21st Century Political Warfare

At the beginning of the 21^st Century, America entered a Crisis Era similar to the 1920s and 1930s.  The run up to the Great Depression matches the financial, political, social and cultural patterns of the first decade of this century.  Similar to the pattern after 1930, from 2010 to 2020, America will continue to experience crisis after crisis.  Every decision will feel like the consequences of making mistake will make matters worse. Every right decision will be quickly forgotten as the next crisis hits us like an ocean wave knocking us off our feet.

A civil crisis in America is building between conservative and liberal policies.  People are taking sides and demanding action.  Violence against the symbols of civilization that was only verbal in the past has migrated to individuals, non-state actors and nation states taking violent action.  The American government is being used to exert more control to protect civilization.

Political Parties

Republican (conservative) political rhetoric is infused with individualism. A Republican America focuses on the origin of sovereign power in the individual and asserts that no government can deprive a minority or individual of their sovereign rights and powers.  Republican political policies are derived from this concept of individualism based on sovereign rights and powers.

Democratic political rhetoric is infused with modern Liberalism.  A Democratic America focuses on the sovereign power of the government and asserts that no minority or individual can be deprived of their rights and powers defined in the Constitution and laws.  Democratic political policies are derived from this concept of liberalism based on the sovereign rights and powers of the government.

A representative democracy, like the United States, permits a transfer of the exercise of sovereignty from the people to the government.  This creates a tension between how much control an individual retains over their life and how much the individual transfers to the government.  Republican and Democratic arguments about policies are based on how to implement each of the conflicting concepts to resolve the dilemma between the individual and government.

Republicans want less government interference in individual decisions. Democrats want less individual interference in government decisions. This dilemma is resolved with each election. The pendulum moves back and forth over time.

Republican Policies

Republican support for individualism has been extended to Corporations.  Republican policies promote less government interference in corporate decisions by extending to them the same rights and powers as citizens under the Constitution.  The pendulum has moved back and forth between lax government controls and tight government controls.  Corporations are increasing their influence over whether individual rights are respected or not.

Democratic Policies

Democratic support for liberalism has been extended to Corporations.  Democratic policies promote a mixed economy and the general welfare of society as a legitimate role of government. Corporate access to substantial resources and political power creates a conflict when they infringe on individual rights and freedom.

Sovereignty

Conservative arguments give priority to the sovereign rights of individuals.  Liberal arguments give priority to the sovereign right of government to protect minority and individual rights.

When there is peace and prosperity, liberty and freedom, then individuals have the opportunity to exert their rights and powers without infringing on the rights of others.  In the current Crisis Era, individuals will be forced to subordinate their needs and wants to the sovereignty of the government to protect Civilization.

Sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power.  In the current Crisis Era, the US Government has and will continue to expand the legal right to actively exercise power over individuals, non-state actors and other nation states.

Corporations

What are the consequences of corporations gaining the same rights as citizens and being able to pay to elect politicians that support less interference by government?  When corporations with sufficient resources extend their legal rights and exercise their power, they infringe on the sovereignty of the US Government.

The Republican argument is based on not wanting the government to infringe on the sovereignty of individuals and corporations.  The Democratic argument is based on not wanting individuals and corporations to infringe on the sovereignty of government.  The difference in the boundaries defined by the problem shows the Republican argument has narrow boundaries drawn around individuals and corporations.  The Democratic argument has broad boundaries drawn around everyone and assumes individuals and corporations will act in their own selfish best interests and not in the best interests of society as a whole.

Open Letter to Bill McKibben

To: Bill McKibben,

Thank you for all you and Susan are doing.

My sister and I were on the I-5 bridge, but not in the picture.

I had not been to a demonstration since one after Kent State in 1970 when I was in college.

I have a few comments.

2020 +/- 2 years will be the turning point. A Pearl Harbor like event will catapult America into the climate change global war for survival.

Paraphrasing William Stafford the poet:  justice will take millions of intricate moves.

The largest environmental mobilisation for decades is underway in the UK & USA.  See Huffington Post UK article.

Fossil fuel companies refute the law of cause and effect and laugh at those who warn of the consequences of ignoring feedback loops.

Climate change deniers refute the law of cause and effect. But the feedback loops in nature do not play dice with the world.

There is no uncertainty in the feedback loops in the atmosphere and oceans.

There is no probability to measure in the feedback loops of natural systems of the world.

Climate change deniers, fossil fuel industry and their politicians are modern day isolationists.

They want to draw boundaries that are close, limited and constrained so they do not have to take responsibility for the CO2 molecules burned overseas that change our climate in America.

Modern day isolationists are being successful at delaying America's entry into the war to deal with the consequences of climate change.

Einstein famously is quoted as saying many times, "God does not play dice with the world."

Describing events as random or coincidence assumes that chance and probability have something to do with events in our lives.

We can not ignore cause and effect. Together cause and effect become a feedback loop.

Things do happen for a reason and the reason is called feedback loops.

All activity everywhere occurs within and is controlled by feedback loops.

There are passages in the Bible, Koran, and books of other religions about cause and effect.

When we ignore cause and effect, then we are not following the path that you are advocating.

When we do not understand the feedback loops in natural systems, then we do not understand how to be of service to others.

You understand how to be of service to others and that this is the highest value for any human being to attain.

Your service is part of a feedback loop that makes things happen for a reason, by not ignoring cause and effect.

Psychology is how and why climate change is happening.

Source: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-real-story-risk/201210/climate-change-psychological-challenge

If the biggest barriers to fighting climate change are psychological rather than technological, then the solutions might be psychological too.  Strategies that reduce fear and create a sense that we can make a difference today with simple positive action might prove more successful. Moral arguments that emphasize shared values may also prove more effective, since decisions are often based on social interactions and values rather than scientific data.

Source: http://www.mnf.uni-greifswald.de/fileadmin/Geowissenschaften/geographie/angew_geo/Publikationen/The_psychology_of_denial_concerning_climate.pdf

The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups, S. Stoll-Kleemann, Tim O'Riordan, Carlo C. Jaeger

Abstract

Various studies of public opinion regarding the causes and consequences of climate change reveal both a deep reservoir of concern, yet also a muddle over causes, consequences and appropriate policy measures for mitigation. The technique adopted here, namely integrated assessment (IA) focus groups, in which groups of randomly selected individuals in Switzerland looked at models of possible consequences of climate change and questioned specialists as to their accuracy and meaning, revealed a rich assembly of reactions. Respondents were alarmed about the consequences of high-energy futures, and mollified by images of low-energy futures. Yet they also erected a series of psychological barriers to justify why they should not act either individually or through collective institutions to mitigate climate change. From the viewpoint of changing their lifestyles of material comfort and high-energy dependence, they regarded the consequences of possible behavioural shift arising from the need to meet mitigation measures as more daunting. To overcome the dissonance created in their minds they created a number of socio-psychological denial mechanisms. Such mechanisms heightened the costs of shifting away from comfortable lifestyles, set blame on the inaction of others, including governments, and emphasised doubts regarding the immediacy of personal action when the effects of climate change seemed uncertain and far away. These findings suggest that more attention needs to be given to the social and psychological motivations as to why individuals erect barriers to their personal commitment to climate change mitigation, even when professing anxiety over climate futures. Prolonged and progressive packages of information tailored to cultural models or organised belief patterns, coupled to greater community based policy incentives may help to widen the basis of personal and moral responsibility. (2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Implications

“...there is a chance that citizens could still lead their governments. Along with more socially minded business, and supportive non-governmental organizations, such a “new democracy” could create a realm of effective climate management for a sustainable millennium.”

Global Climate Bubble

Based on foresight by Financial Crisis Observatory, humanity in the Anthropocene has already caused a bubble. The global ecological state has shifted due to the increased population affecting ecosystems. The percentage of lightly affected ecosystems has decreased and there is an increased percentage of Earth’s ecosystems that show state shifts. The whole global ecosystem is like a financial or housing price bubble that is going to burst and shift into a new regime. 

The consequences of this graphic are clear. Rather than focusing on the fossil fuel industry, that should be totally shutdown, we should strive to increase productivity, human capital and knowledge in sectors of the economy that produce real value.  This opportunity spreads from the many challenges humanity faces in the 21st Century. I doubt that we will face this reality before a catastrophe overwhelms us, but I have faith at the same time that we will overcome the crisis and come out of this era having faced down our enemy, ourselves, and be determined to improve the Earth’s ecological state to include humanity.

Reference

Didier Sornette: How we can predict the next financial crisis

FILMED JUN 2013 • POSTED JUN 2013 • TEDGlobal 2013

http://www.ted.com/talks/didier_sornette_how_we_can_predict_the_next_financial_crisis.html

Mom's Place

Slipping through the air with artificial

lights to guide me.  Pulling courage

from spots I place my feet.  Traveling

alone by foot through life. 

Listened to the Governor say, "We need 

to clean up the river to maintain

our sense of place."  This is our place.

Who speaks for any place?

Only a poet?  Each person votes 
with their feet and the decisions they make every day.
What decisions do I make when I write?

Roll me up in a ball with the golden

thread.  Take me on a journey through words

of time and space to Mom's place.

Problem Description

John Locke had a DIY fantasy about the future and a profound influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. In addition, he defined private property in a way that today we have embed in our Constitutions and laws. Robert Nozick coined the phrase “Lockean Proviso” based on Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, Chapter V, paragraph 33. Many political philosophers have written about this phrase but I am not here to argue philosophy.

Locke envisioned a future of privatized resources from land and water assuming what remained was not depleted so that someone else was deprived of that resource. The Lockean Proviso is true when there is enough left in common for others or the quality is good enough so that others are not deprived of the use of the common resource.

“Nobody could think himself injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the same water left him to quench his thirst. And the case of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the same.”

The basic human problem of the 21st Century is that we each live a substitute life in our adult mind causing us to behave as if the Lockean Proviso will remain true in the future. We believe we can continue polluting the common land, water and air as if the quantity and quality of those resources were unlimited. An unsustainable world is when the Lockean Proviso is not true.

Growth means there is a surplus. Humans have had a surplus of land, water, air, oil, electricity, food and many other things. We continue to grow, using the surplus, as the demands of the population increase and the number of people increases. Some people use fear, uncertainty and doubt to scare people into thinking there is a limit to growth because of a limit in the surplus of these things. This creates a conflict with our belief that the Lockean Proviso is true.

However there are many examples of renewable resources that can be substituted for resources that might not be available in the future in sufficient quantities. An unsustainable world is not when the quantity element of the Lockean Proviso is not true. An unsustainable world is when the quality of the commons is depleted so that someone in the future is deprived of that resource.

The Lockean Proviso will not be true when the quality of the commons is not good enough so that others are deprived of the use of the common resource. Therefore, a sustainable world is when the quality of the commons is not depleted so that future generations are deprived of that resource.

Meditation and Centering Prayer

The Breath

The heart of Zen is focusing on the breath during meditation. Whether you use the basic sitting meditation (zazen), walking meditation, or many other forms, practicing meditation involves focusing on each inhale and each exhale.  Count each inhale and each exhale. Count to four and then start over, or count to 100 and then backwards. Sitting meditation might be 15 or 20 minutes. A walking meditation might be an hour.

When the mind wanders or thoughts intrude, mindfulness is when we return our attention to counting each breath. Mindfulness Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) scientific research “suggest that participation in MBSR is associated with changes in gray matter concentration in brain regions involved in learning and memory processes, emotion regulation, self-referential processing, and perspective taking.”

Reference: Hölzel, Britta K. et. al.  "Mindfulness Practice Leads to Increases in Regional Brain Gray Matter Density." Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging 140.1 (2005): 36-43.

Thomas Keating has helped many Christians discover Christianity's own version of zazen, Centering Prayer. As in Zen, the repetition of a word or phrase can quiet the tumult in our minds and open us to insight and spiritual growth. Basil Pennington, one of the best known proponents of the centering prayer technique, has delineated the guidelines for centering prayer:

1. Sit comfortably with your eyes closed, relax, and quiet yourself. Be in love and faith to God.
2. Choose a sacred word that best supports your sincere intention to be in the Lord's presence and open to His divine action within you (i.e. "Jesus", "Lord," "God," "Savior," "Abba," "Divine," "Shalom," "Spirit," "Love," etc.).
3. Let that word be gently present as your symbol of your sincere intention to be in the Lord's presence and open to His divine action within you. (Thomas Keating advises that the word remain unspoken.)
4. Whenever you become aware of anything (thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, associations, etc.), simply return to your sacred word, your anchor.

Reference: M. Basil Pennington (1986), "Centering Prayer: Refining the Rules," "Review for Religious," 45:3, 386-393.