FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 2018: NOTE TO FILE
Feng Shui Science Education
The schooling system selects for SYSTEM serving narratives
Eric Lee, A-SOCIATED PRESS
TOPICS: ABANDON WORDSMITHERY, FROM THE WIRES, NATURE PRATTLES NOT
Abstract: The intelligentsia view 'organic' agriculture (as distinct from?), permaculture speak, and the putative laws of feng shui as valid ‘ways of knowing’ (aka 'believing') to which could be added astrology (though not popular among academics except some in India) and phrenology (though currently not popular among academics), and postmodernism and gender studies (which are). But perhaps there are fewer ways of knowing than most academics think. Maybe we humans actually know nothing, but can at best iterate towards knowing.
TUCSON (A-P) — The Tao of feng shui:
The feng shui that can be told of is not the Absolute feng shui. The Names that can be given are not Absolute Names. The Nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth; the Named is the Mother of All Things. He who speaks does not know. He who knows does not speak. Who knows this knowledge without knowing? Mother Nature knows but does not speak other than to those who listen. Listen.
- Organic farming: 'Organic agriculture is an ecological production management system that promotes and enhances biodiversity, biological cycles and soil biological activity. It is based on minimal use of off-farm inputs [except ecological harmony destroying fossil fuels] and on management practices that restore, maintain and enhance ecological harmony.'
- Permaculture: 'Permaculture is a philosophy of working with, rather than against nature; of protracted and thoughtful observation rather than protracted and thoughtless labor; and of looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single product system.'
- Feng shui: 'A system of laws governing spatial arrangement and orientation, for positioning a building and the objects within a building, in relation to the flow of energy (qi), patterns of yin and yang, and whose favorable or unfavorable effects are taken into account to bring success, health, and happiness.'
The intelligentsia view the above as valid ‘ways of knowing’ (aka 'believing') to which could be added astrology (though not popular among academics except some in India) and phrenology (though currently not popular among academics), and postmodernism and gender studies (which are). And, yes, there are always a few self-styled members of the intelligentsia who quibble to annoy, who are skeptics and nay-sayers who ‘just don’t get it’.
A more recent addition to the list would be ‘sustainability science’ as promulgated by conventional neoclassical economists (NCE: a deeply entrenched feng shui science) who dominate Schools of Sustainability currently growing exponentially on global campuses. All feng shui scientists, and their ‘science’, can be recognized by their inability to foundationally doubt their assumptions, to reevaluate all values, to actually question everything.
All, however, are master pretenders and will argue, at book length, that they can and have questioned everything which is how they came to realize that their current claims are true, and if you beg to differ..., read their books to redress your ignorance. Should an opposing book by someone with letters after their name appear, it will be ignored or if necessary ‘reviewed’ to explain to other SYSTEM serving intelligentsia types why the book should be dismissed (e.g. Limits to Growth, Environment, Power, and Society, Exploring New Ethics for Survival, Ecodynamics, Filters Against Folly, The Collapse of Complex Societies, Living within Limits, The Sacred Balance, The Ostrich Factor, A Prosperous Way Down, Half Earth, Limits to Growth Updated). Like those who make time to read their books, most intelligentsia types and academics would rather believe than know and ‘mere eloquence’ prevails.
At the height of their empire-building the British intelligentsia dismissed all who differed as pundits, ‘solemn pretenders to learning’. But all empire builders, from the Mesopotamian to the present Euro-Sino empire-building servants and other Anthropocene enthusiasts do and did the same, being upright walking primates all, clever apes of the only surviving species of the genus Homo. None saw themselves as pundits. Yet all swim in a universal sea of punditry; the British were mistaken only in thinking themselves to not be solemn pretenders to learning. Those who serve their SYSTEM may labor with pick and shovel (when and where told and paid to), but storytellers are also needed to justify whatever ‘needs to be done’ to grow the empire. Someone has to tell the others where and when to dig and who to vote for. Pundits all.
The job of the intelligentsia is to obfuscate what should be obvious to ensure that the ‘what-is’ isn’t obvious. The most effective storytellers are those who believe their own stories and fail to see that they and their fellow wordsmiths are the architects of the magnificent edifice of babble they collectively work to prop up and maintain against all inconvenient data (e.g. that organic farming yields are lower than conventional industrial agriculture’s). Those whose innovative stories or tweaks of current narratives fail to impress, they who neglect to make others feel good, who pontificate yet fail to tell stories that are liked and shared, then they and their endeavors are not rewarded with either money or social approbation. Their narratives are not selected for unless they happen, with or without intent, to serve the SYSTEM, which includes telling others who serve the SYSTEM, all the way up to the Supreme Storyteller (political, economic, and/or religious) on down to those standing in the welfare line, what they will likely like to hear.
Go to any university campus. Sit and watch those hurrying past. About sixty percent are plugged in (per a half-hour I spent counting 800 passersby at UofA), ‘smart’phone in hand or earbuds in ear, but that’s a detail, a distraction. Ask what they are doing here? The answer should be obvious. They are there, at great expense to someone (including future self), to learn to serve the SYSTEM so they can make money and consume prosperously (and maybe save the world). They may or may not like being there. They may or may not have a personal or ‘abiding interest’ in what they are learning. It doesn’t matter. At fourteenth century Oxford they (the especially ambitious) may have studied theology to serve the God’s Mandate narrative..., or business management, science, environmental resource management, sustainability studies, and economics today to serve the Growth's Mandate narrative. What matters is that they use what they are learning to serve the SYSTEM which must be sustained at all costs. They will know that they are serving the SYSTEM because they will be paid to ‘figure it out’ or do what they are told to do, which may include telling others what to do, for which they will be better paid.
In dominance hierarchies there would be a supreme ‘teller’ of what to do. Ten million years ago that would have been the alpha male. But the alpha male was not free to do what he wanted. He had better want to do his alpha male thing as otherwise he would soon be replaced by another alpha more enthusiastic and ‘competent’ to serve. Ditto for all the emperors of China whose word was literally law, whose mere look of disapproval could signal his guards to execute a would-be servant of his SYSTEM. Ditto for the current Chairman of the Communist Party or ‘leader’ of any other political party, corporation, or dominance hierarchy. A Chairman Sanders would have been different from a Chairman Trump, but all who rise to the top do so by serving the SYSTEM, the self-organizing collective of the self interest of all who suck at the Golden Tit of the current extractive empire/economy, aka complex society. Chairman Sanders would have worked to grow the economy and would soon be replaced if he failed. He would merely have distributed the growth-dependent wealth of the nation differently than The Donald. The perceived reduction in inequality might have delayed socio-economic collapse allowing the economy to grow another decade, enabling the pace of planetary destruction to continue unslowed longer, even if Sanders’ likeness was added to Mt. Rushmore to celebrate the growth of nations.
Almost all serve the SYSTEM. Some may be living ‘homeless’ or serving eight consecutive life sentences at the Florence ADX prison. The less enthusiastic servants may not be well paid, but a failure to serve the economy and reap the rewards is widely regarded as evidence of incompetence, stupid. Whose bread they eat, their song they sing. And who do the one percent serve? Oh, let’s see…. We are the SYSTEM, we who live in industrial society, who receive a paycheck, benefits, food stamps, dividends, or line up at the local food bank—we billions are the one percent (we, the consumers of a planetary vat of fossil energy—why ignore ancestors who didn't and/or posterity who won't be able to?).
Watershed Management Group
To better understand the SYSTEM, study how it self-organizes. Start by picking a small subSYSTEM, a local organization, and look at it. See what is in front of your face. Local helps, and small and recent helps as even ‘small’ can be too complex for a mere individual citizen-scholar ‘to take the measure of'.
Local for me is Tucson AZ, USA, whose contiguous urbanized region currently supports about one million consumers (e.g. 130 gallons of water per person per day) expected to grow to two million by 2050. The Watershed Management Group (WMG) was started in 2002 with four founders becoming a 501 (c)3 in 2003. In 2006 their first grant was received supporting one full time mover and shaker as Executive Director working to grow the organization centered on Santa Cruz watershed (down which a river once flowed year around instead of as now only briefly after infrequent storms) related issues. In 2008 WMG started the Tucson Green Living Co-op program with 70 members & 12 workshops in the 1st year. In 2013 they began development of the Living Lab & Learning Center in Tucson on donated property. They host an annual $8 mesquite pancake breakfast for 500 people. WMG offers numerous workshops, participant paid (I went to a humanure one, $30 for 2.5 hours—approved system installed by 35 area households so far at $1,000 DIY and up plus permits at $600 plus engineer oversight/inspection fees) and free classes (e.g. rainwater/greywater ‘harvesting’) paid for by city or other special interests.
Their programs support educational resources, workshops, ‘environmental leadership’, and river restoration initiatives that they approve. Current t-shirts feature the message: “We Are One Watershed” which local elites support both verbally and financially. Any message they did not like could only be expressed in big letters as graffiti on someone’s wall for a time until removed. Small letters on signs a citizen can carry about or type in a blog can simply be ignored or obfuscated as usual if necessary.
Available data include the WMG newsletters and annual financial reports, website, and Facebook page. Attending local events allows for the demographics of their staff, supporters and interested public to be observed. The cars driven to events represent data (I was the only one to come by city bus).
Not all newsletters are available online. The first I read featured an article on ‘Can organic food production methods feed the world?’, with the primary source article cited: ‘Organic agriculture and the global food supply’ published in Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 2006. With degrees in crop science and soil science I’m used to reading sciency literature and read the paper. I also spent a few minutes on Google Scholar to source other relevant articles from better known journals, e.g. Nature. One cited the Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems article as representative of extreme pro organic farming claims. An editorial in Organic Food Systems predictably praised the cited study, but a meta-data analysis of 362 studies notes that organic yields of individual crops are on average 80% of conventional yields with evidence that the gap would likely increase if organic production were upscaled. Another meta-analysis of 205 comparisons found only a 9 percent gap on average. Another source published in Nature found a 5 percent gap for some crops down to a 34 percent (76% of conventional or about 80% average) lower organic methods yield 'when the conventional and organic systems are most comparable'. Nature is THE top journal of science and is read by top scientists. The editors have learned the hard way not to publish junk scholarship/science. They consider the cream and swift it for the best cream. The article WMG cited wouldn’t have the slightest chance of being published in Nature. The belief that current and future human populations can be fed in perpetuity is delusional, and the claim that all could be fed using only organic methods is pathetic and continued denial will have consequences that WMG and ilk (the 99+ percent who serve the current SYSTEM) will be responsible for. Note that the 80 percent less for organic assumes fossil fuel inputs limited only by costs, so if 'organic' excluded fossil fuel inputs, an informed guess might be 10 percent of current fossil-fueled industrial agriculture that developed, with Green Revolution know-how, to turn fossil fuel into food. Without fossil fuels, know-how and current cultivars cannot be turned into food.
The use of fallow periods (commonly 15 to 25 years) for soil recovery and growing of green manure crops allows per crop yields to compare favorably, assuming no limit to fossil fuel use, but overall annual per hectare productivity will be lower, especially in areas where only one crop, a food crop or green manure crop, can be grown each year. Currently ‘organic’ excludes fossil-fuel derived agrochemicals in the form of herbicides, insecticides, other pesticides, and fertilizers, but almost as much fossil fuel inputs are used in organic as conventional agriculture. 'Organic' does not preclude the mining of groundwater for irrigation using electric generated by a coal-fired power plant or use of diesel/gasoline to transport organic food to market. The future of sustainable agriculture is a production system with no fossil fuel inputs, direct or indirect, which will dramatically lower yields compared to current organic/conventional farm output.
If 80 percent of humans are farmers, they and their farm working animals will consume most of the output, so city folks can expect less than they are accustomed to. Without abundant fossil fuels, food (currently transported on average 1,500 miles to feed Americans) will not be pouring into Tucson 24/7 by truck (some by air freight) to feed a million people in a desert area with a carrying capacity of maybe 500 to 5,000 living in the same area on local environmental resources. All the mesquite trees left in the region wouldn’t feed 500 people more than a few pancake breakfasts. The two to three mile wide mesquite bosque along what was until recently a river, with trees up to seventy feet tall and girths of thirteen feet, are gone. Gone. The degrowth of the economy and population (livestock, pets, people) will be noticed, but only when forced to be noticed after the fact, and the need to degrow the economy and population will likely be denied by the 99+ percent until then. Humans, evidence suggests, collectively lack foresight intelligence, especially those currently prospering within the SYSTEM they serve.
The cited study, Organic agriculture and the global food supply, was based entirely on data found in the published literature and could easily have been cherry-picked unconsciously during office hours by academics (click link, note author backgrounds). The cognitive style is conclusion-driven and belief-based. The author of the WMG article doesn’t know enough to vet sources, but is good at offering feel-good information WMG newsletter readers will like. The claim being promulgated is that organic farming can not only feed the current 7.5 billion, but the 9 to 11 billion to come in the near future. Those educated enough to sort of know ‘that there are issues’ want to believe in solutions that also feel good, so they like and share information that feels good. This pattern appears to be a modus operandi of WMG, but that’s what works and is selected for at all levels of the social system, so WMG may merely be ‘guilty’ of success which is universally celebrated (by those who serve the source of their bread, i.e. industrial society). The long-term consequence of the collective temporal blindness is likely to be the fate of all prior empires, so obfuscation and delusional wordsmithery has consequences.
Virtually everyone at WMG is university educated, except for the interns who are being university educated. The article considered above was the first one I read in the first newsletter I read. Too few data points, so I read all available newsletters. I don’t care to go on at book length considering all claims and the sources cited. The information offered is what the readers/supporters want to believe and is selected for by their approbation and willingness to fund WMG, currently about one million dollars per year. The creators of the information provide their perceived expertise and services without the slightest indication that they are aware of what they are doing. What all do who ‘succeed’ is what works, so far as they can figure, to grow the organization, to curry support, approval, and funding by marketing their vision unto overselling. The first principle of marketing 101 is to increase the demand for the product and/or service. I support one 501 (c)3 group, Citizens for Solar, promoters of solar cooking, who have done none of what WMG is doing to be so successful. But they don’t make exaggerated feel-good claims either.
While I won’t critique the newsletters one by one, reading them is telling, so they should all (26 online) be read. All successful ‘movements’ or organizations have a narrative and it had better be ‘right’ for the target market. To succeed it helps if the target market are the upper, upper-middle class who have the connections and potential funding. It helps to be one of them. To grow an organization it helps if at least one person is high-functioning, university trained, and a full-time mover and shaker currying favor. This limits what can be said, or more to the point, what can be thought.
I mentioned ‘modus operandi’ which starts at the concept forming thought-based level. To risk another example, the second newsletter I read featured an article about the 800 convention goers from 57 countries who met to come up with a non-binding agreement, in the tradition of the UN Brundtland and Rio agreements, which says, 'The Brisbane Declaration defines environmental flows as, "the quantity, timing, and quality of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the human livelihoods and well-being that depend on these ecosystems." (Brisbane 2007).' All agreed that human well-being and means of making money was central (and that environmental flow was too). Environmental flows, however, are compromised, along with the rest of the planetary life-support system, by humans pursuing their short-term well-being and money making activities unto overshoot, e.g. starting to pump groundwater in 1881 Tucson with no plan to stop. Meanwhile the pace of planetary destruction has not and likely will not slow secondary to the fine words of yet another Declaration. The author of the newsletter article seems oblivious to the history of such agreements, and shares the 2007 news as if it should be celebrated as progress towards real solutions. A 'real' solution would be to end all groundwater pumping in five years, but Tucsonians wouldn't like that....
WMG Annual Reports (2008-2016) are another source of relevent information. Early income ($84,421 in 2008) was mostly from government and foundation grants, while later income ($1,139,025 in 2016) was mostly 'program income' ($730,604). The growth in income and services provided is universally regarded as 'success'. An alternative view is that WMG provides a distraction from real issues concerning water and real solutions (which may not feel good to humans). Any humans living in the Tucson area a hundred years from now, who climb Sentinel Peak, may have a different view of 'success'.
Aside from classes and reading stuff, I also went to a fundraiser. 242 people in Arizona donated $71,500 to WMG plus $6,500 in prizes was won. Only the Phoenix Rescue Mission received more donations from those with more money than they know what to do with. They met at a local tavern for food and drink and live music to watch the screen showing which Arizona non-profit would get the most donations. They were in third place when I arrived. Those present were conspicuously upper class, beautiful people all, the working rich. And water in Arizona is a concern. They know there isn't enough for illimitable growth in either the economy or the population. They demand solutions. WMG offers solutions all can support. No one spoke to me. I was probably the only one there with a bus schedule to figure out how to get home. I imagined someone asking me if I had any questions. I thought about it. It occurred to me that the first question should be, 'Is WMG part of the water problem or part of the solution?' Assuming a distinction can be made between 'feel-good' and 'real' solutions, I wouldn't ask the question as I know all would agree that WMG is part of the solution. All these people and those who ride the bus, with insignificant exceptions, all believe in solutions. All want solutions. Those who offer solutions, whether by rainwater 'harvesting' or by using greywater, come forth, are selected for, and they prosper. This gives the illusion of value. The failure to offer 'real solutions', however, may be viewed by posterity as a criminal enterprise. From where I stand, WMG is obviously part of the problem.
2030 Water Resources Group
Freshwater matters. The World Water Forum is the biggest single gathering of policymakers, businesses and NGOs involved in water management. It met in Brazillia for the first time, March 2018, and was expected to draw more than 40,000 participants, not counting protesters, from over 178 countries to attend the more than three hundred discussions and panels. Many 'solutions' will be and are being proposed, included are 'nature-based solutions'. That doesn't mean any will actually work as judged by historians in 2118. The mandate is to keep the SYSTEM going as perceived by those in it, and obfuscation, unconscious sleight of mind tricks, and distraction works to assure people that something is being done.
For a view of humans who have self-organized to solve perceived problems globally, I looked into the 2030 Water Resources Group (WRG) that differs by a letter and, being global, by scale. As of 2016 they had 505 partners (212 private Sector, 123 government, 170 civil society organizations) supporting their vision and mission. This looks like 'the big leagues'. 'We envision a world with enough safe water to support the needs of people, ecosystems, and the economy. The 2030 WRG aims to contribute to the United Nations’ SDGs [17 Sustainable Development Goals: No Poverty, Zero Hunger, Good Health and Well-being, Quality Education for all, Gender Equality, Clean Water and Sanitation, Affordable and Clean Energy, Decent Work and Economic Growth, Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure, Reduced Inequalities, Sustainable Cities and Communities, Responsible Consumption and Production, Climate Action, Life Below Water, Life on Land, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, Partnerships for the Goals] of ending extreme poverty; growing strong, inclusive, and transformative economies; and protecting our ecosystems. These goals cannot be achieved without water, nor can they be achieved alone. By working together to develop and implement the right strategies, policies, plans, and programs, much more can be achieved and sustained.'
2030 WRG was formed at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in 2008, where representatives of the United Nations, individual governments and companies, as well as non-governmental organizations resolved to address global water security and its economic and geopolitical implications. It has been hosted since 2012 by the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group.
2030 WRG 'is a public-private-civil society partnership that supports governments to accelerate reforms in sustainable water resources management for long-term development and economic growth. It does so by helping change the ‘political economy’ for water reform in the country by convening stakeholders and by providing water resources analysis in ways applicable to politicians, administrators and business leaders outside the traditional water sector.' Agriculture is using 70%, industry 20%, and households 10% of the 60% of the planet's fresh water resources used. Long-term economic growth is imperative, as all right thinking intelligentsia agree, so there is talk of making access to freshwater a human right, which trumps all consideration for other lifeforms, and corporations are people too, so....
Info for a job applicant: 'Starting in January 1, 2018, the Water Global Practice will additionally host the Water Resources Group 2030 (WRG 2030), which has hereto been hosted by the International Finance Corporation of the World Bank Group. The 2030 Water Resources Group (2030 WRG) is a unique global public-private partnership, with a mission to facilitate collective action on water between governments, the private sector and civil society, to help countries achieve water security by 2030. To meet its objective, 2030 WRG acts as a multi-stakeholder platform for action, bringing governments, financial institutions, non-governmental organizations and companies together to work towards a water secure future. At the invitation of the government, the 2030 WRG works at a country level by establishing national multi-stakeholder platforms that facilitate open discussion, foster partnerships and catalyse change in water-stressed countries. The multi-stakeholder platforms are informed by an objective, fact based analysis of the water situation a country faces in relation to its growth plans to 2030 which is sponsored by 2030 WRG. Informed by thiso host 2030 W economic analysis, stakeholders in the multi-stakeholder platform then discuss and develop proposals for water programs, projects and policy reforms; support the implementation of public-private partnerships; and develop proposals for innovative finance mechanisms to help others implement various programs. To this extent, the 2030 WRG theory of change is based on the need to ACT: to Analyse, Convene and Transform. 2030 WRG raises awareness through analysis, triggers momentum by convening discussions and initiatives and, as a result, catalyses and supports transformation. The 2030 WRG was launched in 2010 through an informal collaboration housed at the World Economic Forum between the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and the companies Nestle, PepsiCo and The Coca Cola Company and other organisations such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). In 2012 the IFC agreed to develop a more formal structure for the 2030 WRG, and offered to host the 2030 WRG at IFC within the World Bank Group. This included the creation of a Secretariat in IFC; a Steering Committee and a Governing Council. The 2030 WRG started its second phase in July 2012 under these arrangements, and successfully met its goals. A third phase of effort took place 2014 to 2017 with IFC continuing as host. In this time 2030 WRG has expanded its activities significantly. 2030 WRG now works in twelve different countries, with others in the pipeline, and with over 500 different partners from across the public, private and civil society sectors. With the arrival of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015, including Goal 6 for Water and Sanitation, a new strategy for the World Bank Global Water Practice has been developed in 2017. This strategy has a strong focus on scaling partnerships for action, including in water resource management. In June 2017, it was agreed by the Governing Council of the 2030 WRG to move 2030 WRG to the World Bank's Global Water Practice for its third phase of activity 2018-2023'. [source]. Globally five billion people are facing water scarcity by 2050, but 'nature-based solutions' will allow for sustainable growth.
Partners include: ABInBev (Anheuser-Busch), Coca-Cola, DOW, Grundfos (a pump manufacturer, based in Denmark), Nestle, PepsiCo, Government of Hungary, Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft (Swiss Confederation), SIDA (Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency), Inter-American Development Bank, International Finance Corporation, African Development Bank, World Bank Group, UNDP (United Nations Development Programme), Global Green Growth Institute, Global Water Partnership, World Economic Forum, IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), brac (international development organisation based in Bangladesh). It is a child of the 1987 UN Brundtland Commission's 'sustainable development' meme. Meanwhile, 'the pace of planetary destruction has not slowed'. Fine words are still in demand, and universities are required to met the demand.
The 2030 WRG is committed 'to close the gap between water demand and supply by the year 2030.' What's not to like? Nothing? Well, all the fine words and partnerships may be a distraction from real solutions that don't feel good (e.g. degrowth). Meanwhile we must grow the economy to end global poverty and hunger, create universal good health and well-being (for humans presiding over the greatest mass extinction since the late Cretaceous), provide quality education for all, ensure gender equality (where religious authorities allow), everyone must have clean water and sanitation, affordable clean energy for all (preferably too cheap to meter), decent work serving the SYSTEM so it can grow the economy, more industry, more innovation and more infrastructure is needed, reduce inequalities while the poor grow richer, all cities and communities want to be sustainable so they can responsibly consume and produce evermore, and all must be for the climate, life on land, in water, but most of all we must have strong institutions (government, corporate) to ensure peace, harmony, and justice for all (who serve the SYSTEM).
So did I learn anything? Looks like the same sort of people, university 'educated' (schooled) all, run the show and tell the tale at all levels of society. There are no shape shifting reptoid overlords telling them what to say, the narrative is an emergent tale told by idiots who can only hear the collectively self-serving Prattle each contributes to. They define the narratives they can believe in, which includes a prosperous future for all, forevermore. Population will naturally level off as increasingly prosperous and educated women come to want fewer babies. At some point financial incentives may be needed to get women to want to have enough children to maintain the population so sustainable economic growth can continue as needed to support an increasing quality of life for all. Increased production is needed so all can consume as much as they can be made to feel a need for. By harvesting rainwater and using greywater, together with increased efficiency of water use and use of dry toilets, then two million people should be able to live in the Tucson area by 2050. Imagine driving up to Sentinel Peak in 2118 in your Tesla that can 'peel the edges of your face back' when accelerating. Will the downtown's ever higher buildings be blocking the view of Mt. Lemmon?
From the local to the global, those who serve the SYSTEM have agreed to ignore the biophysical nature of things, knowledge of which requires listening to Nature who has all the answers. The intelligentsia prefer to listen to their own and other's prattle. Those who listen to Nature are valued, however, and are not only allowed to speak, but encouraged and paid to offer information, data for the planners and policy makers to interpret, which is then massaged into policies and plans and projects that fail to provide real solutions as the centuries pass. The main cause of problems are prior 'solutions'.
Locally people are encouraged to capture rainwater (we get about 11 inches/year average) and make use of greywater as if doing so will allow for continued growth. At the greywater class I took, a cost of $3,000 to $5,000 for a complete greywater system for existing houses was mentioned. Up to $1,000 would be paid by the city after inspection. Rainwater catchment systems cost $7,000 and up, but the cost is also subsidized by the taxpayers. Both systems should be installed, but few elites have $10,000 {plus a few for a dry toilet) to spend before a partial payback. So it's an upper middle to upper class thing as is the tax write-off for grid-tie solar PV systems. For those with gold or who want other's gold, Green is Gold. Meanwhile, the pace of planetary drawdown has not slowed. At a mere three percent Tucson area growth rate of economy and population, both will double by 2042. More greywater systems, rainwater diversion systems, and composting toilets will be needed. But where will another Colorado River be found?
The city planners and all educated citizens know the Tucson area has grave water scarcity issues looming in the near future to be extremely concerned about. Solving water scarcity issues is imperative. All want solutions. All believe in solutions. Humans include clever apes who can solve problems. Experts with solutions are highly sought after, valued, and celebrated provided their solutions feel good (to we who want to believe). Harvesting rainwater and using greywater is a feel-good solution. Transitioning to dry toilets involves some change in habits, but those who have made the transition tell of the discomfort they experience when they are forced by circumstances to use a flush toilet. Currently maybe 0.01 percent of Tucsonians use dry toilets, but more workshops at $30/head (my wife wanted to come with me but was told fee was per head not household), and if even more divert greywater and rainwater so it doesn't end up recharging the aquifer or running downstream to recharge someone else's aquifer or vegetation, then progress in solving Tucson's water issues will have been made, and everyone believes in progress.
The city planners support rainwater harvesting, greywater use, and recently have approved two dry toilet designs that a permit can be obtained for ($600 + engineering fees + four figures in materials cost even if DIY built). All the 'educated' area elites are supporters of feel-good solutions that allay their concerns. All the politicians are supporters. All adore experts with solutions. The name I hear most, from officials, the WMG, the Sustainable Tucson people, the media, is Brad Lancaster who has even been interviewed on NPR's Morning Edition and if you question his expertise, just read his two volume book on rainwater harvesting or go to his website or one of his workshops. 'Brad, a super permaculturist, does everything and teaches everything about our local water resources'. The first words on his website, after the 'Click here to order' his books message, is 'Turn water scarcity into water abundance!' which summarizes the books, so no need to read them, just know that by following his expert advice (or that of someone who has actually read his books), the apparent 'scarcity' issues won't keep you up late at night anymore. I borrowed a copy of his rainwater bible from a true believer and was able to read the first three pages before I couldn't take any more of his science illiterate certitudes. Brad is a believer adored by believers, a distraction, an enabler of the merry dance of consumption to march on (for a time). I paged through the books and noted a vast amount of information that looked like padding. If boiled down to a PhD dissertation, I can only envision it being handed back with a note, 'Seems you don't know enough to have an opinion; you are "not even wrong". Let's talk about a terminal MS'.
I've never been in Brad's presence and hope never to be as the image I have acquired, from what I've read about him or heard locals say, might be put at risk. I'm sure he is utterly personable, likable, eloquent, knowledgeable, one of our best and brightest, someone we would all want our children to grow up to become like—successful, admired, educated, listened to, who swims in a sea of social approbation. Everyone who speaks highly of him are also among our best and brightest, not to mention our best university schooled. All are unquestionably fine people who want the best for humanity and the environment. They just can't think about 'real solutions' and human extinction could be a consequence, but other than that let history record that they tried, they worked hard, they wanted the best possible future for their descendant's and all other life on the planet. But they would rather believe than know.
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. The learning curve may be steep, but could enough clever ape humans surmount it to matter?
We may have lesser shortcomings, such as our inability to take the measure of the vast extent of our ignorance. As an exercise for the student, compile a list of our top one hundred shortcomings. We think we know the nature of things, but only due to our ignorance. To stop listening to our own prattle, and start listening to the nature of the thin planetary film we live in, could be the beginnings of wisdom (for those who listen).
Concerns about water go back to 1880 when Tucson residents complained of the high cost of water they had to buy to fill the water crock pot from the guy who went down to the river with his burrow to fill bags with river water to haul to the elite town dwellers to sell door to door (the steam powered pumping 'solution' started the next year). That Tucson's ever growing population has water issues is known, has been for decades, to officials, planners, any citizen who bothers to be informed. A 2009 article for those with Sustainable Tucson water concerns notes the issues, but is notably lacking in real solutions. Yes, the public can be educated, greywater used more, rainwater diverted or stored to water landscaping instead of using zero water for xeriscaping with adapted species, thereby preventing water runoff to the washes and riverbed to recharge the aquifer. And zoning changes can be made (and so have been) to allow for dry toilets that someday one percent of those residents who can afford them can own to prevent flushing of toilets whose water, after treatment, is discharged into the Santa Cruz River's otherwise dry channel to create a few miles of continuous surface water flow benefiting wildlife and helping to recharge the aquifer.
If you look at the Tucson area using a satellite view, some irrigated fields are visible. They are on the local reservation whose residents made legal demands on CAP (Central Arizona Project) water and won, so some water pumped from the Colorado grows crops locally, yet another way to turn fossil fuel into food by adding the energy embodied in the water to the usual direct and indirect fossil fuel inputs. Sustainable? In your dreams, or at least those of local planners who are enthusiastic about greywater and rainwater 'harvesting', and composting toilets. Such 'solutions' are the only ones that are acceptable or feel-good to some, so are the only ones being implemented. The belief in growth is an enabler providing short-term benefits to keep the SYSTEM growing; increasing water efficiency use is a distraction enabling our 'way to ruin'. Scientists who listen to Nature have been trying to sound the wakeup call since at least the 1960's, and keep on trying for some reason, e.g. the latest (March 2018) is a three-year study by over 100 IPBES sustainable development scientists, Worsening Worldwide Land Degradation Now ‘Critical’, Undermining Well-Being of 3.2 Billion People. [The study notes less than only one quarter of the Earth’s land surface remains free from substantial human impacts. By 2050 it is estimated that this will drop to less than 10% – and this will be mostly in deserts, mountainous areas, tundra and polar areas unsuitable for human use or settlement. Wetlands are particularly degraded, with 87% lost globally in the last 300 years; 54% since 1900. Habitat loss through transformation, and the decline in suitability of the remaining habitat through degradation, are the leading causes of biodiversity loss. Between 1970 and 2012, the index of the average population size of wild land-based species of vertebrates dropped by 38% and freshwater species by 81%. The unprecedented growth in consumption, demography and technology will roughly quadruple the global economy in the first half of the twenty-first century. Unless urgent and concerted action is taken, land degradation will worsen in the face of population growth, unprecedented consumption, an increasingly globalized economy, and climate change. By 2050, land degradation and climate change will reduce crop yields by an average of 10% globally, and up to 50% in certain regions. The capacity of rangelands to support livestock will continue to diminish in the future, due to both land degradation and loss of rangeland area. Biodiversity loss is projected to reach 38–46% by 2050. The strongest drivers of biodiversity loss to date have been agriculture followed by forestry, infrastructure, urban encroachment and climate change. In the 2010–2050 period, climate change, crop agriculture and infrastructure development are expected to be the drivers of biodiversity loss with the greatest projected increase. In a middle of the road scenario, the reduction is projected to be equivalent to a complete loss of the original biodiversity of an area about 1.5 times the size of the USA. High-consumption lifestyles in more developed economies, combined with rising consumption in developing and emerging economies, are the dominant factors driving land degradation globally. The benefits of Nature restorancy exceed the costs by an average ratio of 10 to one (estimated across nine biomes). Many of those who benefit from overexploitation of natural resources [e.g. urbanites] are among the least affected by the direct negative impacts of land degradation, and therefore have the least incentive to take action. Loss of carbon from soil degradation in the next 32 years may equal global CO2 emissions of 20 years of all fossil-fueled transportation by land, sea, or air including fossil-fuel produced electricity used by electric vehicles. Four-fifths of the world’s population now lives in areas where there is a threat to water security. Around 12 million hectares of land are lost each year to degradation—the equivalent of six Federation watershed management units.]
Will the planners, policy-makers and decision-makers take note? Absolutely, they always do, you can't have solutions without problems, and there will always be proposed solutions. Scientists who listen to Nature have the best grasp of the problems, perhaps even a good grasp, but neither planners, policy-makers, decision-makers, nor the bureaucrats and political animals they inform, who are humancentric true believers, have the slightest grasp of real solutions as evidenced by, to start at the top of the evidence list, the population elephant that now more than fills the room, whose legs have broken through the floor into the basement and whose back supports the roof separated from the walls, whose presence is yet ignored. Meanwhile the pace of... and the SYSTEM isn't selecting for 'real' solutions. Selected for are beliefs that serve to comfort the consumers and enable the SYSTEM to continue full speed ahead by maximizing short-term contingencies of reward/reinforcement.
The SYSTEM, for a time, is our collective Skinner box. Those who listen to Nature need to prepare to 'step up to the plate' and serve as naturocrats (21st century technocrats) to manage the planetary commons, Earth's life support system, as the SYSTEM serving decision-makers cannot think outside their humancentric box. When our trajectory climaxes and the intelligentsia notices the impending way down, they will willingly step aside if there are others prepared to take the helm, others whose credibility is based on their being in a position of being able to say, 'We told you so... we noticed the Great Acceleration of 1950, understand the exponential function, and have been trying to warn you since the 1960's, yelling ever more loudly'. Keep telling them, and at some point they will be forced to stop pretending and step aside, so prepare now.
The problem as framed is how to grow an area's population and economy 'sustainably' and anyone who says there are no real solutions, given the precondition of Growth's Mandate, won't be hired to propose solutions or would self-select out of the job of providing 'solutions'. Solutions are demanded by those with the bread (i.e. money—government, business, NGOs) to pay for 'solutions', and there is no shortage of 'experts' to sing whatever song those with the bread may like to hear. The Tucson choir appears to be identical in kind to what the 40,000 World Water Forum participants are singing and for the same reason. Global 'solutions' differ in scale—there is far more bread to sing for, so songs of 'environmental flow' and 'nature-based solutions' are sung by more and sung louder to cheering multitudes. The SYSTEM, however, is thereby self-selecting for failure.
Progressive Education: Goal 7Imagine 500W solar PV nominal per household: Sit up. Goal 7: Actual 50Wh/person/day electric energy usage
|
There is no life without thought.... To think is to listen. Listen. — Kogi mámas
Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is. — Isaac Asimov
The more he became truly wise, the more he distrusted everything he knew. — Voltaire
Science: a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance....the belief in the ignorance of experts.... What do you care what other people think? — Richard Feynman
Knowing that you do not know is the best. Not knowing that you do not know is an illness.... True words are not pleasing. Pleasing words are not true. — Lao Tzu
Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of our language. — Ludwig Wittgenstein
Modern science should indeed arouse in all of us a humility before the immensity of the unexplored and a tolerance for crazy hypotheses. — Martin Gardner
People would rather believe than know. ― E.O. Wilson
The mind clings to its image of the world. We call it real only because of our ignorance. — Jianzhi Sengcan
Education: that which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.... I have never let my schooling interfere with my education. — Mark Twain [The 'I have never...' should be over every entrance to every school. We put warning labels on packages of cigarettes. Students with Sharpies should redress any failures.]
