[P2P-F] Fwd: Journey to Earthland (GTN Discussion)

Tue Oct 25 00:36:48 CEST 2016

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Great Transition Network <gtnetwork at greattransition.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Subject: Journey to Earthland (GTN Discussion)
To: michelsub2004 at gmail.com

>From Stephen Purdey <s.purdey at utoronto.ca>

-------------------------------------------------------
[Moderator's Note: Just wanted to remind people that the discussion period
will close one week from today, OCTOBER 31. Looking forward to your
contributions!]

I don’t include myself among the nay-sayers that Allen White admonishes,
but I do have two basic problems with the JTE vision. I’ve alluded to both
in earlier posts. The first, also mentioned by Herman Greene, is that JTE
doesn’t take into account the locked-in degradation of planetary eco- and
operating systems. The second references the problem of agency.

The simple (and, I believe, irrefutable) fact of the matter is that there
will be no soft landing for the Great Transition. Climate change, the
mother of all degradation challenges, is already well underway. The Paris
Agreement, even if fully implemented, falls far short of stabilizing
Earth’s climate. Leading edge science makes clear that global carbon
emissions must peak by 2020, full decarbonisation of the world’s economy
must occur by 2040-2060, and even then negative emissions technologies (not
yet developed) must be deployed on a massive scale (Rockström et al. 2016).
For reasons now disturbingly familiar (the worldwide commitment to economic
growth for example), these expectations defy credibility.

Climate change is the biggest but only one entry in what Greene calls a
“parade of horribles.” There’s no need to list population increase, soil
degradation, loss of fresh water, deforestation, ocean acidification,
species extermination and so forth. The point is that humanity is rushing
headlong into tremendous socio-ecological turbulence which may or may not
be survivable. These are not avoidable fictions. A Great Transition may
help us squeak through, but it won’t lessen these challenges nor, best
efforts notwithstanding, will it create a bucolic Earthland.

The second issue is agency. The prevailing wisdom at GTI and elsewhere is
that widening circles of citizen-led counter-hegemonic activism will, in
due course, reach a critical mass which will overwhelm or radically reform
existing institutions, practices and attitudes. These green shoots of
change, now rising more or less spontaneously in response to pressing
planetary exigencies, are surely significant but still barely perceptible
on the larger world stage. A really potent GCM must first penetrate the
veneer of normalcy and the cloud of denial that obfuscate our path to the
future. We need a way to attract the immediate attention of citizenry and
policy makers alike, galvanize a trenchant global discourse, and thereby
incite a movement with real potential.

It’s my opinion that a pronouncement reflecting the viewpoint above (to
paraphrase, “Brace for impact”), offered into the public domain with
whatever maturity and gravitas can be mustered, might garner the attention
we need. The approach is honest and, possibly, electrifying. If successful,
it would open the door to some frank talk (even through the inevitable
barrage of neo-Malthusian epithets).

The new public discourse I have in mind would confront what I believe to be
our most difficult problem, namely, the paradox of exceptionalism. We are
at once Earthbound and transcendental beings, wonderfully alive to a
morally charged universe yet grounded in a mortal physicality. These two
features of our existence should be harmonious, but our sense of
exceptionalism has made us arrogant, imperiously dismissing any dependence
on our natural setting.

A closer look at this paradox will help us shift the analytical terrain of
the sustainability problematic from important but technical ‘how’ questions
(how can we achieve planetary sustainability) to more illuminating and
potentially transformative ‘why’ questions (why do we find ourselves on the
edge of calamity). Here we might find a personal/professional opportunity
to dig deep into the metaphysical, existential issues that are calling to
us. And this need not be confined to ivory towers. A life-and-death polemic
roiling in the public domain might cut through the normal bustle of
everyday life, giving reflexive pause to people everywhere.

The idea here is to shine a light into the darkness ahead. JTE is
determined to do the same, though I think it lacks both brutality and a
compelling sense of agency. To be clear, the public discourse named above
offers no promise of renewed life beyond our self-inflicted danger, no
assurance that all will be well. What it does offer is the chance to
embrace the exceptionalism that ennobles our species, to rejoin it to the
planet that gave us life, and to meet our destiny with a modicum of grace.

Stephen Purdey

************************************************************

Friday, October 21, 2016

>From Allen White <awhite at tellus.org>

-----
[Moderator's Note: Just wanted to remind people that, with the extended
discussion period, comments are welcome until OCTOBER 31. Looking forward
to your contributions!]

The many and varied commentaries sparked by “Journey to Earthland” (JTE)
attest to its resonance across broad range philosophical and scholarly
perspectives. It’s depiction of a possible pathway toward a Great
Transition serves as an edifice of hope built on a foundation of universal
values, a scaffold of inclusiveness, and an interior configured to
accommodate diverse societal prototypes bound by a commitment to the common
good. Evelin Lindner’s focus on the critical role of dignity, Mary Evelyn
Tucker’s on what it means to be human and David Korten on the power
imbalances are reminders of the complexity of realizing a livable world.
These, and the many other commentaries, speak to the need to ensure that
journey remains an open source venture, one that welcomes refinements and
enhancements to its core content not only by thought leaders but equally by
concerned citizens from all corners of the planet.

The timing of the essay could not be more propitious. As the world lurches
toward rising ecological perils, political extremism and economic
instability, despair abounds. While occasional signs of sanity provide
reason for hope--e.g. the recent agreement among 197 nations to phase-out
climate warming hydrofluorocarbons —the news is dominated by stories of
civil strife and failed states, deepening global economic fragility and the
renewal of Cold War-type risk of nuclear confrontation. From these and
other crises, we may well conclude the JTE’s “Rolling Crisis” is well
underway and the subsequent “General Emergency” looms as a distinct
possibility.

Seminal transitions such as the Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and
21st century economic globalization occurred without a grand design or
intentional mobilization. Instead, they evolved through a combination
delegitimization of the existing order fueled by shared, widespread
grievance among disparate actors. Change was evolutionary, spanning
generations, not years and powered an array of synergistic forces—
intellectual awakening, political oppression, unvarnished greed. New
political, philosophical and social structures emerged as an antidote to
entrenched beliefs, interests and power structures that were failing large
populations of disillusioned and marginalized.

But the planetary urgencies of today are different in one critical way.
Transformation is not simply a matter of betterment. It is a matter of
survival. The risks of ecological calamity are real, threatening the very
foundations of the Earth System on which all life depends. In retrospect,
we can only speculate how the human project may have emerged differently if
earlier transformations were delayed or accelerated by a generation or two.
But what we can say with confidence in the contemporary context is that
time is short. We do not have the luxury of many generations to achieve a
Great Transition. Reversing the existential threat to planetary biophysical
systems associated socio-economic breakdown is incompatible with a
wait-and-see mindset.

The JTE portrait of constrained pluralism functioning within a suite of new
institutional structures—a World Constitution, a Global Assembly for
Integrated Action, a World Constitution- will be dismissed by many as
implausible utopianism. Of the skeptics, we should ask: “What is your
alternative?’ And to those who doubt the prospects of a Global Citizens
Movement (or is it a Movement of Global Citizens?) as a primary change
agent, we should ask: “What is the alternative for mobilizing masses in
support of urgent transformative change?”

If viable alternatives are possible, let their advocates step forward. For
example, if a GCM seems unimaginable, would a reconfigured civil society at
the global, national and local scales that partners with unaffiliated
citizens a better, or concurrent, alternative? Could such a partnership
vastly expand the power of civil society in driving positive change while
preserving the autonomy of the individual as a distinct but empowered
player?

In the 16th and 17th century, Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, among others,
laid the foundation for societal transformation through a social contract
between citizens and government. At the time, social contract concept
provided a kind of North Star, a destination that would foster democracy
and civility through voluntary delegation of selected responsibilities to
government in return for government’s provision of public goods.

Through that historical lens, we may interpret JTE as a new North Star, one
that accounts for the complexities, interdependencies and vulnerabilities
of the 21st century. Citizens and government are joined by civil society
and enterprise in a planetary web facing a collective responsibility—and
imperative-- to fashion a just and sustainable future via a new Grand
Bargain. From this perspective, JTE provides a vision and pathway for
modernizing the social contract that aligns with 21st century realities.

The last half century provides a basis for hope. Multiple movements at
various geographic scaled have propelled major societal changes, catalyzed
by the intersection of a widespread shared grievance, propitious timing,
enlightened leadership. Think post-War anti-colonial movement, the modern
environmental movement, the civil rights and anti-apartheid movements, and
the gay and human rights movements. While falling short of the deep,
structural shifts JTE envisions, the collective impact of such movements
cannot be denied. Imagine if the energy and synergies of such movements,
and those yet unformed, were framed and bound by the connective tissue
embodied in an Earthlandic vision.

Let the naysayers argue why it cannot occur while the GTN, and kindred
spirits worldwide, proceed to make it happen.

Allen White

**************************************************

September 30, 2016

>From Herman Greene <hfgreenenc at gmail.com>

-----
[Moderator's Note: As noted earlier, the discussion will run through the
end of October. We look forward to your contributions!]

Paul Raskin’s Journey to Earthland: The Great Transition to Planetary
Civilization (GT2) is a worthy successor to Great Transition: The Promise
and Lure of the Times Ahead (GT1). It will become an instant classic and an
enduring source of discussion about a viable future for Earthland.

It is very difficult to write about a possible, non-Utopian, desirable
future. The typical environmental speech goes through a parade of horribles
and ends with an admonition that we need to do better and solve these
problems. This is followed with completely inadequate illustrations of
solutions. I think of how Al Gore ended his movie Inconvenient Truth with
trifling examples of how to stop global warming. Raskin gives a
well-thought-out, credible vision. Yet he correctly identifies the linchpin
(or Achilles’ heel) to his analysis. He writes on page 57, “The takeaway
from the quantitative analysis is highly robust; the ‘big if’ is not
whether the numbers work out under Great Transition cultural and political
assumptions—it is whether those assumptions can be made valid.”

Due to those assumptions, I can’t help feeling that the positive vision he
offers is closer to Thomas Friedman than Thomas Berry. I also can’t help
feeling that his vision is more a variation of Policy Reform scenario than
an illustration of a New Paradigm scenario. The “global citizens,” it
seems, want a perfected industrial world. I’m not optimistic about what
their lives of leisure would offer were they to come about. I’m afraid this
vision was conceived by those who enjoy the benefits of modernity.

In so writing, I don’t mean to diminish the achievement. I will no doubt
use GT2 a lot in my own work just as I used GT1. I have tried to write the
extension of my critique of industrial civilization into a vision of a
viable future and have not been nearly as cogent or visionary as Raskin. GT
2 offers much to build on. For the reader, it requires consideration of
alternative scenarios of the future and a reaction to the vision presented
of a viable future.

Here are my particular concerns with GT2. First, I don’t think it takes
into account what I see as inevitable climate and ecological disruption.
The positive spins on carbon budgets and the IPCC’s Representative
Concentration Pathways rely on faith in negative global carbon emissions
sometime in the period between 2050 and 2080 and rapid declines to carbon
neutrality beginning by 2030. The most optimistic IPCC projection, RCP6,
provides for stabilization of CO2 atmospheric concentrations at between
430-480ppm. I see no indication that carbon emissions are following the RCP
2.6 track and am aware that even if this were occurring there is
considerable doubt that a 2.0c rise in temperature would not have highly
disruptive effects or that 450ppm would result in less than a 2.0c rise.
The realization of the Great Transition by 2084 does not take into account
the degradation of ecosystems.

Second, I think that the scenarios are treated too much as alternative
pathways rather than simultaneous realities, and I think the timeline for
the realization of the Great Transition is far too short. I believe a
minimum of a 200-year timeline is needed and perhaps 300-500 years. I
believe David Orr’s assertion in Down to the Wire that “[t]he change in our
perspective from the nearer to the longer term is, I think, the most
difficult challenge we will face,” has to be accepted. Bruno Latour in his
2013 Gifford lectures chided environmentalists for their frustration by
writing that the reason they face resistance is not because they are not
reasonable, or objective, or because their data sets are not good, it is
because they are “changing everybody’s world.” He likens the situation to
that of war, a 200-year world war. He wrote that we have entered a new
state of nature, a Hobbesian condition of a war of all against all, with
the protagonists now including tuna, and sea
levels, and carbon emissions, as well as the various human factions. This
time though it is not a condition before people enter into a social
contract, it is a present condition. It will take 200 years to forge a new
social contract.

Third, I believe the concept of the “global citizen” as the principle actor
in the transition lacks definition or sufficient agency. “Citizen”
emphasizes the political task, or perhaps with more merit those who work
for the new social contract. Insufficient attention is given to the
reformer of culture and the ecologist. While it is conceivable that the
production of goods will require fewer people and hours of human labor,
there is no end to the work of education, spiritual growth, social
engagement, ecological restoration and care, and perhaps even of food
production and household maintenance, with fewer labor-saving (i.e. energy
intensive) devices.

To his great credit, I believe Raskin makes an appeal to progressives to
avoid certain traps of the mind. Progressives have a weak vision of global
society and governance. There is too much appeal to an agrarian past of
happy little villages (and perhaps not enough to an agrarian future) and if
not to that to technocratic, knowledge-based future. Further to his credit,
with Latour, Raskin calls us to Earthland—Latour writes that the new word
for the human in the Anthropocene is “Earthbound.” We ARE Earth-bound.
Further, Raskin embraces technology as part of a future vision. This, it
seems to me, is inevitable. Further, he relegates various alternatives as
only being possible if there is collapse . . . in such case the prospect of
little villages of scattered humans loses its appeal. And he calls for
solutions that address an urban, scientific population of 8 billion people
who continue to engage in global trade, communications and travel. I don’t
know if that is the right
number, but he posits a position to work from.

My own work, shared with others, is around the concept of “ecological
civilization, and Berry’s Ecozoic era. I see the need for a body of people
to take on the “imponderables.” I’ll give just one: We say we want a
sustainable future and to eradicate poverty (now often said as extreme
poverty which means somewhere between $1.25 and $185 per day), sometimes
without economic growth and sometimes with sustainable economic growth, all
while lowering emissions. I am caught by an illustration given by Friedman,
which he says he borrowed. If one gives 1 billion of the world’s poor a
60-watt light bulb (nothing else) that alone requires 60 billion watts of
energy generation to power the light bulbs, and at present this means
likely 120 power plants each 500 megawatts in size, fueled by coal and, if
not by that, natural gas (about which we are learning more of the negative
consequences of relying on fracking to run an economy on gas). The modern
world IS energy. Turn off your
electricity for 24 hours and you have entered a past time. How in the real
world do we accomplish these conflicting goals? To me, this is an
imponderable not resolved by what to me is magical thinking about
“alternative energy.”

In addition, we need an International Ethics Panel for Ecological
Civilization (IEPEC). This idea was introduced by Ryoichi Yamamoto of
Japan. The details are far from worked out, but the concept is a body of
people who applies a body of ecological and social wisdom to the
extraordinary challenges and conundrums of the Great Transition.

The people on this listserv are leading candidates for work on the
imponderables and IEPEC. We will all be building on GT2.

Herman Greene
Greene Law, PLLC
Center for Ecozoic Societies
Board of Directors, Toward Ecological Civilization

*******************************

On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Great Transition Network wrote:
>From Paul Raskin

-----
Dear Friends:

Our series of thematic discussions has been uncommonly rich and animated.
Still, from time to time we’d best step back to a whole-system panorama,
lest we lose sight of the forest for the trees. After all, it is the big
question of how to shape the global social-ecological future that brings us
together.

In that holistic spirit, our next discussion will consider my new
essay—“Journey to Earthland: Making the Great Transition to Planetary
Civilization” (or “JTE,” for short). I wrote it as a sequel to “Great
Transition,” the 2002 treatise that launched GTI. The new volume has four
central aims. First, it updates and develops GTI’s overarching conceptual
framework. Second, it introduces the idea of “Earthland” for the latent
supranational community now stirring in the Planetary Phase. Third, it
describes the integrated planetary praxis and global movement needed to
carry the transformation forward. Fourth, it paints a granular picture of
the kind of flourishing civilization that might await us on the far side of
a Great Transition.

To get your copy of JTE, go to www.greattransition.org/
publication/journey-to-earthland. From there, you can either download a
free pdf or order a paperback through Amazon for $12. (If neither of these
options works for you, please request a complimentary copy by emailing
info at tellus.org with your mailing address.)

In light of JTE’s sweeping scope, I suspect many of you will wish to
elaborate certain formulations and take issue with others. I welcome your
comments in the spirit of a collective exploration with ample room for
difference within a canopy of unity.

NOTE: This discussion will go on for TWO full months—SEPTEMBER and OCTOBER.

Looking forward,
Paul

Paul Raskin
GTI Director

-------------------------------------------------------
Hit reply to post a message
Or see thread and reply online at
http://www.greattransition.org/forum/gti-discussions/178-
journey-to-earthland/2136

Need help? Email jcohn at tellus.org

-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20161025/fb611324/attachment-0001.html>