Electricity, Global Dimming, Wisdom, Utopia, Arctic, Methane, Not Enough Time, Hopium
What happens when the electricity is gone? This would not be a problem if we can have a transition with backup systems in place, otherwise, this problem is covered in the contingency plans that tell us what to do. The idea is that we plan for this in our contingency plans. We make lists of thing people will need and then communities can cross items off the list as they’ve been done. Part of the list would include how to turn portions of the electrical grid and the internet back on. We would plan for who to meet and where to meet. We would circulate several rounds of contingency plans for review and in this way, we would prepare for the day when the lights go out.
Professor Guy McPherson is one of the main voices those of us who are in the know listen to about abrupt climate change. He says that life on Earth is in hospice now. He says that he used to have hope until he learned about the global dimming effect a few years ago. He says that research has now concluded that while our planet has been heating up from global warming the dimming effect has been keeping our planet cooler. Professor McPherson says that when the collapse of civilization comes, and our industries stop putting particulates in the air, that within a couple of weeks our global temperature will increase by one or two degrees more than the increase that has already happened and will take us beyond the sustainable level for life. He says that this dimming effect is not a problem, it’s a predicament, and that while we may be able to solve problems, we are not able to solve predicaments.
A couple of weeks ago I read about a research scientist woman by the name of Viva Cundliffe, who is the Chief Scientist at Green Carbon Inc., Canada, and was nominated in 2012 for the Nobel Peace Prize for Chemistry, who claims there is a nontoxic process that emits hydroxyl radicals that can be safely used to mitigate the temperature rise caused from the loss of the dimming effect. What she’s saying is that the Global Dimming effect is not a predicament, but a solvable problem. She also says that corruption from corporations that make money as they pul these particulates in the atmosphere have covered up the hydroxyl method and she cites documents that have recently been declassified to prove it.
This means that Professor Guy McPherson could be wrong. If the global dimming effect is not an unsolvable predicament, but rather, a solvable problem, then could it be that other predicaments may also be solvable?
When money is gone decisions will be made based on wisdom and common sense instead of based on money. One example of a decision that was made for money and not for wisdom was when humanity decided to build nuclear power plants before we had learned how to dispose of the waste. Artificial Intelligence is the new gold rush of technology and in our system of money there is no stopping it. Even though we’ve heard the warnings of its danger we don’t get to vote on its implementation. If humanity is going to last a million years, we will have to be careful and not take risks with life. Some of the fruit we eat from the tree of knowledge could be as bad or worse than the poison fruit of money.
(Note to come back and fill this section in with the description of how wisdom was sent to us in a message from our ancestors.)
As hunters and gatherers our ancestors walked all over the Earth in the proverbial Garden of Eden. Back then the Earth was abundantly full of all kinds of animals and fishes and plant life. It was utopia. Humanity wants to build utopia; not only for us, but for all the other creatures and plants of the Earth as well. That’s why so many of us go to nature for vacations and why we try as best we can to make our own homes miniature utopias. People seem to scoff today at the ideal of creating utopia, but after money is gone, I think that utopia will be the obvious choice for a goal. Why? Because it makes sense. Without money driving us to build for money then why would we want to build anything but utopia? The Venus Project has many good concepts already designed.
From what I’ve learned I think it’s imperative that we get the Arctic refrozen this winter (2019/2020). If we wait any longer, I fear that the water will warm too much and then we will be facing annihilation from the methane release. The threat is here now. It doesn’t matter how much success we have in this money world, or how much money we make, if we don’t get the Arctic refrozen now, I fear that we will all be sorrier than humanity has ever been. If we could get the ice-bank built back up, however, then it seems reasonable that the permafrost would refreeze and lock the methane back down. It could help stop Greenland from melting, the polar vortex (jet stream) from weakening, reduce storms and reduce the rate of slowing of the global ocean current conveyor belt. Science is saying the worst threat to human life on Earth is here now with the melting of the Arctic.
The USA spent something like six trillion dollars on the Iraq War. July 2019 was the hottest month in recorded history. Ice prediction models say the Arctic will be ice free before 2020 and the Arctic has always been the northern hemispheres air-conditioner. The arctic is extremely important to us. yet the cost to make 10 million wind powered seawater pumps to help build up the ice prevent the Arctic from melting would only cost and estimated 500 billion and no one is doing it. It’s pure common sense that we should be trying to refreeze the Arctic yet we’re not doing it and the reason why appears to me like its always the same thing; it’s too expensive.
If the Arctic was refrozen it would hopefully cap the methane again. This is something for the CHI to work on.
Not Enough Time
We don’t know how much time is left. It is our duty to keep trying until we either succeed or die trying.
The word that says there’s nothing we can do. That tells us to not even try. There are many things, however, we can do that we’re not doing. I don’t think the problem is that we can’t, I think it’s that we haven’t had the ability to come together and organize. I have posted a list of positive things that are on our side, that we can use, and do to help us save life on Earth. Our own Mother Earth may be on our side as well. And I will take suggestions to add more to the list. Humanity has not been given the chance to try yet. 7.8 billion people is a vast pool of knowledge and the great majority of us have not been able to contribute. Additionally, one thing that’s in common between all, or nearly all of the environmental organizations is that they’re all separate entities, each doing their own thing. If we had the ability to come together and become organized, we would be much more effective. In Phase II, however, the way I’ve laid it out, all we’d be doing is designing a new sustainable future. Groups of any kind would not be allowed. But this would be up to humanity. Personally, I don’t think I would allow environmental organizations to represent themselves as a group on the platform since we would all be equal individuals and groups could exert unwanted pressure. That doesn’t preclude us from addressing the concerns of environmental organizations, however.
We need to remember that not only our lives that are at stake but the life of possibly every living thing on our planet, and our children, and humanity forever. We cannot give up. If there’s a tiny spec of light shining through this cover of darkness then we must try to thrust our collective spear into that hole and make it wider and then keep on making it wider from there. Calling hope hopium tells people to give up and not try.