Canyon Country Zepyr page 10

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

How DID Ed Abbey Know the System Will Tank?

Or, Deconstructing Bubble Land

By Scott Thompson

time, and laying out a difficult future for many of the world's people, ecosystems and regions." (Mark New et al, "Four Degrees and Beyond: the Potential for a Global Temperature Increase of Four Degrees and its Implications," pp. 13,16.)

"The primitive seems to know when the problem is insoluble; the civilized man does not." - Vine Deloria, Jr.

Maybe the two British climate scientists were desperate to be heard, or maybe they were simply fed up.

The question is: how did Ed know that the mainstream system will tank decades before the science began to show it?

Whatever the case, in a recent issue of a prominent British scientific journal, they got in their own government's face, saying: "... the logic of such studies suggests (extremely) dangerous climate change can only be avoided if economic growth is exchanged, at least temporarily, for a period of planned austerity within Annex I nations [developed countries for the most part] and a rapid transition away from fossil-fuelled development within non-Annex I nations." (Kevin

I think the reason is that he somehow acquired the kind of intuition indigenous people have. Whether he ever realized the significance of his breakthrough is unclear. But what is apparent from studying his journal is that he was often frustrated trying to deal with people who found what he said incomprehensible and who as a result hung a series of unsavory labels on him. In Vine Deloria, Jr.'s,

last book - the one he had trouble getting published - the late Sioux writer presented an indigenous perspective on intuition that I think well applies to Ed.

Anderson and Alice Bows, "Beyond 'Dangerous' Climate Change: Emission Scenarios for a New World," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, January, 2011 p. 41.)

Deloria said, "The most important observations that primitives could make would be of the environment around them." (C.G. Jung and the Sioux Traditions, p. 52.) Some examples: in late August do we know to look for the wind picking up high in the trees, because we love seeing it? Or if there is a new pattern of dry, hard winds in the late winter, are we curious about that? If in the fall we see the leaves on the low mountains abruptly turn brown instead or red or yellow, have we almost been expecting it? Do we notice the Alligator Junipers in a movie supposedly situated in Wyoming, and if so does the inau-thentic location make the story seem off center?

This article flicked on the scientific warning light for globalized economic growth. And assuming the system persists more or less as is, climate models will yield ever starker forecasts, to the mounting dismay of political leaders and their multinational corporate backers. At some point, even the public will have to be clued in - after as much delay (and profit-taking) as possible.

Some writers with intuitive gifts knew as much. For example, James Gustave Speth, of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, who in 2008 said, "...it makes very good sense to question economic growth and the growth imperative...The planet cannot sustain capitalism as we know it." (The Bridge at the Edge of the World, pp. 115-116.)

Our species evolved to be alert in just this way, so much so that a child in an indigenous society who only noticed this much might be considered socially backward.

And Edward Abbey, with his hawk's eye, was well aware by 1967, when he wrote that "growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness" and that "an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human." Well-known phrases to Ed's aficionados.(See "Water," Desert

One of the most revealing things about any culture is what people focus upon when they have free time and energy. For better or worse, that's what their insights and intuitions will spring from.

And no culture has been more successful than ours in distracting itself from observing the natural world in detail. Look at how many people flock to artificial environments of one kind or another for their vacations: Disney World, Dollywood, luxury cruises, five star hotels, London, Venice, Hong Kong, you name it. Even vacations that center in national monuments or parks or other open spaces are likely to rely on adrenaline spikes from rock climbing, mountain bikes, or off-the-road vehicles.

Solitaire, p. 127.) In 1988 he put it this way: "...the whole grandiose structure is self-destructive: by enshrining the profit motive (power) as our guiding ideal, we encourage the intensive and accelerating consumption of land, air, water - the natural world - on which the structure depends for its continued existence. A house built on greed will not long endure. Whether it's called capitalism or socialism makes little difference; both of these oligarchic, militaristic, expansionist, acquisitive, industrializing, and technocratic systems are driven by the same motives; both are self-destroying. Even without the accident of a nuclear war, I predict that the military-industrial state will disappear from the surface of the earth within a century." (One Life at a Time, Please, p. 28.)

Observation of the environment as Deloria meant it is uncommon in our society, and people who do so are typecast as naturalists or "tree huggers."

Deloria also said, "If civilized man concentrates on the single event, and misses the relationships that surely exist between and among objects, could not the primitive perceive differently, intuiting sets of activities that can only be apprehended with a larger vision?" (pp. 52-53).

Although Ed didn't write about global warming, he may have been right about when the catastrophes will arrive, according to current climate science modeling. Consider, for example, the presentiment of disaster echoing in the following climate modeling paper, from the same British professional journal: "If climate warms rapidly...a temperature of anywhere between 2 degrees C and 4 degrees C might be reached by the 2050s or 2060s, precisely at the time when vulnerability as a result of population demands for food and water is highest... Contemplating a world that is 4 degrees C warmer can seem like an exercise in hopelessness: accepting that we will not reduce greenhouse gases enough or in

The perspective he is describing is more aesthetic than rational, which in no way diminishes its importance. As an example, consider the opening paragraphs from Ed's novel Black Sun, in which he describes the interaction between the main character and the environment around him:

"Each day begins like any other. Gently. Cautiously. The way he likes it. A

<<Prev                                                   Home                        PDF                              Next>>

	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>

	How DID Ed Abbey Know the System Will Tank? Or, Deconstructing Bubble Land By Scott Thompson time, and laying out a difficult future for many of the world's people, ecosystems and regions." (Mark New et al, "Four Degrees and Beyond: the Potential for a Global Temperature Increase of Four Degrees and its Implications," pp. 13,16.) "The primitive seems to know when the problem is insoluble; the civilized man does not." - Vine Deloria, Jr. Maybe the two British climate scientists were desperate to be heard, or maybe they were simply fed up. The question is: how did Ed know that the mainstream system will tank decades before the science began to show it? Whatever the case, in a recent issue of a prominent British scientific journal, they got in their own government's face, saying: "... the logic of such studies suggests (extremely) dangerous climate change can only be avoided if economic growth is exchanged, at least temporarily, for a period of planned austerity within Annex I nations [developed countries for the most part] and a rapid transition away from fossil-fuelled development within non-Annex I nations." (Kevin I think the reason is that he somehow acquired the kind of intuition indigenous people have. Whether he ever realized the significance of his breakthrough is unclear. But what is apparent from studying his journal is that he was often frustrated trying to deal with people who found what he said incomprehensible and who as a result hung a series of unsavory labels on him. In Vine Deloria, Jr.'s, last book - the one he had trouble getting published - the late Sioux writer presented an indigenous perspective on intuition that I think well applies to Ed. Anderson and Alice Bows, "Beyond 'Dangerous' Climate Change: Emission Scenarios for a New World," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, January, 2011 p. 41.) Deloria said, "The most important observations that primitives could make would be of the environment around them." (C.G. Jung and the Sioux Traditions, p. 52.) Some examples: in late August do we know to look for the wind picking up high in the trees, because we love seeing it? Or if there is a new pattern of dry, hard winds in the late winter, are we curious about that? If in the fall we see the leaves on the low mountains abruptly turn brown instead or red or yellow, have we almost been expecting it? Do we notice the Alligator Junipers in a movie supposedly situated in Wyoming, and if so does the inau-thentic location make the story seem off center? This article flicked on the scientific warning light for globalized economic growth. And assuming the system persists more or less as is, climate models will yield ever starker forecasts, to the mounting dismay of political leaders and their multinational corporate backers. At some point, even the public will have to be clued in - after as much delay (and profit-taking) as possible. Some writers with intuitive gifts knew as much. For example, James Gustave Speth, of the Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, who in 2008 said, "...it makes very good sense to question economic growth and the growth imperative...The planet cannot sustain capitalism as we know it." (The Bridge at the Edge of the World, pp. 115-116.) Our species evolved to be alert in just this way, so much so that a child in an indigenous society who only noticed this much might be considered socially backward. And Edward Abbey, with his hawk's eye, was well aware by 1967, when he wrote that "growth for the sake of growth is a cancerous madness" and that "an economic system which can only expand or expire must be false to all that is human." Well-known phrases to Ed's aficionados.(See "Water," Desert One of the most revealing things about any culture is what people focus upon when they have free time and energy. For better or worse, that's what their insights and intuitions will spring from. And no culture has been more successful than ours in distracting itself from observing the natural world in detail. Look at how many people flock to artificial environments of one kind or another for their vacations: Disney World, Dollywood, luxury cruises, five star hotels, London, Venice, Hong Kong, you name it. Even vacations that center in national monuments or parks or other open spaces are likely to rely on adrenaline spikes from rock climbing, mountain bikes, or off-the-road vehicles. Solitaire, p. 127.) In 1988 he put it this way: "...the whole grandiose structure is self-destructive: by enshrining the profit motive (power) as our guiding ideal, we encourage the intensive and accelerating consumption of land, air, water - the natural world - on which the structure depends for its continued existence. A house built on greed will not long endure. Whether it's called capitalism or socialism makes little difference; both of these oligarchic, militaristic, expansionist, acquisitive, industrializing, and technocratic systems are driven by the same motives; both are self-destroying. Even without the accident of a nuclear war, I predict that the military-industrial state will disappear from the surface of the earth within a century." (One Life at a Time, Please, p. 28.) Observation of the environment as Deloria meant it is uncommon in our society, and people who do so are typecast as naturalists or "tree huggers." Deloria also said, "If civilized man concentrates on the single event, and misses the relationships that surely exist between and among objects, could not the primitive perceive differently, intuiting sets of activities that can only be apprehended with a larger vision?" (pp. 52-53). Although Ed didn't write about global warming, he may have been right about when the catastrophes will arrive, according to current climate science modeling. Consider, for example, the presentiment of disaster echoing in the following climate modeling paper, from the same British professional journal: "If climate warms rapidly...a temperature of anywhere between 2 degrees C and 4 degrees C might be reached by the 2050s or 2060s, precisely at the time when vulnerability as a result of population demands for food and water is highest... Contemplating a world that is 4 degrees C warmer can seem like an exercise in hopelessness: accepting that we will not reduce greenhouse gases enough or in The perspective he is describing is more aesthetic than rational, which in no way diminishes its importance. As an example, consider the opening paragraphs from Ed's novel Black Sun, in which he describes the interaction between the main character and the environment around him: "Each day begins like any other. Gently. Cautiously. The way he likes it. A

	<<Prev Home PDF Next>>