Fear Of Death (is killing the planet?)

[Darren Dirt]

The reason we cannot "wake up" to the unsustainable nature of our way of life may be traced to our awareness of our finite life and the linear concept of time that it creates.

As far as we know, human beings are the only animals that are aware that they will die someday. This knowledge could be considered either a curse or a blessing and it changes the way people view time. Knowing that, barring an unexpected injury or illness, you will live around eighty years creates a linear concept of time. We think of our lives in terms of our past, our present, and our future.

Many people are not only burdened by events in their past but are also preoccupied with their future, leaving little time to give attention to the present moment. The preoccupation with the future is mostly due to a fear of death (even though it may be a secondary or tertiary reason)...

Accepting the knowledge of our finite life allows us to live with a different concept of time -- one that focuses on each moment. It also helps us to understand our connection to nature. Like everything else, our bodies are subject to the natural lifecycle of growth, maturation, and decay. The current culture of death denial not only attempts elevate humans above nature; it actually fuels a system that destroys nature as well. In the attempt to preserve our own life, we may actually destroy it.

from http://sustainableman.org/is-our-fear-of-death-destroying-the-planet/ "a conversational blog about sustainability ... doesn't ask you to do anything... However, we will ask you to question everything."

[Thorin]

And still you don't give us your opinion.

[Darren Dirt]

And still you don't give us your opinion.

I think there's an extreme over-correction that "the left" are pushing for that is unrealistic, but "the right" are overly stubborn when it comes to change (before a "cliff" is encountered).

So "my" opinion is that it's not as simple as having a simple opinion about this kind of thing. Awareness, critical thinking, and baby steps, act local, etc. etc. is the way to ensure a non-dystopian future for my kids' grandkids.

But the ARTICLE I linked to (aka "Deep Thoughts"), well...

If you realize that all things change, there is nothing you will try to hold on to. If you are not afraid of dying, there is nothing you cannot achieve.
- Lao Tzu, hippy dippy thinker dude

Kinda the same thought, and pretty encouraging/empowering when you let that kind of thinking really sink in.

imo.

[Thorin]

Well, except immortality.  Kinda hard to achieve if you're going to die.

Also, non-suited space travel.

I can probably think of other things you can't achieve without dying.

Anyway, I wonder whether people from 1913 would consider this a dystopian future, or whether people from 1813 would consider 1913 a dystopian future, or whether people from 1713 would consider 1813 a dystopian future, etc.  What I'm trying to say is time marches on, humanity invents new tools to make mundane tasks take less time, and a hundred years in the future will always be completely different than we imagined it.

-----

By the way, the big quote in the first post and the word "sustainable" in the link made me think you were pointing out some new environmental views, but then your actual opinion appears to be more about that simple words won't make a difference.

[Darren Dirt]

Well, except immortality.  Kinda hard to achieve if you're going to die.

Also, non-suited space travel.

I can probably think of other things you can't achieve without dying.




Anyway, I wonder whether people from 1913 would consider this a dystopian future, or whether people from 1813 would consider 1913 a dystopian future, or whether people from 1713 would consider 1813 a dystopian future, etc.  What I'm trying to say is time marches on, humanity invents new tools to make mundane tasks take less time, and a hundred years in the future will always be completely different than we imagined it.

-----

By the way, the big quote in the first post and the word "sustainable" in the link made me think you were pointing out some new environmental views, but then your actual opinion appears to be more about that simple words won't make a difference.

1. ha, ha ... I think you know that it was a colorful metaphor, not to be taken literally as "nothing can not be achieved if you are unafraid of dying" but more like "if you are afraid of dying, you will hold yourself back from experiencing life and achieving your full potential as a mortal human being during your limited time in this material existence".

2. dystopian -- if you go by Wikipedia's general "some important way undesirable or frightening**" label, then sure a "motor car" and "talking pictures" would be frightening to SOMEBODY off the past.
But I hope, again, that you were just being funny, making light of taking literally certain words and terms ; because obviously if you go by the modern era's (internet culture's?) more emotion-stirring definition, which is perhaps along the lines of "reduced liberty and/or resources in which to enjoy a reasonable quality of life" ... then I hope you realize what I was touching on, and what articles such as the one I linked in OP discuss in detail (as a warning and/or to get you thinking about "think different" mindsets) ... of course "quality of life" is a new subjective term in this topic of discussion, but let's just agree that certain things are objective "bad" in that are of study (e.g. imprisoning/executing the poor or dissenting, adding poisons to the air and water, etc.)





**actually, even http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dystopia expands upon the initial general attributes of "undesirable or frightening", to mention "pollution, poverty, societal collapse, political repression, or totalitarianism" as typical examples of forms, both fictional and real

... so now can we continue a semi-serious conversation about the issue raised in the OP, i.e. that those types of forms of "dystopia" might be encouraged by a certain perspective on death, and discouraged by the opposite or alternative to that perspective? Cuz I give you credit for being capable of being more than just a pedant/troll

[Thorin]

I don't think being scared to die after 80 years makes people pollute more or repress each other more.  I think the basic desire to have more than others is what does that, this idea that we have to keep up with the Joneses or at the very least not live like those Brazilian rainforest tribes.  I really don't see how being scared to die (or even just being aware that we will die) has any bearing on how much energy and goods we consume or how much pollution we spew into the world.

[Darren Dirt]

I really don't see how being scared to die (or even just being aware that we will die) has any bearing on how much energy and goods we consume or how much pollution we spew into the world.

Then read the linked article in a bit greater detail. It's because it's possible that consumption (never ending?) is a kind of legacy that we (or at least, some, and maybe just some "westerners") seem to strongly want ("need"?) and as a result we lose sight of history and eternity in how we accomplish it... since we are mortal, we invest our hopes (and investments!) in our children even if we won't live to see the full rewards of our efforts. The article is not about the method of establishing that "legacy", but rather about the legacy theory itself. (imo)

[Thorin]

My read of the original article is that the author basically tells us to stop wanting money and start living in harmony with nature.  What the author tries to claim is that our desire to have money stems from our desire to prolong our lives, with the implication that more money equals longer lives by virtue of using money to insure against life-ending events.

I have quite a different view of it - I think it's the fact that people know they will die soon enough that they want money now to buy things to make their life more interesting, easier, and more enjoyable.  In Alberta that's called the "redneck toys" factor.  Why do so many people in Alberta have large trucks and trailers and boats and skidoos?  Well, because they want to enjoy life while they still can, in a manner that they find enjoyable.

We would pollute so much less if only we stopped engaging in pollution-creating activities.  Except, a lot of those activities are a lot of fun and why should I stop my activities that I enjoy if my neighbour doesn't?  This is Al Gore's and David Suzuki's biggest hypocrisy, that we should use less energy even as they use five or ten or fifty times as much as us (how many houses does Al Gore have?  how much does he pollute flying around in jets?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Criticism).

[Thorin]

As an example, this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2153179/Al-Gores-electricity-bill-goes-through-the-insulated-roof.html claims Al Gore's Tennessee house uses 17,768kWh of electricity per month.  I just got my bill yesterday, and we used 751kWh for our house.  Now who's the polluter?  Oh, but he pays extra to be able to claim he's getting green power from a wind farm and a methane gas farm (not sure how that's renewable other than by having a lot of cows in a small pen).  Still, he uses 23.66 times as much electricity as me (his one month is almost two years for me!), so really, who should turn off some lights?

[Darren Dirt]

so really, who should turn off some lights?

nobody, but also everybody.

Change the culture to stop leaving every light on all the time, and use already existing tech to help make that more automated (think Bill Gates' house).


But the REAL question is (I think, or at least I often think when reading articles like the OP) ... what lights?

What energy source is powering those lights (and what "SHOULD" be, in the near- and distant-future) , and what technology will those lights be made from (i.e. LEDs seem to currently be the best consumer-market tradeoff of power consumption and natural (non-blinking!) light vs. incandescent and fluorescent [and environment waste aka that scary mercury powder!] )

etc.

Ain't as simple as "choose one extreme or the other", cuz like you pointed out even those ADVOCATING the extremes have a tough time living it out. Gore is a hypocritic pitchman (at least with a decent sense of humour, as Futurama fans might point out) while Suzuki is a smart guy who stopped critical thinking (i.e. questioning his own views) about certain issues a LONG time ago, I remember the mid-to-late 1980s "Nature Of Things" was less political proselytising and more mind-expanding. #goodolddays

[Thorin]

Yeah, compact fluorescents save some electricity but then pollute the landfill like crazy with all that mercury in them.  And there's lots, lots, of people who throw them in the garbage instead of bringing them to the hazardous waste recycling depot like they're supposed to.

Bill Gates's house is still a power hog, simply due to its size.  This article: http://www.emon.com/story_billgates.html states his average power bill is $30k a month - mine's about $125 a month.  So he's using roughly 240 times as much electricity (assuming same cost of electricity even after currency conversion).  Or 10 times as much as Gore, which was 24 times as much as me.  Gates needs to do a lot more than shut off the lights if he wants to help the world.  But again, he's got money, so why should he care?

By the way, solar panels, while good at creating small amounts of electricity, also produce pollution - their black panels heat up in the sun and create heat pollution, adding to urban heat islands.  The manufacturing process is also quite toxic to the world.  Most people would agree that this is mostly offset by the reduction in ongoing air pollution spewed out by using fossil fuels to generate electricity.  The manufacturing pollution generally happens in other countries, especially China, so we don't notice it here.

[Tom]

Yeah, compact fluorescents save some electricity but then pollute the landfill like crazy with all that mercury in them.  And there's lots, lots, of people who throw them in the garbage instead of bringing them to the hazardous waste recycling depot like they're supposed to.

Bill Gates's house is still a power hog, simply due to its size.  This article: http://www.emon.com/story_billgates.html states his average power bill is $30k a month - mine's about $125 a month.  So he's using roughly 240 times as much electricity (assuming same cost of electricity even after currency conversion).  Or 10 times as much as Gore, which was 24 times as much as me.  Gates needs to do a lot more than shut off the lights if he wants to help the world.  But again, he's got money, so why should he care?

By the way, solar panels, while good at creating small amounts of electricity, also produce pollution - their black panels heat up in the sun and create heat pollution, adding to urban heat islands.  The manufacturing process is also quite toxic to the world.  Most people would agree that this is mostly offset by the reduction in ongoing air pollution spewed out by using fossil fuels to generate electricity.  The manufacturing pollution generally happens in other countries, especially China, so we don't notice it here.

People do like to complain about how batteries and solar pannels are crap for the environment, but you absolutely have to offset by the fact that they last years, and the entire time they are being used, there's /no/ pollution from the energy you're getting.

To get a fully electric system set up, it may pollute the hell out of the planet, but then for years you'll have next to none from energy generation. And every year you're exclusively using renewable electrical energy is another year people are going to innovate out more of the pollution causing aspects of it, just due to the fact that there will be much more demand for investment and development.

Once you start being able to make your renewable energy generation technology with renewable energy, you win. That's an entire layer in the process that will be polluting less from now on.

New battery and solar cell technologies are getting more environmentally friendly as time goes on.

As for Darren's "extreme overreaction" comment, maybe some people. But looking at the data gives you a clear picture. If we keep going the way we are, in 50-100 years, there'll be no sea ice, and temperatures across the globe will be up 1-3 degrees Celsius on average across the globe. And that'll cause the current weather oddites to only get worse. If you think the last decade of storms was even remotely eye opening, think again. You ain't seen nothin yet.