Including our position on Climate Change,
the Green New Deal, Technocratic Globalism,
and The Healing of the Earth
Ecology provides one of the purest examples of the value of Left-Right Synthesis.
Each side has an indispensable key to solving the puzzle.
The Left is correct: There is a problem, and it's serious.
And the Right is also correct, in that technocratic responses are not true solutions.
There is a problem, and it's serious, but technocratic responses are not true solutions.
The true solution is introspective. It has to do with understanding how and why we created the problem in the first place — how we changed from living in harmony with our ecosystem, to getting out of balance and becoming destructive.
Technocracy is not the solution. Technocracy is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Technocracy is the manifestation of the belief that:
-Nature is incorrect,
-Man's ways are better, and
-Man should replace Nature with his ways.
And that is the source of the problem, quite obviously. The ecological crisis results from the human mind thinking it understands the universe better than the Creator does, and Man's own ideas of "how the world ought to look" are superior to the Creator's.
You don't have to believe in a religion, to recognize that even a billion years of evolution should make Nature smarter than this bipedal newcomer.
An opposable thumb should not be confused with an integrated understanding of the intricacies of the universe, nor a graduation from membership in the natural world — not even by a thoroughly secular mind.
We are members of the ecosystem, and we share this planet with intelligences far greater than our prefrontal lobes.
The works of our hands are not wiser or truer than Nature, nor can they ever be so; and technocracy is the purest expression of the confused belief that they can be, and are.
Even though the entirety of post-Neolithic history proves the exact opposite.
Technocracy is the very source of the problem, and therefore, cannot be the solution.
You obviously can't solve the problem with more of the problem. You can't solve it with more of the same type of thinking that you used when you created it.
The answer to the ecological crisis requires looking inward, to our own psychology, to our souls.
What is the real problem?
The problem is our cultural mythology — the way we construct the world in our minds, and our interpretation of our place in it, which for some of us, is that of self-assumed lords and masters of the very ecosystem from which we emerged.
It's our inner emptiness, resulting from a society mostly devoid of genuine spiritual nourishment, resulting in excessive cravings for needless consumer goods, which we have to abuse the planet in order to extract and produce, in order to fill that inner void with temporary gratification.
It's our derivation of identity and selfhood from our possessions, resulting in conspicuous consumption of land and commodities to impress others and display social status.
It's the condition of our hearts — the spiritual ones (having to do with compassion, love, and forgiveness) — which, if degraded, results in distrust and conflict, leading to estrangement, leading to needless duplication of tools and amenities, the sharing of which is perfectly possible and doable logistically, and stymied only by our social customs of private property and de facto fear of sharing.
In other words, our metaphysical condition is what's driving our consumption and our wastefulness, and hence, the ecological crisis.
The destruction we see outside of us is a manifestation of the decay inside of us.
What we need is not more tech. We don't need a laundry list of glistening new machines.
What we need is more inner clarity, more love, more connection, and more spiritual fulfillment. We have to repair our relationship with ourselves, with one another, and with Source.
This is a psychological and a spiritual test, not a technological one.
If we approach it this way, we'll find that we don't even need those machines. We'll instead find that coexistence with Nature was never all that complicated in the first place, and we can win by reducing it, rather than by increasing it.
We'll realize that we can eliminate the demand for 99% of the transoceanic container-shipping industry (one of the biggest sources of all pollution) by simply re-domesticating and re-localizing our economies to be closer to where we live. (Something the populist right already wants to do, and you can work with them on it).
We'll realize that the private lawn was invented as a symbol of conspicuous consumption, and serves no practical purpose or service for 99% of people who have one, and most people don't even want to mow them, and would stop if they were no longer legally forced to; and that with 99% of lawns allowed to re-wild or become food-gardens, all that new foliage will sequester multiple times more carbon than the entire amount targeted in the Paris COP22 Accords, while simultaneously restoring biodiversity and reversing the wildlife-population decline.
If we re-localize our economies and societies, we'll do all of those things, while simultaneously making human beings healthier, both physically and mentally, by bringing Nature back into our awareness (in the case of re-wilding), or, in the case of gardening, getting our hands in the dirt, developing direct connection to the land and especially to our food, restoring neighborhood cooperation and communication, reestablishing the original natural social unit of humanity (i.e. the Village), ending the problem of school shootings because no one will be lonely and alienated anymore, which in turn leads to less pressure on gun rights... the point being that there are so many benefits that all cascade upon each other — Oh, and the food would obviously be organic and not laden with preservatives anymore! Too many benefits to list in just one extremely run-on sentence/paragraph!
A quick read, showing our general positions, and the aims of the three conversations.
Why You Don't Even Need Scientists
The Non-Linear Principle
The Fractal Structure of the Universe
Feedback Loops and Tipping Points
Water and Life
Technocracy - a Fanatical Religion
A Gallery of Technocratic Stupidity
Understanding the True Nature of the Problem
The Earth Party Plan for Planetary Restoration
A. Even though the problem of climate change is being exploited by people and organizations with ulterior motives, it's still a real thing.
B. And it's part of a larger crisis called the omnicide.
Whereas the killing of a person is "homicide", and the killing of an ecosystem is "ecocide", the omnicide (from Greek: omni = "all") is beyond all of those - it's the systematic elimination of all Life on the planet. It's a war against Life itself.
Our civilization is quite simply killing the planet, in a thousand ways. Piece by piece, tree by tree, creature by creature, hectare by hectare, species by species, it's converting the living planet into a dead one. It's driving a global collapse of our ecological life-support systems.
C. Most of the public discussion about this is mired in carbon reductionism - the intellectual reduction of all environmental issues into a single one: carbon. This is dangerous, because it ignores the wider omnicide, and perpetuates the societal narratives of technocracy (see below) and separateness from Nature (also see below).
D. We can prove the reality of the omnicide, without the need for "trust" or "belief" or "faith" in any scientists or governments - or any kind of self-styled "authority" figures.
In fact, reliance on an appeal to authority (i.e. "trust scientists", and "trust governments") is counterproductive, and the wrong type of argument to be making.
We can prove the reality of the omnicide with pure reason alone, without needing a single scientific paper, and we're going to do it right here on this page. It's not a hoax - it's really happening.
E. But despite being real, it is nevertheless getting hijacked by technocrats, who don't actually understand the problem, and in some cases, don't even really care, and are simply exploiting the crisis as a pretext to advance their own agenda of technocracy.
Technocrats think machines are the answer to everything. The solution to every problem, in their view, is "more machines."
They offer ridiculous "solutions", like stratospheric aerosol injection to cool the planet by creating a new atmospheric layer of heavy metal compounds (like aluminum, barium, and strontium) floating in the atmosphere, to reflect sunlight back out into space), robot bumblebees to pollinate the crops after the actual bees are gone, and carbon sequestration machines when we already have a system that can do that called a FOREST.
These so-called "solutions" are dangerous. If we follow the technocrats and implement their solutions, we won't fix the problem - in fact, a serious attempt at technocratic geoengineering could cause just as much damage to the planet as the entire industrial economy. 200 years of damage could be matched in a single decade, just by the geo-engineers who believe they're "helping" the planet!
Einstein said you can't solve a problem with the same type of thinking that you were using when you created the problem.
Technocracy reflects a failure to learn the lessons of ecological consciousness. Technocratic solutions reiterate the same fundamental mistake that got us into this mess, and they certainly won't get us out of it.
F. The type of geo-"engineering" we need is the kind that Nature does on her own. We have to stop destroying. We have to give land back. We have to allow this planet to regenerate. If we just allow Nature to heal herself, she will.
G. But this means a drastic change to our economic systems, philosophies, mythologies, religions, lifestyles... and our most basic assumptions about the way our society needs to be organized.
We're going to have to give up our egregious excesses, learn to share and cooperate, think as one Planet, and adopt new forms of economics and governance. And we'll need to re-examine some of our civilization's founding narratives, about who we are, and what our place in the cosmos is.
H. People are generally reluctant to engage in such a high degree of introspection. It can be intellectually uncomfortable to look so deeply in the mirror, and to question one's model of Reality. Most people don't want to do this.
So technocratic "solutions" seem appealing by comparison. Why re-evaluate your most basic assumptions about the way economies and societies ought to be organized, when you can just get a new machine that will take care of the problem for you!
Most people are eagerly latching onto these (false) technocratic solutions because they enable us to avoid a deeper introspection, which would be too humbling for our egos.
I. But we have to get serious about this. Everyone must acknowledge that we need the most fundamental change, at the most fundamental level of our social structures.
Solving the ecological crisis for real requires a more profound collective change, and a rewriting of our civilization's founding stories and principles.
J. The Earth Party has a plan to do this. If you've been feeling a sense despair because you know things need to change, but you haven't found any organization with a comprehensive, workable plan to do so, then fear no more, because the Earth Party Presents:
The Blueprint for a Mature Civilization.
To read the full blueprint, click here.
At the bottom of this page, we'll present excerpts from the Blueprint that relate directly to stopping the destruction of the biosphere and allowing the planet to heal.
But first, a few much-needed conversations:
9. This change should begin with a recognition of the Precautionary Principle - the idea that when a system is very large, very complex, and indispensable to our survival, we should simply not mess around with it.
The Precautionary Principle is an inherently conservative principle, and is thus more readily digestible to people who identify as "conservatives." So, instead of citing scientists and their studies as an argumentum ad authoritatum (the authority fallacy), ecological activists should instead appeal to conservatives' innate (but latent) understanding of this principle. This will be much more effective at bringing them on board the effort to stop the tropocide.
What's Actually Going On
What follows is a pair of side-by-side conversations.
If you understand the seriousness of climate chaos (and ecological breakdown), the one on the left is for you.
And if you're skeptical about the whole thing, we'll see you over on the right.
Question from an activist:
"Before we can even begin to think about solutions, we need the world to accept that there's actually a problem. So far, that's not happening. World leaders are either in outright knuckle-dragging denier-ism, or they're mealy-mouthed corporate neoliberals who CLAIM to care, but won't actually DO anything about it, other than nip around the edges with weak, incrementalist "reforms" that will solve 1% of the problem in 100 years.
So first, humanity must become collectively aware, not just of the problem's existence, but its full SIZE AND SCOPE. People need to start understanding just how BIG this is.
But they're not. Why won't they?"
Part of the reason why it's so hard to change "skeptics" is because the narrative you're offering them is flawed from the start.
If you want to understand why so many people remain skeptical, then you need to realize that there is a "bug" in the narrative.
Most activists are framing climate change as an issue of trust and belief. You're asking people to put faith in scientists, and trust their data, and believe their reports.
You're setting up scientists as authority figures.
While most of the science on climate change is indeed sound, it nevertheless constitutes an appeal to authority, which is a weak argument in a debate.
Please take note:
There are personality types, comprising a fairly substantial portion of the population, who are instantly repelled the moment they see an "appeal to authority."
(And for good reason, considering how "authority" has been used for so many horrific purposes throughout history...)
And whenever you make an appeal to authority, you instantly lose the respect of this type.
There are also types who are highly cautious and skeptical. They're the kind who are difficult to fool with scams, because they're reluctant to believe anything - especially coming from strangers, and anyone they don't have a personal trust relationship with.
And you're trying to convince them to take someone's word - a stranger's word - as fact. You're telling them to put faith in the pronouncements of researchers they've never met, dressed in strange clothes, working for institutions with names they can't remember, located on distant icy continents they've never been to!
Don't you see how this approach is flawed from the start?
The good news is, you don't need it, because there's a far stronger argument available.
"And what might that be?"
You can explain ecology.
It shouldn't be about
It should be about understanding concepts.
It's a bit more complicated to do. It's hard to explain deep concepts to people - especially something as deep as ecology.
It's much easier to just throw data at them. Throw graphs at them. Throw articles at them. Throw big names and titles and degrees and credentials at them. And when they refuse to believe, call them names. Shame them. Make them feel bad. Sit in the middle of the road, and block traffic, until they believe.
It is easier. But it doesn't do the job.
You have to start doing the messy work of educating them about the principles behind ecology. You need to teach them an entirely new way of looking at the world, different from what they're used to.
And, not only that, but...
...before you can teach them the concepts, you have to make sure that you understand! Which is by no means a given!
But thankfully, there is a resource to help. A comprehensive, convenient, step-by-step guidebook, to both learn ecology, and explain it to others.
We're talking, of course, about this page. :)
You're reading it right now.
"OK, sounds great. But one thing though... You keep saying that we "don't need science." You don't think science is important? You even said it to that denier guy in the right-hand column over there. "Science isn't necessary." Don't you think that's a dangerous thing to say? How can you possibly think that? How does it help if you're unscientific?"
There's a difference between unscientific and non-scientific.
"Unscientific" is a claim that's not based in science but pretends to be.
"Non-scientific" is something that doesn't claim to be based in science in the first place. It uses a different type of thinking entirely.
Science is not the only way to arrive at conclusions, you know. There's also Reason. If Reason is done properly, it can serve as ironclad proof.
And the useful thing about Reason is that it doesn't depend on external validation the way science does. It doesn't require any measurements or data. It doesn't require any believing. It can validate itself, from within.
Its like math. You don't need a credentialed scientist in a peer-reviewed journal to verify to you that 375 + 896 makes 1271. There is no argument about "whom to believe." It's internally provable.
And we're going to rely on Reason to prove that our planet is in trouble.
Science can play a useful supplementary role - but it's not the main argument.
"And how should I use Reason to prove that our planet is in trouble?"
Simple - just keep reading this page! We've got a pretty comprehensive walk-through. It should be all you need.
So let's begin!
"Alright, go ahead. I'm listening."
Question from a skeptic:
"Climate change isn't real! It's a globalist plot to undermine national sovereignty, set up a one-world government, and take away our freedom!"
OK. Sure. That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that climate change is a real thing.
Yes, there are shadowy elites.
Yes, they have a secret agenda.
Yes, it involves setting up a totalitarian technocratic world government.
Yes, they're using the issue of climate change to advance that agenda.
But they didn't create the issue - they hijacked it.
They're taking a real issue - one which people are right to be concerned about - and
exploiting that concern, and redirecting it in a direction that benefits their own agenda.
You shouldn't need science to tell you to respect your planet. The Earth is our home, and you're supposed to take care of your home. You're supposed to know that already - with or without a guy in a lab-coat telling you!
Even if there were no scientists talking about climate change, the precautionary principle still applies.
"But that doesn't matter because the whole thing is a hoax! It's completely made up! It isn't happening! Or, if it is, mankind isn't causing it! Or, if we are, then it's not a bad thing!"
Fine. You know what? For the sake of the debate, we'll toss out a freebie for you.
We'll concede (for the sake of debate), that there are problems with climate science, major ones, and global warming is a hoax.
Let's just assume that, for this discussion. That's your free Bingo square.
Even WITH that being true, it's still ALSO true that our economic system is destroying the planet in a thousand other ways. And if it keeps up, we might actually kill the planet.
"Bah! Kill the planet? That's ridiculous! That's the most alarmist thing you could possibly say! It makes no sense! How could we possibly "kill the planet?" Why are environmentalists so crazy?
The idea doesn't make sense to me. After all, the planet is just a "big rock", right? How could a rock die, if it's not even alive to begin with?
I know some things about ecology. I've heard of the "food chain." I know what an ecosystem is, and I know that they can become degraded.
But an entire planet?
It's one thing for a local ecosystem to collapse, but quite another thing for the planet to do so.
Are environmentalists out of their minds? Why do they think this?"
If you're asking this question, then you're in the right place, because we're about to explain it!
Are you willing to learn?
"But it's a buncha crap!"
Look. You're probably one of those people who gets upset at the fact that activists are sitting in the middle of roads, blocking traffic to get your attention.
You probably call them "nutjobs" or "wackos." You probably say that if they have a point to make, they should do it like mature adults. They should have a rational conversation, and just explain what the issue is.
Well that's this. We are going to explain the issues to you, in a rational, straightforward manner, form start to finish. No one has to sit and block traffic. No one has to disrupt your life. Because we're explaining it right here.
Will you read? Will you learn?
"But I don't believe in the data and studies put out there by scien-.."
There's no science necessary. We can explain it without needing a single scientist.
Are you willing to learn something?
"OK. Fine. I'm listening."
Before we begin, please be aware that there are several smaller concepts that you have to understand, before we get to the larger ones. It's like building with Legos. You have to put the smaller pieces together first, before combining the big pieces.
And it might appear, in the beginning, like some of the concepts might not be "relevant" to the discussion. Bear with us. We promise, it's all relevant. If you read to the end, you'll see how they all fit together - how all the dots are connected.
It requires some patience. Are you willing?
"Well I dunno, I got things to do..."
This is something that threatens your life, and your family's and your children and grandchildren.
Isn't it your duty to look out for things that could harm your family?
"But I don't see it as a threat..."
That's what we're about to explain. That's the reason for this page.
"Alright, go ahead. I'm listening."
Anyone who tells you know how it all works is lying. And humans have a terrible track record on predicting this stuff.
Here are a few examples:
As you can see, unintended consequences are myriad. We think we're just getting rid of one species... but we're really degrading the whole ecosystem.
What *NOT* To Do About It
Now that we've established that we need to take care of the planet, the next question is: How.
"You said that there are people who are using the ecological crisis for ulterior motives, and you called them "technocrats." What does that mean?"
Technocracy is a complex force that manifests in just about all aspects of human life in this society.
It's a worldview with 4 main tenets:
1. "There is only one direction for technological progress to advance in. We have to advance in that direction, and there's nothing we can do to change it."
2. "That direction always means more machines, more dependency on machines, and reliance on increasingly complex machines."
3. "More machines will fix every problem, and the answer to any and every problem is more machines, always."
4. "Even if machines don't solve the problems we invented them to solve, and they don't make us happier (and might actually make us less happy) it doesn't matter, because what really matters is having more machines, which is a good thing in itself, as it will bring us closer to an eventual (no one ever says exactly *when*) point in the future where machines WILL finally start making our lives better, and we just have to trust that that's the case.
Some technocrats even believe in a 5th tenet:
5. "The purpose of technology is not to serve humanity - but the reverse. The purpose of humanity is to serve technology, by creating more of it, and getting it up to a level of development where it can self replicate, and replace us - because that's all we're for - we're just a "stepping stone" on the march to a race of robots - and that's our only purpose, to invent them - and once we achieve that, biological organic life-forms aren't even necessary anymore."
To learn more, read: What Is Technocracy?
"Wow, those people sound crazy."
Yes, this worldview is crazy. However, it also happens to be the dominant philosophy among top business leaders, media owners, and public policymakers.
And they've spent the past 100 years saturating us with propaganda in favor of this worldview.
In fact, most average people believe in this, to some degree. It underlies a lot of our thinking, subconsciously. You might even be carrying around some assumptions and attitudes connected to technocracy, since it permeates our culture so thoroughly. It's important to become aware of these subconscious assumptions, and correct them.
"And how does this apply to climate change and ecology?"
Because (most of) the so-called "solutions" being offered and promoted by major institutions, media corporations, and governments, are technocratic solutions.
And they won't solve the crisis. In fact, they could make it even worse. Technocratic attitudes are downright dangerous.
A technocratic solution is one that does not address the underlying problems (and more importantly, the problematic thinking methods) that caused the problems in the first place, and instead tries to simply patch up the problems with more technology.
The people who believe in this 5th tenet do not care about the planet. As long as they cna get their robots up and running... so their solutions will at most slow it down, but that's it, and it doesn't matter ot them, because all they're trying to do is buy time - time so they cna get their robotic world up and running ,and then it won't matter if there' sno more bilogy and thean d the planet looks like Mars or venus, because they won't need biology anyway, because there will be robots to carry on civilization and the proejct of reaching the so called singluarity . that's all they want. That's acceptable to them . The complete genocide of all people a,dand tcomplete ecocide of the thtire living world, is palatable to them. so that's why they're gonly trying to slow it down, but don't care about actually stoppin git of hrelaing the planet.
"Can you give some examples of what you mean?"
The Earth Party Presents:
of Technocratic Stupidity
Technocratic False-Solution #1:
Stratospheric Aerosol Injection
There are people who want to spray chemicals with heavy metal ions, like aluminum and barium and strontium, into the upper atmosphere, to stop global warming. The idea is that these chemicals are reflective, and will reflect sunlight back into space, slowing down warming. Other ideas involve spraying sulfur dioxide to form artificial clouds. You can read about this stuff here (CBS), here (LiveScience), and here (CNN).
These mainstream (technocrat-owned) publications present it as a perfectly acceptable idea, overlooking how obviously stupid it is.
Just think about it for 2 seconds. We got into the climate mess by spraying chemicals into the atmosphere. Right?
And now they want to get us out of the mess by... you guessed it: spraying chemicals into the atmosphere.
It doesn't take a genius to spot how dumb that is. Have these people learned ANY lessons from the past century?
Right, and that's what makes them technocrats! They do not understand the true nature of the problem.
This CBS article details some of the concrete reasons why this won't work.
As one may imagine, a concept like this comes with a lot of controversy. Like treating a fever with aspirin, this type of engineering only treats the symptoms, it does not fix the root cause of the warming: Escalating levels of heat trapping greenhouse gases produced by the burning of fossil fuels.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) expressed concerns that the possibility of seemingly quick and inexpensive fixes will distract the public and policymakers from addressing the underlying problems and developing adaptation strategies. And if for whatever reason the aerosol missions stopped, within a few years the temperatures would shoot up at breakneck pace. A pace that would likely be too fast for humanity to adjust.
The AMS official policy statement regarding this type of geoengineering begins with a warning, "Reflecting sunlight would likely reduce Earth's average temperature but could also change global circulation patterns with potentially serious consequences such as changing storm tracks and precipitation patterns."
In other words, the atmosphere is complex. Any band-aid fix is bound to have unintended consequences and possibly cause a new set of problems. The AMS goes on to say results of reflecting sunlight "would almost certainly not be the same for all nations and peoples, thus raising legal, ethical, diplomatic and national security concerns." One region may become a desert, while others become flooded out.
Oh, and it will change the color of the sky. And they admit this.
"Wow... anyone who is OK with changing the color of the sky - after this entire mess was caused by humanity screwing around with nature in the first place - is out of their freaking mind. This is really, REALLY idiotic. We have to make sure we don't allow these people to lead the way."
Right! And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Technocratic False-Solution #2:
Yes, you read that correctly. Robot bees to pollinate the crops. Here (NPR) and here (The Guardian).
If the bees die out (from pesticides, mono-crop agriculture, cell-phone microwaves, and all the other ways we've polluted and eliminated their habitats), the answer is apparently not to re-examine our relationship with Nature, not to ask ourselves why we use things that are so incompatible with the foundations of Life in the first place, and not to contemplate the possibility that we may have messed up. No, the answer is more machines!
We can build trillions of tiny robots to pollinate the crops!
The ingenuity of man! Hurray!
This idea is so stupid, it's embarrassing to even bother addressing. But it's real, and they're going to try to go for it. The patent has already been filed!
We hope this doesn't insult your intelligence too much, but here's a scientific paper proving why it's a nonsensical idea.
If we manage to build robot bees - even if - it would still be a Pyrrhic victory, as it would enable us to avoid asking deeper questions about how we got to this point in the first place. We won't have to ask ourselves what mistakes we made that led to the disappearance of the bees. We won't have to examine ourselves or our systems. We won't have to admit that anythings wrong with our beliefs, and our cosmology. It will be business as usual, without acknowledging any mistakes. And that would merely set us up for more problems in the future. And the longer we kick the can down the road, the worse problems it will cause.
Technocratic False-Solution #3:
Tapping Rotational Energy
There are people who propose to draw energy from the rotation of the planet, and convert it into electricity.
Can you think of any potential problems?
"Hmmm... Well there is the Law of Conservation of Energy, stating that energy can neither be created nor destroyed... and if we're taking it OUT of somewhere... then that source will have less energy in it. So... I suppose it could... slow down the planet's rotation over time?"
Yes. And not only would it shorten the length of days and nights, thereby interfering with biological rhythms, but it would also sap the centripetal force that holds the lithic layers of the planet in place. With less centripetal force, the planet's crust will begin to collapse in on itself, causing earthquakes, more volcanic activity, and the appearance of completely new volcanoes popping out in random places, like an acne-plagued teenager, as the crust cracks and the mantle bubbles through.
"But there's sooooooo much energy in the planet's rotation... and we'd only be taking a little tiny bit... right? It would not be significant-enough amount of really change anything... right?"
Isn't that what they said about fossil fuels?
"Yes, the coal in steam-engines produces horrible black smoke that chokes people... but it's just a little bit of smoke! It will never be enough to make entire cities and regions have black skies..."
"Yes, burning petroleum releases carbon, but it's just a little bit, and the atmosphere is soooooo huge! It will never be enough to significantly change the atmospheric chemistry..."
Can't you see the same exact folly repeating?
Technocratic False-Solution #4:
If our civilization doesn't... "make it"... then who will be around to watch over the radioactive waste? No one.
As the canisters rot and leak, they'll be releasing pulsed infusions of radioactive matter into the biosphere, for the next 100 million years. Any remaining humans (perhaps the un-contacted tribes deep in the jungles will survive the Great Collapse) will be finished off by the radiation leaks. And the leaks will keep happening at intervals, for millions upon millions of years, sabotaging whatever "comebacks" Life makes. Even if dolphins develop an opposable thumb 10 million years from now, the nuclear waste will get them long before that. Biological Life might never recover.
Nuclear power is so diabolical, it almost gives the impression of having been deliberately designed with the explicit intention of making sure that once we're gone, no intelligent life will ever replace us.
Technocratic False-Solution #5:
GMO's (Genetically Modified Organisms)
GMO Exhibit A: Genetically engineering a fungus or a bacteria that eats plastic, thereby cleaning the plastic up.
A genetically engineered... bacteria... or... fungus... What could go wrong?
It's a sci-fi horror movie that writes itself.
So why would anyone be stupid enough to want this?
Because it's an easy fix that allows them to avoid asking why we have so much plastic pollution in the first place. And they don't want to ask it because it would implicate the system, and they're attached to the system. They'd rather risk turning the whole planet into a campy horror film than question the system.
GMO Exhibit B: Genetically engineered crops.
"But we have so many mouths to feed!"
You wont be feeding any mouths if you destroy the ecosystem. And that's what GMO crops do. They degrade soil. They poison insects. They aren't a balanced member of the ecosystem - they're like an alien organism. They might produce more calories, in the short run, but in the long run they lead to the degradation of the overall ecosystem.
If someone is telling you we need GMO crops to feed hungry people in "third world countries" - but doesn't complain about the fact that these same countries are using the majority of their farmland to produce cash crops for export to other countries - and doesn't want to address the gaping idiocy of making starving people export their own food - and would rather corrupt Nature's genome to inject more food in through the back door than address the question of why their food is being snatched out through the front door - then you're dealing with a technocrat - someone who doesn't have the wisdom to see this as a systems-problem.
Technocratic False-Solution #6:
Electric Cars & Self-Driving Cars
Changing our cars to electric and/or self-driving won't solve the problem, for several reasons.
First, electric cars still require energy to charge their batteries. That's energy whose production harms ecosystems.
Second, those batteries require rare-earth metals, like cadmium, lithium, cobalt, neodymium, lanthanum, terbium, and others. They all have to be mined out of the ground, involving horrendous ecological destruction - even worse than fossil fuels!
Third, self-driving cars will rely on 5G Wi-Fi to communicate with other cars in the vicinity. Having hundreds of microwave transmitters radiating in a close vicinity, and marinating ourselves and the environment in hundreds of sets of microwaves all at once, comes with its own set of frightening dangers to biology.
Fourth, the manufacturing of cars requires a large amount of materials and energy, and we have to ask ourselves whether having 8+ billion personal cars, regardless of how they're driven or powered, is really the wisest use of the planet's limited resources.
And fifth, perhaps most importantly of all, switching to a different type of car ignores the fact that the roads themselves are as big of a problem as the cars themselves. Roads take up a lot of land - land that could have had forests on it (and once did). We need those forests. Our planet is choked with roads, with concrete, with cement. We need to break that stuff up, and return the land into living, breathing soil.
Switching to a "new type" of car will just perpetuate our dependence on all these roads, keeping the planet choked.
Thankfully, there is a way to transport everyone where they need to go, but it won't involve car culture.
While technocrats are busy talking about making small tweaks to improve efficiency in small ways, they never ever ever ever ever mention the fact that the physical layout of our communities creates waste in itself, and is not conducive to efficient use of energy or resources, and that the only way to fix this is to redesign the physical layout of our civilization.
Even if we did nothing but restore the Village as the basic unit of human society, this alone would save so much energy, and so many resources, by making use of the power of permaculture principles such as cooperation, proximity, non-duplication, sequential re-use, and other forms of intelligent design of food and energy systems.
This would be the wholistic solution, whereas just building tons and tons of machines is the technocratic solution (which isn't really a solution at all, as we just explained above).
To learn about the new transit system that will phase out car-culture, visit our page on Transportation and the Automobile.
Technocratic False-Solution #7:
First of all, solar panels use rare-earth minerals, just like electric cars. In addition to the ones mentioned above, there's also dysprosium, indium, praseodymium, and more.
And there might not be enough.
And even if there is enough, the amount of horror we'd have to inflict on the planet to extract them would be a crime in its own right.
"Wait a minute... no solar panels? Really?
NO SOLAR PANELS?"
Solar panels are a relatively good source of energy, and the Earth Party plans to transition to renewable clean energy, and solar panels are part of that plan.
But think about this:
Whenever you have an energy supply and an energy demand, and the supply is not currently meeting the demand, you have two options.
You can increase supply to meet demand...
You can decrease demand to meet supply.
And the first option is the only one you hear from politicians, media people, business bigwigs, and tech leaders.
And that's what makes it technocratic. They're not asking us to re-examine our lives or the structure of our society.
Instead, if we use too much energy, their answer is simply "more energy!"
But why do we use so much energy in the first place?
Aren't there a lot of things we don't need? Aren't we consuming too much?
Why are machines always the answer?
Simply "building more solar panels" is a lazy excuse to avoid asking these kinds of questions.
Solar and wind power will be enough to power a re-localized permaculture economy with conscious and wise use of energy, in which the decisions about how to distribute energy are made democratically, based on where it's actually needed.
But it will NOT be enough to power a capitalist economy, in which those decisions are made by money, and whoever has the most money gets the most energy simply because of their money, and gets to use the energy to build and power the kinds of pointless vanities that rich people like to buy as status symbols.
"More energy" not a complete solution. The real solutions involve reexamining our relationship with Nature, and figuring out why we got so out of balance in the first place. From this introspection comes regenerative agriculture, re-rewilding, and the complete restructuring of our social, economic and political systems to be based on love-based values of cooperation, sharing, and trust.
Technocratic False-Solution #8:
Carbon Sequestration Machines
These are great big machines the technocrats plan to build, which will suck carbon out of the air and store it in solid form.
Read about it here.
But wait a minute! Where will we get the resources to build all these machines?
Where will we get the metal? We're going to have to mine it. How much more ecological destruction will that cause?
What about all the factories? How much pollution will they cause?
Where will all these machines go? If they're sitting on the ground, then plants can't grow there. They can't grow if there's a machine on top of them. How many forests will we need to cut down to make space for all of these machines?
Where will we get the energy to power all of these machines? How much more destruction will that cause?
These carbon-sucking machines won't solve the problem. They'll only make it worse.