Are we capable of being ecosystem positive?

[clapstyx]

Most people on this forum would be aware of the term "environmentally friendly" but its confusing to me that with the term having been floating around modern pop culture for so long now that we havent taken it to the next level of sincerity. Those in the world who have influence (and this includes science) are still undecided about whether or not the planet is in peril and I doubt we can expect a consensus any time too soon on what the climatic consequences of pollution are. Despite this however we can advance the clarity of understanding if we evaluate everything from the point of view of whether its ecosystem positive or not. If the overwhelming mass balance of our activities are positive to the ecosystem then logic would say we are heading in the best direction with that. As I see it, when using that scale of judgement, every modern civilisation is presently way way off balance.

 

If we can assume that its true that we are, and there doesnt seem to be much evidence to suggest that the view is wrong then we can take it to the next level.

 

If we go berserk doing favours for other species to put things back in balance and advance proof of integrity at a species level whats the consequence going to be? My prediction, and its wildly remote, is that a lot of species in nature are going to be slightly confused and this is going to instigate a realisation process that has them thinking on another level. Humanity will also be thinking on another level if nature responds in any way. Once there is a widespread realisation process underway depth of consciousness will foreseeably accelerate and (with any luck) we will all be thinking on a range of new levels in common at a thinking speed equivalent to the unified mass balance. If we are pursuing to be positive to the ecosystem and we begin evaluating each others logic to the maximisation of that objective not only will be thinking in reasonable tune with each other (and more other species) but we will be becoming conscious of more forms of logic to the approach which will give a secondary phase kick to the consciousness depth expansion.

 

Once we are thinking on a range of levels that we have in common and build those into our personal decision structures what should happen is that with the occurrance of a greater depth of consciousness the depth of our inspiration should run parallel to the equivalency and by that one would expect that at an individual level it will be to the equivalency of the entire mass balance because thats the depth of mindscale we would not rule out as a possibility. If we dont rule that out and instead pursue to realise a way of enacting that situation, and we collectively pursue to enact that situation then we advance as a species and despite what other world leaders say we havent been serious enough about that.

 

There have been concerns that there isnt anyone so amazing that they can change the course of a planets destiny with the full support of every living thing to do it. Its true that there isnt and no one in history has been in that position.

[Moontanman]

no

[ChunTzu]

I, myself, would like to think that we can be "eco-system positive". Such a stance would suggest more responsible growth rather than growth simply for growth's sake. In the book, Cradle to Cradle, the authors site the example of the cherry tree:

The cherry blossoms that grow on the tree's branches fall to the ground where the nutrients present in those blossoms are absorbed into the ground and eventually into the root system. Thus, the cherry tree's "responsible growth" creates more and more blossoms, more so than needed by the tree alone, and the ecosystems surrounding the tree are invigorated by the extra nutrients lying around.

 

This is just one example but it could lead you down a path to an answer that you can perhaps judge for yourself; I can see us maybe being eco-positive, but it would require a dramatic change in the level of consciousness with which humanity understands its place on this planet.

 

Other sources that come to mind which you might want to check out, if you haven't already, is the writing of Fritjof Capra, especially The Web of Life (also the founder of the Center for Ecoliteracy), "The Death of Environmentalism" by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Norhaus, and there's some good information in Worldchanging: A User's Guide to the 21st Century edited by Alex Steffen in terms of connecting environmentalism to contemporary global issues. Worldchanging is also a pretty good online magazine.

 

And one last personal sticky point: Ecology is the study of interrelationships or interconnections amongst organisms and their environments. Environmentalism is more geared towards preservation and restoration of an environment. They often overlap but aren't really interchangeable. (dictionary source from Merriam Webster) Sorry if this makes me sounds like a jerk or something, I just prefer accuracy (or would this be precision?).

[clapstyx]

To ChunTzu,

Thanks for your reply. I feel I understand the Cherry Tree philosophy. I often wonder how other people respond to the circumstances. There are times when I wish I was less conscious especially when it seems like more than I can deal with. Its a contemplation that is almost always a party to the moment and lately the thing I have observed is that its actually very difficult to have a positive conversation, or a conversation that ends well, when it includes mention of the ecosystem. I really feel that this is something we will have to overcome and that if we can find a way of resolve on that then we can start speaking more frankly and honestly about the situation in a personal way without having to go into recovery from a difficult negative. As a musician I count instances of positivity and negativity when I am in the hours or days before I play and Ive often thought about the possibility of collaborating to form a musical gesture to nature as a way of kind of saying "Look we have changed .. we are trying to get our act together" and what I found was that when I considered the situation the artists would be in prior to playing tuning up to do something like that was going to be tough because the topic often leaves one flat. If we can resolve that then I think we open up a world of inspiration after that because we can stay positive then and take it further. In terms of everyday conversations that Ive been involved in there seems to be this great reluctance to involve the subject of the environment and unless we can connect comfortably as people and relate to that area of our common existence I feel we erode away our lives and wont get to the point where we are dealing with it and we can see it turning out well.

[Boerseun]

I suppose we are, but it ain't that much fun. And that's the problem. Humans are all about having fun.

 

So much so that we're willing to maintain our bad habits and keep on havin' fun as the detritus of our civilization rises and rises and we eventually drown in a flood of muck and the sewage effluent of our naively idealistic pretentions of capitalistic perfection.

 

There are just too many of us.

 

A massive die-off prompted by the eventual drying-up of our global oil resources when alternative energy sources haven't yet matured to the point of completely replacing oil, is just what we need. As morbid as it may sound, and as smelly as the planet will be for a while, I reckon the best thing ever for the entire planet (and for the surviving homo sapiens) would be if we could shed about 5 billion souls. Preferentially closer to 6 billion. And the survivors, then, need to zip it and have sex like responsible people so as to not reach the 6.5 billion mark again in a century's time. World population should be lowered and then maintained at around 1 billion - come hell or high water.

 

5 billion of the 6.5 billion people currently alive, are alive thanks to synthetic fertilisers boosting farm output to wholly unnatural levels. The world reached this ridiculous population figure because of the wonder of a pumpable, storable, portable and cheap high-density energy source - oil. And whilst the global population is raping her and crapping all over her, defacing her beauty and ignoring her warnings, Gaia is patiently twiddling her thumbs, waiting for the wells to run dry.

 

If you want to be amongst the > 1 billion survivors, I suggest you dust off your camping skills. Also, get handy with a knife.