*DISCLAIMER* This post is very environmental, Gaia esque. If that doesn't interest you, fair does. If the fate of humanity on Earth does though - go for it!
I was drawn to this idea because I believe in this fundamental law - that we are part of the Earth, part of the biosphere, not differentiated or disassociated and that science and technology needs to understand this. I am not a scientist at all but the new spheres of science and development into eco-friendly and eco-conscious systems is of great interest to me.
The event started off with an intro talk, then a short film, then a panel talk and discussion (which wasn't nearly long enough). The film had six people speaking about the idea and/or cause that is Earth 2.0. It was a taster, a teaser even and I think a lot of people who were there, were expecting more - I myself, as well. Yet, it was clear to see that this project is very much embryonic - this is the genesis, just the touchstone and the speakers wanted to be open to participation from everyone.
Some of the points raised are worth noting - and my thoughts on them:
1. Earth 1.0 is unsustainable. 'If everyone lived the life of an average American, we would need 5 planets.' This was one of the first quotes in the short film. It really hits home the scale of our impact, our incessant devouring. 'Business as usual cannot go on', was another point made and Dr Rachel Armstrong, one of the speakers there added 'Doing less of what we do now, is not the way to go.' I completely agree on this point - less traveling in cars, less trips on an airplane is not the solution. What no one likes to admit, particularly the current system of science, is that there are some systems and ways of being that will need to go - go, go. Perusing the planet for that other miracle batch of oil is only going to stave our problem off longer - 'Hey - more oil! We can consume like maniacs for another 50 years!' Routine, rigid minds and thinking are only going to entrap us and keep us in the current form and paradigm, even when our surroundings our urging us to think otherwise.
2. We are the only species that is able to really create (beyond procreation). Yet most of what we create is completely alien to the biosphere in which we live and as a result, completely unadaptable. We're inviting a day or days when an event occurs and those creations are destroyed in one fell swoop. High rise buildings for example and more currently, nuclear power plants with Fukushima being such a HUGE wake up call and yet 90 per cent of the world has their head in the sand. I urge you to read 'We are all Fukushima' by David Rainoshek - it's a special report into what led us to such a point in history where we thought it ok to build nuclear power plants on an earthquake prone zone, plants that use the most deadly substances known. Another poignant point made was that 'Natural disasters aren't a problem for nature, they're a problem for us.' Ever heard those stories of dogs and animals running for high ground before a tsunami hits? They have some internal warning feature - and yet we do not. More on this in a later point...
3. 'We are divorced from spirit.' Graham Hancock made this point and a lot of what he said resonated with me - I'm not a scientist, I'm not prone to deductionism and scientific materialism, constantly looking at technological development as the way - it is one way, not the way. What Arctic Bunny and I didn't get to flag up in the Q&A was this - how does Earth 2.0 propose to bring about spirit into the equation - ideas of development are great but what about what needs to happen inside of us first? To change the outside pictures and outside thinking than we need a shift in internal perspective and how we view life. Leading onto...
4. Symbiosis. This is key to Earth 2.0 - living interdependently with the biosphere. Yet again, I make the point though, how do you know to attain that if one cannot attain symbiosis within one's self? If the head is always on and the body is neglected, we've become a society of disassociation - where science had taken nature - and our being part of it - out of the equation. There is no concern for ecological consequences in the past. If you hurt the planet, you hurt yourself and your chance to survive. Apparently, according to history, we were reduced to several thousand in number - an endangered species for sure. We pulled through though - and that was without needing a hefty dose of physics or whatever knowledge. There has always been knowledge internally. I want Earth 2.0 to address the need to shift from the external need to look and external gratification, to internal solutions.
If the Earth can heal herself, as she is self regulating body, can we not - we that are part of her? Ayurvedic and Chinese doctors can tell what is wrong with you - or will be wrong with you - from your heartbeat alone. Imagine if we could all listen to our heartbeats in that way? Oh, no, pharmaceuticals suddenly don't like that idea... - all of us being well, our own practitioners? Oh, no, rather you stay ill thanks and keep the money rolling.
5. New thinking that will have a new name altogether. This is my own personal point - in the talk, there was mention of buildings that can react to the environment, to temperature, can grow and make it's own energy. The gentleman next to me muttered how he didn't thinking treating buildings like living things was the way to go. Fair enough but then it wouldn't even be a building in the true sense of the word or its definition. It would be moving to something else entirely - an agri-shelter or something (NB - in tornadoes in USA, trees don't get ripped up and uprooted - how amazing is that? They've found a way!) It's just frustrating to see how conditioned everyone's mind is, how closed. I liked Dr Armstrong's point that we need to engage children in this because their imagination is unbounded and they haven't unlearned that yet.
In the Q&A, one lady kept asking 'What is this, what does it mean, what are you trying to do?' I don't think she got that it was a conversation, a chance to bring together people to explore possibilities. This incessant need for something concrete and physical is what is going to limit us - at the moment, all of Earth 2.0 is pretty conceptual - it started off as a film project. Not all the solutions are going to be in the physical realm, I believe. There was talk of a 'HUB', a possible AI quasi-machine-not-machine that would allow us to speak the language of the planet. I think we can only find that in ourselves. We're not going to find it from some AI thing. We already have a lot of wisdom with regards to the planet, it's about time we celebrated and cultivated it instead of scientific materialism dominating and thinking itself king.
That's my two cents - I could go on. But I most definitely want to take part in someway - be part of the generation that moves from the Orange to the Green Meme before leaping into the second tier - all of which is explained in 'Integral Spiral Dynamics.'
The speakers at the event were Graham Hancock, Dr. Rachel Armstrong, Tia Kansara, Niall Dunne, Melissa Sterry, Simon G Powell.
Yay well said. Agree with all of course! Really like the part about listening to our inner heartbeats to determine any ailments.
ReplyDeleteHoping more people will read this.