“Do as I say, not as I do.”

Never heard that before.

Excellent! Now that we’ve identified a couple of major potential ‘cop-outs’, we may be able to use this to adjust our focus on this conversation and further progress the discussion paper…whadyareckon? :-)

I think if there is anything to be learned from what we have learned/are learning from Climate Change Science & myriad other observations of science and other ‘foundations’ of our cultures/civilisation it is that all these things are interconnected.

Using Soil Sequestration of Carbon for example – hasn’t much of this got to do with employing practices that nature does by nature? In other words, applying the tenet ‘less is more’ with regard to management? That we are learning that we don’t actually need to control every single step of a process? That healthy soil has a staggeringly profound positive effect on the world? And that it’s not necessarily the worms, or the bacteria, or the mycelia or the minerals as individual components per se that are the discreet raison d’etre for these profound results, but the staggering interconnections transmitting the effects which are produced via their relationships? That perhaps the very ‘foundations’ of our civilisation may be in question, or should be? That perhaps what we thought were the ‘foundations’ of our civilisation are not foundations at all? That perhaps they are pillars which sit on foundations and that those foundations are in fact embedded in nature as nature?

What I’m alluding to here is that although some of these views may be construed as ‘cop outs’, that it may be useful to consider that our civilisation has pillars or perhaps even foundations that have ever been unseen, right under our skyward pointing noses. That if indeed we do need to change the shape of our thoughts (i.e. resulting in more harmonic, constructive, life-promoting designs), and that changing them after the fact would be fairly ineffective, then not doing it and saying we did would be equally ineffective, wouldn’t it?

What is the current data from the global ‘cop out-ometer (i.e. the ‘response ability’ of the planet in general)? Do we have one? If we did, would the arrow be leaning toward a high level of acceptance and effective common sense responses to challenges, or would it lean more toward ‘copping out’? (Please Note: Observations of the insane by the insane do not in my view constitute valid independent assessments (Insert Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Prinicple here ? ). I appreciate that my question is perhaps unrealistic in practice. For present purposes I hope that it is treated as illustrative and perhaps at best rhetorical).

I would bet everything on my observation that the arrow on the global ‘cop out-ometer’ would be almost at the extreme level of ‘copping-out’. I also know, from my own experience that there is ‘no waste in nature’.

It has also been my observation that so far, ‘we’ have consistently designed in a manner that is ‘exclusive’ (usually a pretty good indicator of a ‘linear’ mindset/approach). If it is somewhere near true that much of the population are in ‘cop out’ mode, are we going to continue our ‘exclusive’ design modalities under the assumption that our ‘cop-outers’ have nothing of value to contribute and are not a ‘resource’? Or worse…that we will not accept their contributions because they are not contributing in a manner that is ‘proper’ or ‘appropriate’ or ‘convivial’ or ‘convenient’? Or can we design so that they can be included as a resource?

I’m a great believer in the power of stories, and ever since I was a child I wondered why all the ‘grown-ups’ weren’t living, or at least building our world in accord with our stories (i.e. then mostly ‘fairy stories’). But now that I’m a bit older and perhaps a tad more cynical (which unfortunately seems to have become the new definition for ‘realistic’), I see that perhaps we have been living our stories….we just went straight for the ‘happily ever after’ bits? :-)

It is important to me that I feel that I can contribute to a conversation in a manner that to me feels constructive. In this case, the conversation has already begun to be distilled into a document. And I feel strongly about contributing to it and that of all the documents and conversations I have seen that this is the most practical, realistic and potential. ‘Naturally’ (perhaps), it is also important that my contributions would also need to be perceived as constructive by other contributors. So clearly the dynamic of the challenges we face are fractal; they exist on the micro as they do on the macro and are very similar indeed…

I believe that unless we design to include ‘human nature’ as it is and ‘humans’ nature AS IT IS and nature as nature, then we will continue struggling to join the dots, whilst missing the point…not to mention excluding what may prove to be one of our most valuable and most prevalent resources….denial.

I’m also a believer in working with what we’ve got…rather than what I wish was there…and this document by far meets those parameters better than any other I’ve seen…

So in my first attempt at addressing the document itself and in an attempt to begin targeting my contributions hopefully constructively, I would like clarify the intended focus/purpose of the document as a document, by asking the following:

1) Is this intended to be a mandate to focus a gathering of ‘doers’ regardless of the direction ‘crisis perception/acceptance’ of the rest of the world? – “The main point of this paper is to detail what the level of mobilisation and action required to stop climate change could look like and to begin the process of refining such a plan. ” (page 2)

2) Or is it intended to be ’sold’ to the rest of the world in the hope that we will begin implementing within the specified time-frames? – “We are therefore writing this paper to encourage people to plan for such a One Degree War sooner rather than later.” (Page 4)

3) Or is it a document that simply needs to be done so that it can be filed away and we can say we tried our best, walk away feeling superior and hope that when ’society perceives a crisis’ that in our last minute panic we will out of the myriad other ‘action plans’ filed away, reach for this one? – “Therefore society will, when the crisis hits and the scale of the threat is understood, demand a plan to achieve no more than 1 degree of warming. ” (Page 4)

4) Or is it all of the above?

Hoping that if nothing else, at this seemingly early stage, my contribution helps to get the porridge bubbling :-)

Cheers

Stephen G

Secondly, many of you – stephen, john others – raised the issue of human nature, greed etc. I’ve spent a lot of time pondering this, and indeed I’m currently writing the hope/despair chapter of my book. I don’t buy it (that the cause is lost and hopeless). I think in some ways its a cop out – an excuse for giving up. I see the data all around us showing how tough it is and how ugly it WILL get, but there’s a big difference between 2 degrees, 4 degrees and 8 degrees in terms of human suffering. So I will carry on!

And as Stephen said, (and thanks for the vid links) it WILL take a major shift in our thinking to get there, that’s for sure.

I totally love the carbon farming ideas and action. This is a huge area of opportunity and I’m very bullish on it’s potential.

Paul

I first discovered your work a couple of weeks ago when a friend recommended I look at “Addicted to Money” (recently aired on ABC).

I downloaded your paper and have been chewing on it since.

I have, in my own small way, been bangin’ on about this stuff for years too. Often in the form of posing the following question to clients when I was doing bits of spasmodic consulting – “You do know that you cannot hope to establish a sustainable anything in an unsustainable context…don’t you?”

This was usually met with suddenly relaxed lower-jaws and long, potentially awkward moments, while the ’search-spidies’ tear around the neuronets trying to process it; then the ‘too hard’ protocol redirects them to their job description, the good ol’ ‘that’s not my problem’ disclaimer is triggered and the conversation continues as if the question was never asked. I’m sure you’re pretty used to that little scenario ey? :-)

Anyway, in light of what I have read so far, including the excellent comments herein, I consider this is a bold, significant and oh so necessary starting point. And it is indeed heartening to finally find a ’starting point’ worthy of the title.

May I begin my additions to the mix (& I sincerely intend to continue adding to this mix), that we are facing an wholistic raft of interconnected non-linear issues, and that if we don’t adapt our very thinking in the first instance – and by that I mean now – or all the other ‘nows’ will likely amount to a bunch of ‘thens’ and ‘if onlys’.

The observations of the so far reluctantly listened to ‘leading scientists’ (e.g. IPCC etc), have also served as a starting point in terms of identification and awareness of issues. But if we are going to act meaningfully and potently to address them, we must draw upon and engage the absolute plethora of sciences & scientists that have been busily infusing their disciplines with the non-linear necessity called wisdom.

Nor can we approach this with our much loved and hard earned (usually at the expense of others), vested interests, save one…a collective vested interest in minimizing the damage. Yeh! I know! That’s what everyone reckons they are already doing. Well, I don’t reckon we’re going to get much further with the same ol’ bullshit either…do you? :-P

I believe President Barack Obama was on the right track when he said:

“We must ask, not just is it profitable, but is it right?”

I also support some of Brians views on human nature as well; though I don’t know about the ‘population bomb’ thing. I think ‘the bomb’ has more to do with how we are going about living here than the numbers of people living here…and culling is a pretty hard sell in anyone’s language. :-)

For now, my stance is simply this:

I too believe that we have the capacity, ability and resources to meet these challenges and even benefit from them…but even if we miraculously find the collective will, I don’t believe that we can afford to approach any future with the same mindsets & paradigms that got us here. And I’m not talking about changing the content of our thoughts…I’m talking about changing the shape of our thoughts!

I’ll finish off for now with a couple of videos that elaborate and expand upon on some of my inputs far more eruditely than I can here. And with the question, why aren’t we doing this stuff already (e.g. look at the date of Amory Lovins’ Oil Endgame video)?:

This first one is the ‘must do’ and I believe it’s message to be fundamentally necessary to any approach to anything we do. Yes I know it’s impossible, but no less impossible than what we are talking about here :-). And even if the ‘key players’ can get a grip on it, I reckon it will dramatically improve our chances by organically filtering through the projects and communities, as and if we take viable, meaningful action. So in a nutshell, I’d call this the ‘How to do it’ bit:

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/barry_schwartz_on_our_loss_of_wisdom.html

These ones are some ‘What to do’ bits:

http://blog.ted.com/2008/05/paul_stamets.php

http://blog.ted.com/2007/12/amory_lovins.php

http://blog.ted.com/2009/03/learn_more_abou.php

http://blog.ted.com/2009/09/3_warpspeed_arc.php

(The non-linear bit is extrapolating this information, intertwining it, interconnecting it, and joining the dots without missing the point! :-)

Hmmm! Funny how they’re all TED Vids ey? No I’m not a rep :-)

I reckon that’ll do for a start…

Cheers

Stephen G

PS Hey Paul! This is a conversation isn’t mate? So where are ya? Come on…INTERACT! :-)