Saturday, 27 July 2019

Post No. 1,378 - Cross Posting: Notes for a History on World War Three

This originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2019/07/notes-for-history-on-world-war-three.html.

*****

I have often said, and occasionally written, that what we're living through now is a third world war - but, in doing so, I am referring to the struggle against climate change.

Now, histories are something that are normally written after the fact, but, in this instance, I fear that risks being too late to be useful.

I'm writing this as a post because I hope that, somewhere, some day, someone might do something like this - irrespective of whether they've read my paltry notes on the notion.

Such a task is not only challenging because it is being written within the struggle as it happens, but also because the clashes and flows of forces are on the intellectual plane, not the visible physical plane - this is a struggle of the sort seen in the Enlightenment, the Reformation, and the quest for democracy. There are no map rooms with pin-festooned wall decorations, there is little formality or hierarchical organisation, and there are no clear, concise and coherent daily or weekly intelligence briefings.

There is only the chaos of life, of humanity, and the struggle to move the mass of humans intellectually.

And casualties - damaged warriors, damaged planet, and possibly the future of our species. 

Having qualified this post with the above (and note that I am not a historian), I'm going to have the temerity to jot down some brief dot points (why yes, my day job is an engineer - how did you tell?).

So . . . my notes.

Firstly, the human species has a number of characteristics that contributed to survival, thriving, and - in recent centuries - industrialisation. Those include intelligence, communication, and learning, skills which led to the development of tools, organise hunts, and agriculture. Developments such as agriculture also contributed to enhance focus on thinking, experimenting, and the increasing complexity of society and social life - for the human is mostly a social animal.

This, at times, has led to environmental problems in the past (refer to published works on the fall of past civilisations, some of which are reportedly connected to climate problems or things like deforestation), but, on the whole, there was a surprising amount of harmony with the natural world. Yes, we caused some extinctions, and we "terra-formed" some parts of the planet (e.g., the terraces for rice paddies and other crops in many parts of the world, the creation of a more open bush in Australia [see here], etc), but nothing on the scale of what has happened as a result of the industrial revolution.

That industrialisation led to massive social dislocation and other changes (not all bad), and a wide range of social problems. It led to an early recognition of problems such as air pollution, and from that the modern environmental movement has grown.

Now, at this point, let's do a little recap:

  • humans are social animals, with a predisposition towards survival - generally perceived through the filter of comfort; 
  • the industrial revolution ultimately led to affordable consumer goods, which satisfied our inbuilt desire for the symptoms of survival; 
  • our inbuilt bias towards survival, and social connections, contributed, in my opinion, to an overlooking of problems, until far-sighted activists brought them to the rest of humanity's attention.
This was, perhaps, the first battleground of World War Three, and was an ebb and flow between the desire for the signs and symbols of survival, and our powers of observation, analysis and communication. It was an uncomfortable struggle not just for those in charge of factories, who probably saw the warnings as an attack on their signs and symbols of survival (money, physical opulence, etc) - but it must be noted that not all factory owners were heartless, selfish or blind: the chaos of life means society didn't have hard and fast battle lines, which is one of the problems of those who think that control of the means of production is the way to human fulfilment or even just contentment. (The long history of religions/spirituality - including, in particular - asceticism also casts doubt on such ways of thinking.)

The other point that is shown here is the apparent reluctance of people to change - and that is NOT simply because of stupidity or denial: it is because the warnings are being balanced against the signs and symbols of "survival", including:
  • social contact of various forms; 
  • the emotional rewards for people who want to demonstrate how well they have learned parental / societal / other sets of values (don't underestimate that - when mastering a skill your parents praised is challenged, it can be at least like a slap in the face, and often a kick in the guts or worse, and activists serve their cause poorly when the ignore, dismiss or downplay emotional factors); 
  • weighing up the costs and benefits (including - especially including - emotional) of change vs. staying and accepting calamity - and that is something illustrated throughout our history by people living in the shadow of volcanoes, the slowness of some to evacuate before invading armies (some cannot, which is a useful reminder that not all people are able to cope with change), and building in flood or fire prone areas because they are "pretty" / convenient / affordable; 
  • disbelief of the credibility of activists.
That last point is important, and this is where the revolution that Messrs Cartwright, Savery-Newcomen-Watt, et al started showed itself to be a double edged sword.

On the one hand, it led to increased pollution; on the other hand, it ultimately led to improved science and measurement that enabled us to determine just how bad things were becoming.

On both hands, people tend to forget that this is not only about facts: it is also about people's perceptions of and reactions to facts (and perceived credibility).

So let's says someone is feeling good about themselves because they've just demonstrated that they are successful at living in accordance with their parent's values, which maybe included having a flash house and a fancy car. When someone says those goals are bad, the person concerned takes it not just as a criticism of themselves, but also of their parents. (Incidentally, my answer to that is that the parents obviously loved their child and did the best that they could on the basis of what they knew, but now circumstances beyond the parent's control overtaken life, much as an earthquake or other major natural disaster can "disrupt" everything.)

There is, of course, also humanity on the other side - including the human pain of being criticised or rejected, and the frustration and despair of their knowledge (and it IS knowledge) being ignored or trivialised, which has happened since the 1980s, as far as climate change goes.

People find it is easier to accept something that has an obvious physical effect, such as air (which kills 7 million people each year) or water (see here) pollution, or health related, such as DDT or thalidomide: climate change seems to have been an intellectual bridge too far for many people - and yet the world pulled together to (largely) fix the ozone depletion problem, so there is hope for another victory in this war.

That, of course, is a tragedy - especially when conservatives continue to express their parent's values on things like "the importance of a good economy", when the truth is that we risk having no economy. (Are my views showing? At least I no longer wear slips [an old term for petticoat], so I can't admit to showing my slips!)  However, tragedies on the other side have also happened, such as emails allegedly revealing changed reports to emphasise the threat (I can't find a link to a source on that), and other controversies and alleged controversies.

However, scientists and activists have learned and adapted their techniques, as have the denialists. That history of adaptation is, in my opinion, where some fruitful ground for a history resides, and that I am hoping this post may nudge someone into writing.

I'm also hoping people will look beyond the convenience of their gizmos and gadgets to the human and environmental devastation of conflict minerals and other hidden (deliberately? Or through incompetence?) costs of conveniences such as ever more miniaturised computers.

And now, having burned off most of the energy of my mid-night cuppa, time to go back to bed :)

Oh, and for anyone who does want to take this further, maybe start with the obvious links:

Posted by at