviors that predate by a long shot their counterparts in Europe. For instance, archaeologist Ian Watts, who works in South Africa, has described hundreds to thousands of pieces of worked and unworked ochre at sites dating as far back as 120,000 years ago.

 Interestingly, this ochre, as well as the pieces at Pinnacle Point, tends to be red despite the fact that local sources of the mineral exhibit a range of hues, suggesting that humans were preferentially curating the red pieces—perhaps associating the color with menstruation and fertility.

Jocelyn A. Bernatchez, a Ph.D. student at Arizona State, thinks that many of these ochre pieces may have been yellow originally and then heat-treated to turn them red.

And at Blombos Cave, located about 100 kilometers west of Pinnacle Point, Christopher S. Henshilwood of the University of Bergen in Norway has discovered pieces of ochre with systematic engravings, beads made of snail shells and refined bone tools, all of which date to around 71,000 years ago [see “The Morning of the Modern Mind,” by Kate Wong; Scientific American, June 2005].

These sites, along with those at Pinnacle Point, belie the claim that modern cognition evolved late in our lineage and suggest instead that our species had this faculty at its inception.

I suspect that a driving force in the evolution of this complex cognition was strong long-term selection acting to enhance our ancestors’ ability to mentally map the location and seasonal variation of many species of plants in arid environments and to convey this accumulated knowledge to offspring and other group members.

This capacity laid the foundation for many other advances, such as the ability to grasp the link between the phases of the moon and the tides and to learn to schedule their shellfish-hunting trips to the shore accordingly. Together the readily available shellfish and geophytes provided a high-quality diet that allowed people to become less nomadic, increased their birth rates and reduced their child mortality.

The larger group sizes that resulted from these changes would have promoted symbolic behavior and technological complexity as people endeavored to express their social identity and build on one another’s technologies, explaining why we see such sophisticated practices at PP13B.

Follow the Sea
PP13B preserves a long record of changing occupations that, in combination with the detailed records of local climate and environmental change my team has obtained, is revealing how our ancestors used the cave and the coast over millennia.

Modeling the paleocoastline over time, Erich C. Fisher of the University of Florida has shown that the conditions changed quickly and dramatically, thanks to a long, wide, gently sloping continental shelf off the coast of South Africa called the Agulhas bank.

During glacial periods, when sea levels fell, significant amounts of this shelf would have been exposed, putting considerable distance—up to 95 kilometers—between Pinnacle Point and the ocean. When the climate warmed and sea levels rose, the water advanced over the Agulhas bank again, and the caves were seaside once more.

Judging from rainfall and vegetation patterns evident in records from stalagmites spanning the time between 350,000 and 50,000 years ago, we see that the fynbos probably followed the retreating coast out onto the now submerged continental shelf and back again, keeping the geophytes and shellfish in close proximity.

As for the people, during these periods of low population density they were free to target the best part of the landscape, and that was the intersection of the geophytes and shellfish—so I suspect they followed the sea. The tracking of resources would explain why PP13B appears to have been occupied intermittently.

Our excavations at PP13B have intercepted the people who may very well be the ancestors of everyone on the planet as they shadowed the shifting shoreline. Yet if I am correct about these people and their connection to the coast, the richest record of the progenitor population lies underwater on the Agulhas bank.

There it will remain for the near future, guarded by great white sharks and dangerous currents. We can still test the hypothesis that humans followed the sea by examining sites on the current coast such as PP13B and another site we are excavating called PP5-6. But we can also study locations where the continental shelf drops steeply and the coast was always near—investigations that my colleagues and I are currently initiating.

The genetic, fossil and archaeological records are reasonably concordant in suggesting that the first substantial and prolonged wave of modern human migration out of Africa occurred around 50,000 years ago. But questions about the events leading up to that exodus remain.

We still do not know, for example, whether at the end of Glacial Stage 6 there was just one population of H. sapiens left in Africa or whether there were several, with just one ultimately giving rise to everyone alive today.

Such unknowns are providing my team and others with a very clear and exciting research direction for the foreseeable future: our fieldwork needs to target the other potential progenitor zones in Africa during that glacial period and expand our knowledge of the climate conditions just before that stage.

We need to flesh out the story of these people who eventually pushed out of their refuge, filled up the African continent and went on to conquer the world.

.

Interview with Ellen LaConte

SUBHEAD: Eco-economies are local and regional, place-based, functionally self-reliant, interdependent, mutually supportive, regenerative, restorative and resilient.  

By Robert Jensen on 8 March 2011 in Energy Bulletin -  
(http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2011-03-08/listening-life-it%E2%80%99s-too-late-interview-ellen-laconte)

   
Image above: "Mother Earth" by Stephen Alcorn (2005). From (http://www.alcorngallery.com/Folklore/Folklore_display.php?i=4).
 
People of conscience face two crucial challenges today: (1) Telling the truth about the dire state of the ecosphere that makes our lives possible, no matter how grim that reality, and (2) remaining committed to collective action to create a more just and sustainable world, no matter how daunting that task. It’s not an easy balancing act, as we struggle to understand the scope of the crisis without giving into a sense of hopelessness.

Ellen LaConte’s new book, Life Rules (http://www.ellenlaconte.com/life-rules-the-book), is a welcome addition to the growing literature on these crises. The subtitle -- Why so much is going wrong everywhere at once and how Life teaches us to fix it -- captures the spirit of the book. LaConte offers an unflinching assessment of the problems and an honest path to sensible action. In an interview, I asked her to elaborate on her background and path to the insights of the book.

Robert Jensen: For me, your book came out of nowhere. I had never read an article by you or heard your name. So, as I read Life Rules and was so impressed with the breadth and depth of your analysis, I found myself wondering, “Who is she and where does she come from?”

Ellen LaConte: The short answer is that I’ve worked for almost 40 years as an old-school print writer and editor, mostly for small magazines, about organic gardening and farming, appropriate technologies, organizational communications, homesteading, history, education, alternative economics, evolution, democracy theory and practice, complex systems. I’m a generalist and seem instinctively to synthesize and simplify big ideas like those in Life Rules.

I like living a small-scale, small-pond, hands-on, quiet life. I had a paternal grandmother who lived on the remains of what had been a family farm in Pennsylvania Dutch country outside Lancaster and maternal grandparents who had a half-acre or so in north Baltimore that was dominated by my grandfather’s vegetable and fruit gardens.

I adored hanging out with him while he made compost, taught me about worms and ants and the living soil, talked to me non-stop about what he was doing and why. He was one of J.I. Rodale’s first fanatics (http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/history). I also grew up surrounded with books and magazines, was bookish pretty much from the start. I learned to love hand tools -- my grandfather had a workshop full of them -- and what was called “handiwork.”

My childhood was a perfect set up for the homesteading/owner-built/simplicity/self-reliance movement that in the 1970s -- when I was in my 20s -- seemed to me the most appropriate response to present and promised oil shortages, and a saner and more spiritually sound and grounded response to future shock than the globalized hi-tech, expansive, consumptive, grab-and-get one that also was popular in the ‘70s. It also suited my somewhat reclusive, contemplative nature.

Though my childhood was churched, Protestant, I didn’t really enter onto any kind of serious spiritual study or path until I was in my late 30s. I suppose I’d call myself a Tao, Zen and Sufi influenced Christian with decided mystical leanings. I somehow missed the 1960s, both the protest and the flower-power/drugs/sex/rock-and-roll parts. I don’t like crowds, noise, confrontation or argument. I lack both irony and edge, or maybe what’s called “edginess.” It’s my nature to want to fix things, smooth them over when possible, broker agreement or simply yield.

RJ: You say you don’t like confrontation or argument, but your book is a radical analysis, and you obviously realize that many -- maybe most -- people will argue with its thesis.

EL: I prefer writing about my convictions and worldview rather than explaining or arguing about them in real time. I don’t have a podium-proselytizing personality. Argument, even the constructive kind, is often reactive and impulsive. I’m emotionally impulsive enough by nature that I’ve learned -- or tried to learn -- that one ought to rein in one’s impulses and emotions about things as important as convictions.

The cartoon character Linus from “Peanuts” said, “I love mankind, it’s people I can’t stand.” I’m the flip side: I love people, it’s humanity I have a hard time with. I’ve always preferred and been fortunate to be able to work alone or with or for just one or two people. This, and my general disinterest in and ignorance about politics, seem contradictory for someone writing about community and democracy and promoting a deep Green movement. But it’s why I’ve been able to write about those things.

RJ: It does appear to be a contradiction. I assume you are suggesting that there are many different ways to contribute to making a better world. 

EL: I spoke recently to a college Philosophical Society about the book. I told them that it seemed to me that to love wisdom, to be philosophical in the truest sense, meant to be to some degree detached from day-to-day events, from immediate things. Not to be disinterested or unaffected, but less buffeted or influenced and consumed by them.

One of the reasons I could synthesize so much of what’s going wrong in the world now is that I’ve had time, as well as the calling and inclination, for it. I could stand back, meditate, read, engage in independent research, wait for understanding to come, question conventional assumptions, including my own, and look almost leisurely for the largest context in which we humans live our lives, which would be the context that should guide how we live our lives and deal with the Critical Mass of crises we presently face.

Given how caught up I get in other people’s lives, if I’d been busy organizing, protesting, working full tilt and full time, trying to respond to the needs and input of multiple colleagues, I’d have had less mental space and stamina to do that. I’d never arrived at the simple but elemental understanding that Life rules, we don’t.

RJ: Please explain that title. Do you mean that Life -- something bigger than us -- rules? Or that we need to follow Life’s rules? 

EL: Yes, both. The largest context -- the largest high-functioning complex system within which we live our lives -- is not the nation, nation-state system or global economic system but Life itself, the whole-earth, emergent and self-maintaining system of natural communities and ecosystems. That system, the ecosphere, teaches us the physical laws, the relationships and behaviors discovered in physics, biology and ecology and exemplified by the so-called “mystical” spiritual teachers, that we have to obey if we want to remain viable as a species.

We aren’t the ultimate authority, and none of the systems we’ve created possess ultimate authority. It’s Life that has created the physical conditions that make it possible for us to exist. We depend on Life for our lives. More specifically, we depend on Life as we know it for our lives, for the climate, resources, natural communities, and ecosystems that provide us with what we need to live.

Life has encoded in every other-than-human species a sort of protocol or blueprint of economic rules for survival, a set of behaviors and relationships that allow Life as we know it to live within earth’s means, to be long-term sustainable. In the physical/material realm on this planet, Life calls the shots. Life rules, we don’t. Other species have no choice but to obey those economic rules. We alone have a choice.

And lately, as a species living under the influence of a global economy that has, in the vernacular, gone viral, we’ve chosen pridefully and foolishly to break all the rules. The way we live in the present Global Economic Order -- capital G, capital E, capital O -- isn’t sustainable. It’s pathological. It works at cross purposes to everything small g, e and o -- “geo,” everything earthy. In particular, the GEO works at cross purposes to Life.

RJ: That sounds simple, almost simplistic, pointing out that humans live within an ecosphere that is governed physical laws and not limitless. But all around us in the First World is evidence of a society out of balance, apparently seized with the belief that we can defy ecological limits indefinitely.

EL: If you condense the 100,000 years or so that Homo sapiens sapiens, humans like us, have been around into the 24 hours of one day, the Global Economic Order has been in existence for less than a minute. We can live without a GEO, but we can’t live without or apart from Life as we know it. So we have two choices: We can forego our present economic model and choose to learn and obey Life’s economic rules.

Or we can choose not to. In which case Life will rule us out, adapt to our trespasses like an apple tree adapting to a lightening strike, and get on with its experiment in creating and sustaining more life just fine without us. Life rules, we don’t.

RJ: You suggest that because of the way the GEO works, we are close to a Critical Mass. What do you mean by that term?

EL: There’s actually a pretty good explanation for the now almost total disconnect between our perception of reality and our actual reality, between our sense as a species of being larger than Life and the inarguable fact that we are dependent on it for our very existence. Actually there are a couple of explanations.

One is money. Since we use money -- or its funny-money kin, such as credit and its ever-funnier-money kin like default swaps -- to acquire the things we need and want, we don’t provide those things for ourselves, we’ve lost track of where the things we need and want actually come from. We have little or no knowledge of the sources of our provisions or the damage done to living systems by the way we acquire them and the amounts of them we acquire.

We’ve put our faith in the economy’s ability to deliver what we need to us, so long as we have enough money. Money has come between us and substantial things -- the real goods, resources and ecosystem services that we actually need to live. Money has kept us from seeing the truth of our circumstances, which is that soon there will be insufficient fossil fuels, plastics, clean fresh water, forests, living soil, grains, seafood, congenial and predictable climate, functioning governments. You name it, we’ll run short of it ad infinitum.

Another explanation for our ignorance of the reality of our present circumstances is that most people have never heard of or taken seriously the limiting factor on a finite planet called “carrying capacity” -- the number of a species or a collection of species that an ecosystem can support long-term without suffering damage in excess of what the ecosystem itself can repair. In accounting, exceeding carrying capacity is called going bankrupt. That’s where we’re headed environmentally as well as financially right now. But most of us don’t realize that’s where we are yet because in those previous 23 hours and 59 minutes of human history we’ve either had more places -- more “New Worlds” to move to, conquer and plunder -- or new technologies that would do a better job of plundering the places we were in to provide for us.

We have just recently -- in, say, the last 30 seconds of that last most recent minute of human history -- hit that point in our global economic assault on living things and living systems both human and natural, that there’s no going back. We have just hit what I call Critical Mass, which is the name I’ve given what others are calling collapse, the tipping point, the long emergency, or bottleneck. It’s my name for our previously latent and slowly unfolding, now rapidly worsening planetary equivalent of HIV/AIDS.

RJ: That analogy to HIV/AIDS runs throughout the book, which may strike some as an odd comparison. Can you explain that?

EL: Critical Mass names a syndrome of converging, mutually-reinforcing environmental, economic, political and social crises that we think about and try to address as if they were separate and unrelated, but they are not. They are symptoms of one disease, a viral, a pathological global economy that is undermining the ability of human and natural communities -- Earth’s equivalent of an immune system -- to provide for, protect, defend and heal themselves the same way HIV undermines the ability of our immune systems to protect and heal us.

There are two pages in the book that compare HIV and the GEO, characteristic for characteristic, and the similarities are startling and frightening. I think we are presently at the HIV stage of the disease; it hasn’t quite yet become full-blown planetary AIDS. But I insist in the book that doing more of what we’ve been doing to exceed Earth’s physical means as well as our own fiscal ones -- in other words, trying to heal and grow the very kind and scope of economy that caused this disease -- is akin to injecting a patient who already has HIV with more HIV. That’s precisely what we’re doing.


RJ: From the diagnosis, I want to go back to the treatment plan, and your assessment of where the solutions to Critical Mass might be worked out. 

EL: Since all economies depend on earth and Life as we know it consistently and continuously delivering the goods -- resources, ecosystem services like living soils, pollination, marine fisheries, oxygen, carbon sequestration, air filtration, sufficient clean fresh water, a habitable, predictable climate -- then it seems to me the treatment plan has to be one that doesn’t exceed earth’s means of supporting us, doesn’t run against Life’s grain, and doesn’t compromise the health of the living systems. And the only examples of how to do that come from Life itself.

I argue in the book -- with support from geneticists, microbiologists, evolutionary theorists, and paleobiologists -- that the oldest and first living things, single-celled entities like bacteria, spent the first 2 billion years learning how to provide for themselves in ways that would be sustainable over the long term. When they did learn it -- after nearly putting themselves and the Life experiment on Earth out of business -- Life locked in, genetically encoded, what they’d learned.

Simply put, after going global and inducing the equivalent of our present Critical Mass three times, bacteria adopted a sort of Ten Commandments of Sustainability that can be synthesized for our purposes as five new behaviors. They went 5D: they downsized, diversified, decarbonized, dematerialized and, most importantly, they organized themselves in ways that are profoundly democratic.

Over the past 2 billion years, other-than-human living things have mastered the arts of solar energetics, recycling, sharing and interdependence, self-regulation, self-limitation, restrained competition, cooperation and collaboration, grassroots organization, self-governance, ecosystem management and -- this is profoundly important for us -- community building. Life is a cross-species, communitarian phenomenon. Their organically democratic eco-economies are local and regional, place-based, functionally self-reliant, interdependent, mutually supportive, regenerative, restorative and resilient.

The salient point is that Life and only Life can teach us how to live eco-logically, within Earth’s means. If we learn what Life teaches us and create lifeways that mimic Life’s ways, we can survive this round of Critical Mass we’ve induced and manage to avoid inducing it again. Janine Benyus wrote a book called Biomimicry that reported on and inspired a movement to copy, for example, the ways other species and living systems produce what they need sustainably. You could call what I’m suggesting in Life Rules radical or full-bore biomimicry.

RJ: Given how detached most of the contemporary world is from understanding, let alone mimicking, the natural world, is this realistic?

Adopting Life’s rules will require, of course, a huge transformation of the ways we think about our place in the community of living things and the ways we live. My book offers three chapters of examples of what we can do and some communities are already doing, if in a very preliminary way. We’ll need to revise what education is for, what needs to get taught and where, when and how learning needs to occur. I would suggest again that Life is the primary teacher, its economic, production, consumption, relational and organizational rules the curriculum.

The particular ecosystems -- the geographic places -- we live in and are presently destroying are the classrooms. And as Post-Carbon Institute Senior Fellow Richard Heinberg proposed in Powerdown, the most important and hardest lesson we will need to learn as a species is self-limitation. Where material consumption is concerned, “less is best” will absolutely have to replace “wars for more” as our collective ethical prime directive.

The good news is, if we take our cues from Life, if we decide to transform our ways of living and providing for ourselves, we don’t need governments as we know them or any sort of global agreement or institutions to begin and to succeed. Sustainability is by nature a grassroots undertaking. Both the learning and the mimicking can, and must, be engaged in particular places with the natural and human communities that live in those places. Life’s a collection of local phenomena, a community of communities, as John Cobb and Herman Daly propose in their books, for example, For the Common Good. If we need a goad to transformation, there’s this one: If we don’t choose to transform ourselves and our lifeways, Life will force us to. Life rules, we don’t, and Life will not hesitate to rule harshly and even rule us out.

RJ: Does that mean we have ugly times ahead of us?

EL: While there’s no reason to believe we will engage in this transformation willingly or that there will not be violence on the way to Life-likeness, a lot of communities around the country and in other countries have already begun to explore and experiment with aspects of Life’s Protocol for Economic Survival, though they don’t have my name for it yet.

The relocalization, Transition Town, post-carbon, 350.org, local currency, slow food, ecozoic and new economics movements, for example, all teach and apply one or more of Life’s lessons. Paul Hawken’s team at the WiserEarth website is creating a data base of information about organizations involved in movements like these. They’ve accounted for around 125,000 and think there may be twice that many. Hawken suggests we think of these organizations and their members as anti-bodies helping healing the planet’s immune system of this AIDS-like, economically induced disease I call Critical Mass. These organizations and movements represent a starting point.

But a viable treatment plan for this virulent, life-threatening, economically-induced syndrome of crises cannot engage in just one or two or even three of the 5Ds, and cannot engage in them scattershot or only to a degree that doesn’t upset business as usual. Eco-logic requires that we incorporate, integrate, and practice all of Life’s rules, that we stop behaving as if we were larger than or apart from Life and become constructive participants in it.

RJ: It seems clear that the kind of change you describe as necessary is not possible within capitalism and that capitalism is a serious impediment to such change. Earlier you said we have to “forego our present economic model,” but not all the movements and experiments you mention are anti-capitalist. How do you negotiate that?

EL: I kept religion, politics, parties, personalities and “ism” analysis pretty much out of the book in order not to allow any of those divisive topics to set up straw figures and distract readers from the central point: By present economic methods and models, we are living beyond earth’s means. I suggest in the book that unregulated, growth-dependent capitalism only appears to succeed because it has been enabled by the mechanisms of globalism to have the whole earth at its disposal and by the machinations of the Powers to make grab-and-get/pillage-and-plunder its operating principles.

Once it has been globalized, the one thing a capitalist economy can’t be is not-global. And as a globalized phenomenon, it cannot help but exceed earth’s means of supporting it. It is the globalization of the capitalist -- and, I would add, colonialist -- industrial economy that is doing-in Life as we know it. And as I also suggest in the book, the system is too big not to fail since the resource base -- or, to retrieve my HIV/AIDS analogy, the host planet -- it depends on is finite. When AIDS sufficiently ravages a human patient’s body, the virus dies along with the patient. Consequently, along with ecosystems, species, human and natural communities, human lives, quality of life, and Life as we know it -- the global capitalist economy itself is in its terminal stages.

Taking on capitalism head on would have gotten up the backs of too many potential readers. And while they might waste time arguing the merits of capitalism or arguing the possibility of no-growth capitalism, they cannot successfully argue the merits of a globalized economic system of any kind. Globalized bartering or socialism or communism would equally challenge the earth’s human and natural communities and the biosphere’s functioning. Kirkpatrick Sale and E.F. Schumacher had it right: Scale matters and where sustainability is an issue, which in the matter of human survival it is, small is not only beautiful but self-limiting, survivable, and sustainable.

So, no, not all the movements and examples I mention in the book are anti-capitalist. The measure of an experiment’s success is not that it is anti-capitalist but that it works in harmony with living systems, and in the ways that living systems work. An experiment need not be in and of itself the cure for Critical Mass but is exemplary of one or more elements of Life’s Economic Protocol for Survival, which as I’ve said, would lead us to integrate and obey all of Life’s rules.

Doing that would automatically move us away from capitalism as we know it and probably from any conceivable model of capital as an economic end-all and be-all. Provisions themselves are what we need to live, not the funny-money with which we presently purchase them if we are lucky enough to have any.
 
RJ: Perhaps that is the bottom line: What we need to live. Perhaps that’s an appropriate last question. What do you, Ellen LaConte, need to live?

EL: Much less than I presently have and very much less than is currently available to me if I were willing to use credit to acquire it. Like everyone else, I need food, clean air and water, clothing, some sort of shelter, preferably warm in winter, occasional medicine or medical care, spiritual and physical exercise, colleagues, friends, family, if possible books, lots of quiet, a garden to work in, woods and wild not too far off. To love and be loved. To carry no debt. To believe there is some sort of livable, desirable future for the next seven generations. I’ve been fortunate never to lack for these.

To be happy, I need good work to do, work that I feel is, in my late mentor Helen Nearing’s terms, “contributory.” (See a review of LaConte’s book about Nearing, On Light Alone, http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/sustaining-watersheds-of-the-pacific-n...)
I have, in addition, most of what most middle and upper-middle class Americans have.

My partner and I have a house that in absolute terms is bigger and less efficient than I’d like, a car, the usual appliances (though we are not appliance or gadget sophisticates), a computer, a television, arts and entertainment if I choose to access them, electricity, running water, public services (for the time being), air-conditioning, various kinds of insurance, every kind of retail outlet you can think of within five miles or so, most of which I never patronize. I do not need these things, but I have them. Or, more accurately, they and the economic system of which they are the accoutrements have me.

Thus, I need periodically to contemplate what I have that I don’t need, what harm having it causes and whether I’m willing to discomfort myself and my partner enough to un-have it, or at least some of it.

.