Review, thoughts, detailed notes taken from Climate – A new story by Charles Eisenstein

By: Charles Eisenstein
Narrated by: Steve Wojtas
Length: 10 hrs and 18 mins
Release date: 09-25-18

To listen to a sample or check out other reviews, click here

Intro

Should you take a listen?
Yes.
Its about the climate change debate, but its a lot more than that, its about taking a look at the current mindset of people in reference to the debate, and then analysing if this needs to be changed.

There’s some very interesting points in here, and although I don’t agree with everything, its certainly a very interesting read/ listen and I think more people should finish this before they jump into the climate change debate.

Why I got the book

I got this book because of a friend of a friend who I met in Thailand, and we’d been having a conversation on regenerative land practices, what the goal is for humans for climate change…and what we are prepared to live with etc.

Anyway, the lady recommended me this book, said it’s not necessarily about climate change, but about a different way of thinking about the whole situation.

I originally planned to put it at the back of my list, but the audio sample that I listened to sounded interesting, spoken with a smooth and gentle voice, so I thought I should take a proper listen.

What’s the book about?

Basically its about deconstructing the current ‘climate change situation’ and getting to the bottom of things.

It’s not saying its all crap, and its not saying its all awesome, and its not super left wing, green hippie stuff, nor right wing climate denier kind of stuff.  Instead it’s a practical, pragmatic look at the actual situation, systematically going through the information of what is available, and what is not available, what we know and what we don’t.

More importantly it is critically analysing and commenting on how humans react to any new issue. The idea of wanting to ‘attack’ everything.  A war on terror, a war on climate change, extremism on both sides of the equation without necessarily getting to the root cause of the situation and addressing that.

The author addresses climate change extremists – the ones that state “our children won’t know what snow is”; “we need to do something in the next 5 years, otherwise it will be too late” & & then also climate change skeptics – or even people that deny its happening altogether, and looks at things from their perspective.

The idea being to sort out what is true, what isn’t true and how much truth there is to any side… really trying to get to the bottom of it.

He also tries to frame the more important questions of:
How do you quantify it?
What is included as world change, what’s not? What should we focus on?

What kind of world do we want to live in?  Is it just what’s survivable, or is it that we want no change at all?

What are we prepared to sacrifice / compromise on?

What are you personally doing to make an impact?

The goal then of the authors work is to create a new mindset when it comes to the world we want to live in.  And I think that’s brilliant.

Notes on the book that demonstrate this

States that “there is a war on everything nowadays”

Me. I think he’s trying to say that the mentality is wrong, it shouldn’t be that ‘this is a war’, it should be just ‘this is a thing that we have to change our thinking about it’.  Not necessarily ‘we know how to fight wars… well let’s just fight a war against this particular issue’

Yep. 100% agreed.

Says that “war is a form of reductionism’  You’re separating oneself away from something you can just call ‘the enemy’.

“The dehumanisation of brown people allowed white people to enslave them”
Me. I previously stated ‘at the time people provided justification because they’ve considered others not to be human, they are savages, and therefore they’re not hurting anyone by doing so.’

In the context of the question of right and wrong, and whether or not it harms an individual that didn’t asked to be harmed… or has to the potential to do the same.

Me. I think he’s saying that we break down a concept/ issue into various parts which we then measure, and we give weight to judging on our own value system…what we assume to be right at the time.

Yet, no matter how we put all these parts back together, it never = the whole again.  Meaning that there’s clearly things that we’re missing, and there’s clearly things that we’re not measuring, and maybe haven’t even thought about measuring.

That being said.. taking the major parts out and trying to figure them out may not COMPLETELY explain how the thing works as a whole, but it can work as a good predictor of how that thing is likely to act/ react with respect to other things.

Not just focusing on climate change…but the root problem is of people’s mentality.

It’s not a war, and shouldn’t be framed as a war, because then all the questions are warlike.

What is the root cause of the problem so you can know what you really need to change.

For example the question of Immigration.
Root Question – What makes life so bad in these countries that they need to come here?

Me. I feel like the book is a guy that IS a sceptic, yet has to word it in such a way that can garner support for the mindless left to actually begin to listen to the other side.

Very pragmatic and clever in his argument.

(By mindless left I don’t mean anyone that sits on the left.  I’m pretty much centre left myself, however I mean the people that just state things without thinking for themselves… and there’s plenty of them. Anyone that’s ever said “we’ve got to remove the gender pay gap in Australia”  … these people are part of it.  Fact is – there’s no gender pay gap for the same work in Australia, it’s illegal.  But many people hear it on some report, and then just state it… without researching an issue for themselves to find out if its’ true, or critically thinking on it for any deserved length of time)

Is the other side open to being wrong?
Are you?

How do you react when you come across a piece of information that runs contrary to your own beliefs?

Many people that hold one side give a free pass to articles that generally support their argument, but dive deeply into articles that don’t and do a lot of research into why they are wrong.

Me. I think he’s making a lot of good points here.  I have many friends that do exactly this.

The different reality bubbles.

Contrary to the belief that there will be a paradigm shift, there is now paradigm protection.

Me. This is a good point.

He reference she problems with science, p valuing. Shaping statistics, problem with peer reviewed critiques. And the propensity for them to support a held paradigm.

The failure to replicate results on scientific experiments.

All very good points and all very true.

Very pragmatic guy in his reasoning. (Not flawless, but very good nonetheless)

The system now favours those that can gain results rather than this with potentially ground breaking ideas.

This by definition cannot guarantee success.

Me. Very true.

Also true in the movie industry according to Mustache Shenanigans. 

It doesn’t mean that the thinking on climate change in science is wrong… It just means that if it were wrong, we wouldn’t necessarily know it.

Problems with the book, & what could be made better

My biggest criticism is that he should have used the word ‘compassion’ to describe certain situations, rather that the word ‘love’. Because anytime anyone says “all we need is love”… I slowly start to tune out, and think that the subsequent paragraphs must be hipified.
I think many people are like that, and I think it’s a shame that didn’t just change this word because he’s potentially driven away a huge target audience.
Honestly, more people should read this book, but this way of speaking drives people away.

I honestly believe there’s a way to say what’s he’s saying without being so hippy-ish. I think he’s alienating a great many of the potential listeners.

There’s a lot of ‘what ifs’ in this book.
What if we realised our potential?
What if we came together and focused in one direction?
What if we all thought about this?

Yeah…But history proves that we’ll only come together under complete calamity. So until it gets to that…  It’s just not going to happen. Definitely needs to take that into account when stating his suggestions.

It’s weird because he does, but then reverts at times.

“The revolution is love ”

Should have been compassion. Love has been over used and hipified.

‘Chapter 7(8) title – The Revolution is love.’

In a rhino..Everything.

Me. Again, he should have used the word ‘compassion’ instead.

The love thing sounds a bit wishy-washy, but I think generally he is right here. I would replace ‘love’ with ‘compassion’.

I feel like this book, and this style of writing is what every Australian English teacher wants of their students. Something that sounds great, references many emotions….Yet when giving suggestions you’re not entirely sure that it’s backed up by anything. (initial thoughts at the beginning)

Anytime you mention the word ‘transcend’ or ‘transcend that paradigm’…. You’re losing potential listeners.

He says some very good points and much needed points…. But a lot of it gets potentially lost in the hippy connotations of the words he chooses to frame the issue in.

It’s a shame to be honest.

Treat things as sacred.

But also seems to say, we don’t know, so let’s not do it…. There’s contradictions all over the place.

Recommendation

I would recommend this book for anyone that is interested in rational thinking. If you’ve ever been accused of not thinking rationally or if you’ve ever accused others of not thinking rationally then this is a great book that will burst open wide the broad ways in which you should be thinking.

This is not a book that says ‘I’m right and here’s all the reasons why I’m right and you’re wrong’.
This is a book that looks at rational thinking in general and the situation the world finds itself in now…Of NOT looking at things with an open mind, and all the different ways in which that happens. Yes, the main issue by which it does that is climate change…Yet, even though that is supposedly the main issue on the surface, the more you listen to his writings, the more you become aware that in fact climate is a subsidiary issue. And that his way of thinking and the way he wishes people to think and be mindful of more can be applied to everything.

THIS is what he believes can makes a difference. That a fundamental change in thinking will influence all aspects of life, and therefore influence climate by an obvious attachment.

Suggestions for the book

There should probably be a version of this book that is written for the non – emotional person. And the message would have the potential to get out to more people.

Full Notes I Took on the Book:

He cried at the extinction of a pigeon??  Hahaha What a gaybo.
it starts off…with, ‘that’s how I became an environmentalist’.

It’s not a great start.  The 1^st chapter was philosophical and feels like it could have been about consciousness and that was great. However then saying ‘crying at the extinction of a pigeon’  Who gives a fuck man?

Addiction transference –

Me. Completely agree. That once you stop 1 addiction, you transfer your addiction to something else.  But you haven’t fixed or addressed what caused the addiction in the 1^st place.

I think he’s saying that the addiction is a psychological thing rather than a chemical dependency thing. …may or may not be true. I think it can be either or, OR both.

Says – need to change the whole narrative, change the way that we think.

Me. I think that’s fundamentally true.  Easy example is to take a look at America, even if you try to fix one issue a lot of the other problems are still there because the fundamental thinking is still the same.

He says ‘mythology’ or ‘the story separation’
Me. Reminds me a little bit of ‘the secret history of the world, as passed down by the secret societies’
I think he’s on the same level as that , because the story at the beginning was very similar with the consciousness and the separation and what not.

“Interbeing” – is the new narrative or way of thinking he wants to promote.  Stemming from Buddhism, but he himself is not necessarily Buddhist.

Me. These are amazing lines.

“Love is the expansion of self to include another”

“In love, your wellbeing is inseparable from my own”

“your pain grieves me, and your happiness gives me joy”

He says, that the book is trying to prove that rational ideas are not enough to change people, that it’s a revolution of love that needs to happen.

Me. The love thing sounds a bit wishy-washy, but I think generally he is right here. I would replace ‘love’ with ‘compassion’.

He tries to define ‘reason’, or ‘rational’ as when they appeal to self-ideals.

Me. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I would say that its rational when it appeals to the goal in mind. Not necessarily to oneself, but then for him to come to that definition, it would be him assuming that the goal is always of oneself… which is a fairly pessimistic view of how things work in general. It’s not just oneself, it can be a concept, or the benefit of others for example.

But I think he’s argued that because he wants to show that ‘rational thinking’ is apparently not the way.

He says ‘love is irrational’   And I think that makes sense if he’s going only by the assumed definition that rational is doing things only for the interest of oneself. Not in the interest of others. So I think he’s bastardised the definition of what is rational to make sense of love being irrational.

In logic terms, he’s come to a conclusion, and then worked his inputs around making sure that the conclusion is constant.

I don’t think he’s correct in that, but that’s what he’s doing.  But this is his stepping point for which he’s about to base a lot of his argument. I wonder how much of the follow on things, is based on this notion (that I think is not necessarily correct)

Me. I’m saying that his fundamental presumption… is already not based on logic.

He then goes on to say that “if love is truth…” assuming basically that it is… which again, I don’t think it is, or I don’t necessarily think it is. You can’t just jump to that conclusion or hold that as a universal assumption.

He says, that the current view on climate change is ‘trust us, you’ve got to hurry up, we’ve got to make big changes now before it’s all too late’

Me. I completely agree on this.

The war on Afghanistan wasn’t necessarily lost because they didn’t have sufficient weaponry, but because the weaponry is not matched to the purpose. The goal was to make them less anti-American, win over hearts and minds…and bombs and fire power essentially can’t do that.

Making the point that if you are at war… and you’re using the wrong instruments in war… you’re never going to win, or rather, achieve your goal.

Me. I think that’s a fair point, and for the most part should be obvious to most of the population if they took the time to think about it.

States that “there is a war on everything nowadays”

Me. I think he’s trying to say that the mentality is wrong, it shouldn’t be that ‘this is a war’, it should be just ‘this is a thing that we have to change our thinking about it’.  Not necessarily ‘we know how to fight wars… well let’s just fight a war against this particular issue’

Yep. 100% agreed.

Says that “war is a form of reductionism’  You’re separating oneself away from something you can just call ‘the enemy’.

“The dehumanisation of brown people allowed white people to enslave them”
Me. I previously stated ‘now you’ve provided justification because you’ve considered them not to be human, they are savages, and therefore you’re not hurting anyone by doing so.’

In the context of the question of right and wrong, and whether or not it harms an individual that didn’t asked to be harmed… or has to the potential to do the same.

“A nation at war turns itself away from culture, ethics, civil rights, …anything that is not focusing on war”

Anything that is not focused on war is unjustifiable ….and therefore put on the back shelf.

The belief that if you’re at war, anything goes…and racially biased profiling is not important compared to the main issue.

Me. The author seems to be very aware of the problems of America.  But it sounds like he confuses the problem of America with the problems of the world.

Me. These 2 things shouldn’t be confused. Some issues are intertwined, but not all of them, and it’s important to be aware of that.

Otherwise the perspective and the lens that he views world problems through will always be an American one.

On the other hand, he does seem to understand the whole world problems. I’m happy about that. (Yes, you can have both)

Compassion for others

That fighting homelessness from the root cause or the Penal system….can help climate change, because its changing the mentality that will permeate into life in general, which then affects all issues, including climate.

Science. – To explain the whole by the explanation of the parts as a whole.

Me. I think he’s saying that we break down a concept/ issue into various parts which we then measure, and we give weight to judging on our own value system…what we assume to be right at the time.

Yet, no matter how we put all these parts back together, it never = the whole again.  Meaning that there’s clearly things that we’re missing, and there’s clearly things that we’re not measuring, and maybe haven’t even thought about measuring.

That being said.. taking the major parts out and trying to figure them out may not COMPLETELY explain how the thing works as a whole, but it can work as a good predictor of how that thing is likely to act/ react with respect to other things.

About building dams for hydroelectric power. (India & China) – what is not considered is things such as methane gas from vegetation rot below the water….actually worse for the environment.

“What we don’t count…we don’t know”

Biofuels not as good as what you think. So many things not considered.

‘We trust the numbers, but when many things aren’t considered…then it’s easy to come to biased or even incorrect numbers/ conclusions which can then be used to justify actions.’

Me. Sounds like he’s just saying ‘everything is bad’

‘Metrics based thinking’

Says our measurements will never be complete.

Me. It sounds like he’s putting-down a lot of things…but not really offering any suggestions. (at this point in the book). I would imagine that would dissuade a lot of readers/ listeners from continuing further with his writing/ argument.

‘Sacredness’ – cultures that believe in sacredness is given zero scientific value.

I think he says a good example with the mine . – You’re wanting to stop a mine…because you love a mountain and you love the sacredness of this place, So you try to frame your argument in something that the mining company will understand, the legal & social responsibility terms; so you say ‘well it’s going to ruin the environment”

So the mining company comes back and says, “ok, we’ll run our bulldozers on biofuels, we’ll run our computers with solar panels, and plant 2 trees for every so much of operations, and therefore we can do the same task as environmentally friendly as possible”

Yet none of this addresses the root concern… and that is you like the mountain and you like the sacredness of this place. And nothing the mining company does, even if its environmentally friendly, will address those concerns.

Not addressing the root issue.

‘Stop drugs by banning drugs’ – not the right mentality.

Not just focusing on climate change…but the root problem of people’s mentality.

Which side am I on chapter 4

Just the wrong question.

Sceptical and alarmist.

Climate change arguments the list chapter 4

A few minutes in.

He tries to take a unbiased opinion on the climate sceptics, and then looking at the science.

Yet he previous lists 5 different argument onto what each group claims.

Then he seems to infer it’s either sceptics or the supporters of science.

Seems a bit hypocritical.

I wonder if the data the scientists gather would have been updated if it wasn’t for the sceptics that keep asking questions…If whether that is true or not?

Me. Also doesn’t seem to ask the question of …What is the goal?

If the goal, is to continue making money and to survive… without care for pollution or animals dying?  … Then no wonder our world is turning to shit. But only because that was the goal and priorities laid out.

States that you are left with the problem of who to trust? Do they have the authority and can be non-biased?

Says many people do not have enough background to make their opinion directly.

States that most of the ‘against movement’  for the climate issue, centres on the religious right. Flat earth believers too.

Rebelling against the primary point of view.

Religious right don’t like government expansion and see climate change or war as a chance for government to expand.

Me. Interesting point.

Both sides are wrong in their interpretation of each other.

‘Climate centre’ is based on false premises. It’s meant as an insult. And coming at it from the wrong angle.

Me. I feel like the book is a guy that IS a sceptic, yet has to word it in such a way that can garner support for the mindless left to actually begin to listen to the other side.

Very pragmatic and clever in his argument.

The sceptics often hold onto flimsy evidence that support their view. Whilst doing a lot of research into how the other side must be wrong.

Me. Yep that sounds like the standard unreasonable arguing that I’ve come to expect from many people on many issues. Friend on the flat earth…And many, many things, someone else on trade balancing.

Is the other side open to being wrong? Are you?

How do you react when you come across a piece of information that runs contrary to your own beliefs?

Many people that hold one side give a free pass to articles that generally support their argument, but dive deeply into articles that don’t and do a lot of research into why they are wrong.

Me. I think he’s making a lot of good points here.

The different reality bubbles.

Guy McPherson. Near term extinction. I’ve only watched a bit, but it sounds interesting. 

Interesting read apparently on the climate change supporters side. More extremist but plausible.

What’s up with that site.. The climate wars damage to science. Matt something.

3 things that are true from the catastrophists:
(Yet doesn’t believe the catastrophists are correct in general)

1. A Great dying is underway and human activity is responsible.
2. Facing the end of the world. A transition so profound that it will feel like the world we’re living in now, will end, and we will transition into a new one.
3. Conventional means are far insufficient from healing the planet. Conventual means of measuring etc. The logic and world view that entraps us means that in this sphere it is hopeless. But what happens if that world view is changed.

Contrary to the belief that there will be a paradigm shift, there is now paradigm protection.

Me. This is a good point.

He reference she problems with science, p valuing. Shaping statistics, problem with peer reviewed critiques. And the propensity for them to support a held paradigm.

The failure to replicate results on scientific experiments.

All very good points and all very true.

Me. I would recommend this book for anyone that is interested in rational thinking. If you’ve ever been accused of not thinking rationally or if you’ve ever accused others of not thinking rationally then this is a great book that will burst open wide the broad ways in which you should be thinking.

This is not a book that says I’m right and here’s all the reasons why I’m right and you’re wrong. This is a book that looks at rational thinking in general and the situation the world finds itself in now…Of NOT looking at things with an open mind, and all the different ways in which that happens. Yes, the main issue by which it does that is climate change…Yet, even though that is supposedly the main issue on the surface, the more you listen to his writings, the more you become aware that in fact climate is a subsidiary issue. And that his way of thinking and the way he wishes people to think and be mindful of more can be applied to everything.

THIS is what he believes can makes a difference. That a fundamental change in thinking will influence all aspects of life, and therefore influence climate by an obvious attachment.

Very pragmatic guy in his reasoning. (Not flawless, but very good nonetheless)

The system now favours those that can gain results rather than this with potentially ground breaking ideas.

This by definition cannot guarantee success.

Me. Very true.

Also true in the movie industry according to Mustache Shenanigans.

Fear of ostracising themselves.

People that lost funding due to challenging the commonly held belief.

Judith Curry.

Collective confirmation bias.

Peer reviewed articles can be biased as well.

It doesn’t mean that the thinking on climate change in science is wrong… It just means that if it were wrong, we wouldn’t necessarily know it.

End of chapter 5 in the audio book (chapter 4 according to the print version)

He says that the deforestation in Queensland resulted in more ground nutrients seeping into the ocean which had a big impact in destroying the coral reef.

That’s an interesting point. I wonder if that true or not. Or I wonder how the Australia government / scientific community feels about that?

Geo engineering:

Spray chemicals. Reflectivity
Dumping iron oxide into the oceans.
Installing carbon sucking machines.

US national research council has endorsed the development.

Many believe that this is chem-trails.

They are plausible from a geo engineering mind frame.

Me. Hmm I’d have to research that. Had no idea it could be that.

Also what is China doing.
Bleaching the sky.

There are times to fight in different situations but the problem is we’re defaulting to these options.

Funding
Ecological restoration gets a boost in funding if you make it about climate change.

Me. Wow. But I mean I guess that makes sense. The politicians don’t really know what’s going on here. So they at least want to be seen to be doing the right thing.

The Healthy Soil Initiative. Has to pretend to be about climate change in order to get funding. If they don’t say its about climate change, they won’t get funding, or anywhere near the amount that is required.

For most of the rest of the world it’s not the opponents, it’s the general population that has an indifference to it.

Accepting articles that state this was worsened by climate change, we just have to accept it with faith…Because science says so.

Me. Also too much shouting about one thing lessens the impact of it.

Same as racism, which is a shame, because racism is a real thing. And shouldn’t be lessened by dickheads stating micro-aggressions as racism.

Me. There’s a lot of ‘what ifs’ in this book. What if we realised our potential? What if we came together and focused in one direction? What if we all thought about this?

Yeah…But history proves that we’ll only come together under complete calamity. So until it gets to that…  It’s just not going to happen. Definitely needs to take that into account when stating his suggestions.

It’s weird because he does, but then reverts at times.

Stating just co2 numbers, we distance people from the grief of seeing wildlife destroyed.

There’s guilt from that. There’s not so much guilt from simply not knowing something. Or not knowing how it plays into other things.

It’s not just numbers.

The World Wildlife Fund puts value of the ocean at 24 trillion dollars.

The mentality that it feeds is not good, this is what it says….

1. That money is a valid way to assess something like an ocean.
2. That we should make decision about the planet based on the foreseeable gains and losses and therefore
3. If we could make more than 23 trillion dollars , say 48 trillion dollars by trashing the oceans…Then we should do it.
4. That it is possible to foresee and calculate the contributions to human welfare in the first place. That our knowledge is sufficient enough to even make this valuation.
5. That we can separate out the oceans from the rest of the planet, as if they were a line item in a spread sheet, independent from the rest.

So conceivably we could compensate for the loss of the oceans with more of something other revenue stream

6. That decisions about the oceans should be made based on the effect on human beings, that the oceans themselves and everything living in them have no intrinsic worth.

What is important is their economic worth…Their value to us.

Some things are beyond measure and beyond price.

This line of thinking is beyond what we have in our time.

Science says that nothing is beyond measure, economics says nothing is beyond price

When we apply to utility as a way to promote sustainability.. we implicitly confirm the normalcy and rightness if making decisions on the baseness of utility.

That is counter-productive.

What is of utility to you is detrimental to the planet.

“The revolution is love ”

Me. Should have been compassion. Love has been over used and hippified.

New Zealand and Bolivia and Ecuador have written in ecocide into law. Crimes against the environment.

Chapter 7(8) title the revolution is love.

In a rhino.. Everything.

Me. Again, he should have used the word ‘compassion’ instead.

Extinction is the casting out of beings as full beings, justifying that they are less than us and thus become a resource. Me paraphrasing what he’s saying.

Asks what do we want?

Not, ‘can we survive in a destroyed world?’

The answer is probably yes. But what will we become? And what do we really need to become and then work towards that goal.

Linear thinking is war thinking. Sometimes useful, but not really so for the natural world.

Each action has a consequences some good, some not.

Me. What is the accepted definition of linear thinking?

Trauma has become normalised.

What is left out of an aeroplane edited film and what is left in?

The word ‘Bullshit’ out…But person getting fed headfirst into a meat grinder…Fine.

Me. I feel like this book, and this style of writing is what every Australian English teacher wants of their students. Something that sounds great, references many emotions….Yet when giving suggestions you’re not entirely sure that it’s backed up by anything.

Regenerative agriculture. Rebuilding.
Not the same as organic in what it’s become to be known today.

Being able to be stated as ‘organic’, the fruits don’t even have to be have grown in soil now.

MRIG regenerative farms. Browns ranch in North Dakota.

Raised 4% carbon to 10% sequestering.

Me.What is MRIG farming?

Managed grazing.

Reduces methane emissions.

Brings up Tiny Homes in chapter 9.

Also talks about debt obligations for farmers. Making it difficult for farmers to try out new techniques.

Youth unemployment. And into the army,

Me. Germany model sounds good.

After high school, either have to go into the army for 1 year or do social responsibility work. Work with the elderly etc. Discover different perspectives.

He says. Create an ‘Eco-Corps’.

Me. I get why the couple I spoke to, decided to live on a farm. It makes a lot of sense, to know that they’re doing their part but also that they’re learning new things and challenging the status quo.

The water man of India?

Me. Who is the water man of India?

LA has both too much water, and too little water. Storm water and not enough drinking water.

Northern China lowest plateau water retention project.  Liu. Documentary maker.

Earthen dams.

Me. Need to check this out.

He has a film apparently.

500 million dollars over 10 years.

Me. I honestly believe there’s a way to say what’s he’s saying without being so hippy-ish. I think he’s alienating a great many of the potential listeners.

Me. Is it possible to do Australia aboriginal farming? Can you grow aboriginal plants and food on a mass scale?

Chapter 10 Energy, population and development

Me. How possible is it to become energy independent?

Laziness & procrastination.  Is this the voice for the man in the maze saying “Just stop”?

Me. I think his meaning here, was that there might be a sub-conscious, unconscious, different level conscious that tries to influence you to do things. And that pushing the will to do something, or decreasing the will to do something are ways in which that happens.

That decreasing the will to do something, the symptom being laziness or procrastination is the push which wishes to turn you onto a more productive path. One to refocus your efforts onto something that can create meaningful change.

Talks about holistic medicine…Being less energy intensive…It is less.

Me. Yeah…But does it actually do anything?

The answer is no.

Am I confusing holistic with homeopathic?

What’s the difference?

Me. If you compare holistic farming the same as holistic medicine…. Then you’ve belittled your argument. If one is a failure in most people minds…. Then you’ve lost weight in your argument that the other thing you’ve compared it to is actually good.

You’ve diminished your argument.

Why would you do that?

Me. Anytime you mention the word ‘transcend’ or ‘transcend that paradigm’…. You’re losing potential listeners.

Talks about the difference of great abundance but not greater equality.

Me. Yes. True.

That there are more products in the world, greater potential for a better standard of living, yet we still see people in abject poverty, and on the other side of the world, people in very real poverty.  We still somehow manage to be in great awe of people that have a lot of money, and command way more than we can honestly say would be their ‘fair share’ of wealth. We know, deep down when we think about it, that it comes to a certain point of wealth, where it becomes a zero sum game. To get more wealth, you are taking away money & standard of living from someone else. The wealth gap keeps getting bigger… yet many people are still in abject poverty. The equality and distribution is just not there. Society’s value systems need to change.

Me. He says some very good points and much needed points…. But a lot of it gets potentially lost in the hippy connotations of the words he chooses to frame the issue in.

It’s a shame to be honest.

Me. They probably should be a version of this book that is written for the non – emotional person. And the message would have the potential to get out to more people.

On population growth.

Unequal distribution is the real problem.

Population control is a false solution to hunger.

Not to say that earth can support unlimited numbers of humans.

Zero sum games when it comes to wealth distribution.

Says carbon credit trading was bad idea.

Universal basic income.
As a suggestion that he makes.

Me. I think this is a good idea to be honest.

Chapter 12 (11in the print book)  An affair of the heart.

Has to do with science.

He compared religion to science in a very metaphorical way… Yet takes out the evidence part if it.

Me. It’s dangerous because it gives voice to religious people that like to use what-about-ism.

Then goes on to defend it. A true scientist is open to critique.

His call is to expand science to what it has missed.

Says science reduction of reality to matter into numbers, it mirrors economics reduction of nature into money.

Seems to say that only conservatives voted for Donald trump, and it was telling of an irrational world.

Not sure he can make that jump to be honest. What, he didn’t vote for trump and he’s thinking about this stuff…Therefore everyone that voted for trump means they do not think about this.???

No, that’s too much of a leap.

“Real respect seeks to understand someone on their own terms.”

Very good quote I think.

‘Aluna’ ,
& ‘From the Heart of the World’ native America documentaries meant to be a very good watch.

Colonial gaze turned back on us, apparently.

Treat things as sacred.

But also seems to say, we don’t know, so let’s not do it…. There’s contradictions all over the place.

An invisible web of causality.
Me. OK true.

Daniel Schneider Australian activist.

He says it’s not enough to send positive energy, you must sacrifice something.
Sacrifice the knowledge of winning.

Chapter 13 – Bridge to a Living World

Suggestions.

1. Promote land generation, help farmers transition to

Regenerative farming & encouraging them to do so.

2. Institute a global moratorium on rainforests, wetlands and other major ecosystems.
3. Expand the land protected in national parks reserves

In list local and indigenous people to help with the protection.

4. Establish new ocean marine reserves. 1/3 should be ‘No take, no drill, no develop’ sanctuaries.
5. In the rest of the ocean establish strict bans on drift trawling.
6. Ban disposable plastic bags for retail purposes & phase our plastic beverage containers. Have a refillable bottle infrastructure.
7. Reconstitute the world bank for ecological healing, cancel the debt of countries with rain forrests. Give money to the equivalent of money earned by logging, mining and drilling and turning of that area to resources. Declare the Amazon rainforest and Congo rain forest global treasures.
8. Promote a forestation and reforestation projects globally with an emphasis on the appropriate native species
9. Establish an ‘Eco-Corps’ to address youth unemployment, and restore ecological health by planting trees and focus on water retention projects. Deconstructing dams.
10. Change building codes, sanitation codes & zoning codes to allow for higher density development tiny homes, composting toilets, aqua culture treatment etc. Nullify all land use covenants that prohibit vegetable gardens.
11. Reintroduce and protect keystone species such as (in North America) beavers , wolves and cougars.
12. Carry out water restoration projects world-wide through water retention landscapes. ‘Check dams’, regenerative grazing etc, ponds, strategic removal of dams, canals, levies.
13. Re-localise the food system and promote economic localisation generally.

By first nullifying ‘free trade treaties’ and replacing them with ‘fair trade treaties’ that protect local economic sovereignty.

14. Institute a negative interest financial system through international agreement to impose liquidity fees on bank reserves. Along with complementary measures such as Georges? Land taxes and other anti-speculative  measures.
    Me. What is Georges, in terms of banking?
15. Apply pollution taxes to make companies internalise the ecological, social costs of toxic waste, air pollution radioactive waste, and water pollution.
16. Impose a deposit system for most manufactured goods, so that manufacturers have an incentive to create durable, repairable products with easily recoverable materials.
17. Turn away from pesticides

Says that pesticides are virtually irrelevant to the current situation, but not so in the living planet narrative

Insect Holocaust.

Biomass decline.

Insects are a crucial part in many animal food chains as well as an instrumental part in plant reproduction cycles.

They maintain the web of life.

Herbicide glyphosate too.

18. Demilitarize society.

It serves the paradigm of domination through force.

Demilitarization therefore shows a reprioritizing (changing) of priorities

I’m a war, the defeat of the enemy is top priority.

In a war the military won’t limit bombing targets to consider environments degradation, or to conserve fuel use etc. It’s primary goal first….All other goals become temporary and ignorable to achieve the primary goal.

The military mind puts defeat of an enemy first.

10 of thousands of the best minds put their life towards developing weaponry.
The money spent on weaponry is most likely enough to fund all the other proposals in this book.

Well-being and progress through domination.

Demilitarisation signals a profound shift in priorities.
As well as the story underlying them.

Just in personal life, psychological change requires concrete actions for them to seem to be real.

Demilitarisation is a collection sign for the collective mind that everything is different now.

Appeal to your intuition, war or leave , Love or fear, domination or service.

Not included a carbon tax.

Why?

1.Large reductions in fossil fuel use will likely result from establishing vast marine space and Forrest conservation zones.

Pollutions taxes and water shed restoration projects will decrease them as well.

2. Regenerative agriculture and reforestation will sequester large amounts of carbon.
3. Carbon taxes create perverse incentives for things like large hydro-electric facilities and bio fuels plantations that destroy ecosystems.

The book argues that while high levels of green-house gases add stress to an already challenged biosphere, the main problem is the impoverishment of life and the degradation and devastation of the water cycle.

Yet, he says , even if he is wrong, the measures he has described will achieve carbon draw down without making carbon the primary framing issue.

He says he’s purposefully not included the Universal Basic Income or Prison Reform. Even though these would help greatly. But the above are just focusing on the environment & ecosystems.

Says these measures are a bit more ambition than merely shifting to carbon neutral energy.

Many of the changes make sense only from the ground of a new story. They will take time to germinate, blossom and bear fruit

Urgency to act, but must have patience. Things that will bring slow results too.

Stop a pipeline or fracking well,

Maybe your calling will take generations to have tangible ecological benefits.

Be a mentor to at risk youth , work with trauma survivors, to aid refugees, to raise children that carry a little less pain into adulthood than you did.

These are the kinds of things that enrich the cultural soil, and create new paradigms that can grow.

Brings us into alignment with a living world.