Watching Apocalypse

 

What I'm wondering is where are all the same climate change deniers when it comes to denying all the vast evidence for anthropogenic destruction of the global ocean eco systems, the fisheries that humans have fed off of like the invasive species we are, to the point where the fisheries are nearly gone, as Dr Jackson so clearly points out in that presentation to the U.S. Naval War College in Scene I.   Anthropocene  Climate Change is not the only global change that appears to have a modern civilization cause.

 

Where are the denials that humans, specifically humans involved in global economic systems we now characterize as infinite growth neoliberalism, are destablizing, polluting, this vast ecological commons?  Where are the neoliberal-funded deniers for this well documented occurance?  Why only focus on anthropogenic climate change?  Are they missing from this topic because it's not visibly in the news like the weather, it's taking place silently, out of sight, therefore out of mind? 

 

After all, like anthropogenic-caused climate change, no one is doing a thing to stop what humans are doing, so in either case there's no need for a big effort at denial.  But, oddly enough, denialists do seem to want to deny the climate change, why not the impending human caused ocean apocalypse too? Why the discrimination?

 

Enough of us need to begin to see through all these fractured ways of translating the world to ourselves in order to get past the immediate egoic constructions we substitute for reality so we can get through a day and eat another supper. Then maybe we can begin to see the whole of this prideful construction we call civilization as a kind of idea, or whole misconceived thought gone astray.  That's really what's ultimately meant by calling some conceptually imagined geologic time frame the Anthropocene era.

 

Scientists are at a loss for how to translate the factuality of what their various scientific methods are revealing about the world to the rest of us so that we can recognize what it means.  Going from fact to narrative meaning is always a problem for humans.  Most of the species of the world don't seem to bother with that issue.  A scientist like the physicist Fritjof Capra, tries to get literary and puts some of what he sees into the metaphorical form of a book, then turns the book into a movie, Mindwalk, and the critics trash it, tell people it's boring, poorly conceived. No one watches it.  Let's watch Supernatural, or something more practical, a James Bond movie instead.

Or maybe it really is too sophisticated for most people to imagine. If that's true, and we are indeed responsible for a massive planetary change reducing the evolved complexity of the sea back to a monoculture, or worse, well....  I guess humans really would be no more than an extremely egotistical virus.

 

Labeling can be an attempt to create permanence, a comforting sense of security.  But what if that's an illusion? Anthropocene can merely be a way of re-visioning ourselves, and when that vision is viewed as threatening to the people in power, whatever names we want to give them, be they Mandarins, as Chomsky calls them, or polyarchic managers of these human machines we call our institutions, then they will use the system of ideas in place to distort the truth in their favor.  And people, wanting security in their beliefs, will help them.

 

It appears from the best of our investigators that everything is in process, in motion, down to the tiniest things we can think we know to exist, quarks or atoms or whatever.  We focus so hard on trying to figure out matter, we miss all the space around it.  What's really there in all that space between the nucleus and the electrons?  What is this imageless energy that translates through matter and shocks us?  Why trick ourselves into believing we can create material stability with thought creations like modern day, economically logical institutions wherein every participant obeys the rules, colors within the lines, and behaves like so many separate parts in a machine while ignoring what they do when they fish out the sea with technology designed to scrape the last fish and all of its habitat off the sea bottom?  Brilliant design.  Someone made a lot of money off that, no doubt.  No doubt it paid for itself, and now those expensive boats with their sonar and all that bottom scraping technology are just sitting somewhere in drydock, rusting away, waiting for the fish to come back.  Brilliant.

 

Sit back and watch the following presentation that suggests what it might take for our species to thrive on this planet, rather than destroy it in a 6th Mass Extinction: