Hope Dies Last
By Thom Hartmann A...
Back in 2003, a few years before he died, Studs Terkel was on my show and made this comment about “hope dying last”: “Without hope - what’s the alternative to it? It’s despair. And despair means your head in the oven. Hope is what made this country be what it is. It was hope that made the abolitionists fight slavery, you see, against terrible odds…. I picked up that title [of my book] from a Mexican farmworker, her name was Jesse De La Cruz…She said when times are bleak and bewildering we have saying in Spanish…it means ‘hope dies last.’”
As Terkel later pointed out, it's useful to face reality, and then go from there without despair. In some ways it’s like a cancer diagnoses: most people handle tough news better than they think they will, and everybody should have the right to know what reality truly is. This brings us to the discussion around the realities of climate change.
Last week on my radio show, I had Guy McPherson on as a guest, and he had some terrifying things to say about the future of the planet. He said we are experiencing such a rapidly warming planet that it was difficult for him to imagine a habitat for human beings in the not too distant future. McPherson went on to say that it’s over, that humanity as a species will largely die out, probably within our lifetimes. His message is that it’s too late to do anything about it, so we should do everything we can now to make life better before it all ends.
On the other hand, Michael Mann, the famous climate scientist who came up with the “hockey stick” graph to show how carbon dioxide has been exploding as the result of industrial activity, says there’s still time to do something to stop the climate freight train heading toward us. During an appearance on my TV show earlier this week, he said that we have about two decades before things really start to hit the fan.
This debate – how long do we have before it’s too late to really do anything? – is raging in the background of the scientific community right now. It needs more public discussion. We need to prepare ourselves for the worst.
Think of it this way. An old and very dear friend of mine died a few months ago of cancer, and made the mistake of never believing seriously that his end was coming, and thus went out basically screaming, "No!!" It wasn't pretty; he was so angry his wife had to have him taken out to hospice. On the other hand, my dad, who died of the same type of cancer, was ready for it, embraced it, and died at home surrounded by family. While the very end was rough, he had a pretty good last year experiencing life, family, and love while waiting for the cancer to take him down.
I don't think that all the tipping points Guy brings up are yet irreversible, and I believe there's still a lot we can do to save the planet. I agree more with Michael Mann that we still have some time to fix things. But it's still, as Mann points out, going to be damn hard to get the political will going worldwide or even here in the United States. And even using Mann's conservative numbers, we'll be at Guy's point of no return in three decades or less.
Motivation strategies must contain two parts: "moving away from pain" and "moving towards pleasure." The former (touching a stove and jerking back) provokes a quick response, but isn't long lasting. The latter is very long lasting (setting goals and working toward them through your life is a good example), but provokes a much slower and gentler response.
The most effective motivation strategies start with pain and then move to pleasure.
It’s time for us to acknowledge the painful reality that we’ve already severely damaged our planet in ways that could, just possibly, and almost certainly if we do nothing, mean the end of humanity or, at the very least, human civilization. From that starting point, as something that we want to work as hard as we can to avoid, we must then envision a new and better world that's not based on carbon as an energy source, and put into place real-world ways to get there quickly, ways that will also improve the quality of life on our planet.
As Studs Terkel said, “hope dies last.” We're all working on it in our own ways; if we all toss in our efforts and push our politicians hard, we'll get there.
Comments
#2
Thank you, Aliceinwonderland, the peacemaker ;-} Sounds good to me as long as everyone else is game.
#3
Palindromedary and Aliceinwonderland ~ Points well taken. Lets just stick to Sasquatch and nature. Let's leave the 'hocus pocus' behind us.
Besides relating Neanderthals to Sasquatch and how both--whether or not the same thing--seem to exist in harmony with nature is the point I'm trying to make. Cockroaches adapt well to their environments; and, for that reason, have been around a long, long, time; and, it is speculated, may be around a lot longer than us. It would appear that "brain size", intelligence, and the ability to survive, may not be so co-dependent after all. When it comes down to it, isn't it the survival of our species that takes precedence over everything else? Isn't it our ability to adapt to our environment that determines that survivability? Perhaps intelligence is an impediment to survival rather than an advantage?
#4
DAnnemarc: I agree! Now, here is an engineering marvel that only a man can muster:
I'll bet the Neanderthals would never have built something like this. But, of course, the architect was a man...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/18/qatar-accidental-va...
Incidentally, the Neanderthals were smart enough to make rudimentary tools and to find shelter from the weather. It got colder and colder which eventually helped to kill off some. But being able to survive, as a species, so long...what was it...250,000 years?...and died off about 100,000 years ago when modern man took over, is testament to their intelligence however large or the configuration of their brains.
Because of the increasing destruction of plant based foods they started on a larger meat diet consisting of larger animals that they had to kill. Scientists have found the artifacts of rudimentary tools made out of rocks or bones. No drones though! One theory, about the extinction of the Neanderthals, is that Modern Man was smarter and was able to fashion weapons that could kill Neanderthals from longer distances. There is some evidence that the Neanderthals even buried at least some of their dead. That's sure what I would do if I were a Neanderthal...who'd want a stinking corpse lying around the cave? But there is no evidence that this was a common practice.
#5
"Perhaps intelligence is an impediment to survival rather than an advanage", muses Marc. I think that intelligence, like money, is neither good nor bad in itself; it's how these resources are utilized that is really the issue. Had our European-based culture not evolved into the dominant culture, we might not be living this nightmare today. I believe the problem is a spiritual one, first and foremost. Had this culture been less hospitable to psychopathy, greed and materialism, we wouldn't be dealing with the effects of predatory capitalism or facing the possibility of mass extinction. - AIW
#6
Kend -- I can think of one great advantage of the earth warming. As Guy said when the earth warms 3.5 C above base we can get rid of all the humans. 4 billion years and no human has existed on the planet at 3.5 C above base.
#7
Kend -- How many decades ago and which scientists?
#8
AIW -- You may have come up with the reason Einstein could not complete his unified field theory. He became fat.
#9
I'm not so sure, Chuck. Einstein was only slightly plump, at least in the photos I remember, so I may have picked a poor example. I think one needs to gain much more weight than he did for brain size to be adversely affected. - AIW
#10
Aliceinwonderland ~ It's not how big or small the thing is, it's how you use it. Isn't that what you just implied by defending higher intelligence and the human cerebral cortex a post or two ago?
What does body size vs brain mass have to do with intelligence anyway. Are you saying that a skinny genius will suddenly get stupid if he/she gains weight. If so, how does that explain Chris Christie? He's probably the fattest and yet smartest Republican politician on the block.
By that logic--if the ratio of brain mass vesus body mass is inversly proportional with IQ--then it would stand that Kend must weigh 850 lbs.
#11
Quote DAnnemarc:It's not how big or small the thing is, it's how you use it.lol...very good! I thought it was only the people who had small ones that used that phrase!
#12
Palindromedary ~ If you really, reallty, really, truly want to convince me there is no God... Bring back your little kitty cat avatar.
#13
Marc says: "It's not how big or small the thing is, it's how you use it..." Now Marc, doesn't that sound just a tad bit kinky? (tsk)
Seriously, I'm no brain expert. I was simply repeating stuff I'd heard from Thom, who happens to be a science geek. Given the focus of our discussion, it seemed worthy of mention. Thom's genuine, long-standing engagement with the sciences gives his assessments and speculations some measure of credibility, at least from my humble perspective. Given the context in which Neanderthal brain size was mentioned, in that geeky science segment of Thom's, it seemed more than a remote possibility that these ancient non-homo-sapien humans were a lot smarter than our own arrogant, self-glorifying species has always assumed. I thought that it was worthy of mention, but I haven't the knowledge base to go into any depth about this. Sorry. All just speculation...
As to the question of brain size relating to body mass, I've picked up from one or more of my sources that excessive weight gain can actually cause a person's brain to shrink in size. I wish I could recall where I got that from. Over the past year, becoming certified as a health coach, I was exposed to reams of information. I also have subscribed to various medical science & nutrition newsletters in recent years, published by non-profit health organizations, thus eliminating any prospect of contamination via profit motive. Anyway it's very difficult keeping track of specific sources without taking notes. Having no way of predicting what facts I may need to substantiate down the road makes note taking impractical anyway. I run into this problem from time to time and it frustrates me. Again, my apologies.
However it may be worthwhile to re-examine our assumptions about what actually constitutes intelligence. How do we define intelligence, exactly? This could have as much philosophical significance as scientific. Of course it goes without saying, there are many kinds of intelligence, even among humans. But for such a supposedly clever animal, we homo sapiens have done some mighty stupid things, and done them repeatedly, since we first learned to stand upright or invented the wheel. And if the consequences weren't so negative, so catastrophic, it might even be laughable, how we self-described geniuses persist in being our own worst enemy. I'm inclined to chalk it up to a psychopathic minority and their dirty self-serving mischief, along with an overabundance of testosterone. Whatever it is that's driving us, like swarms of rats into the proverbial river, it seems self-evident that at the very least, if we're not the dumbest fucking apes who ever walked the earth, there is something in our genes that's working against us so that we lose access to whatever unique intelligence Mother Nature has gifted us. - Aliceinwonderland
#14
P.S. Marc- Chris Christie, the most intelligent Repuglican?! Given that recent bridge-hijack scandal and his apparent assumption that he could get away with it (not to mention his ridiculous claims of innocence after the fact), I'd say that's setting a pretty low bar for the Repugs.
#15
Quote Aliceinwonderland:I'd say that's setting a pretty low bar for the Repugs.
Aliceinwonderland ~ Don't look at me. If you ask me the "Repugs" set a pretty low bar for themselves--so low in fact, that Chris Christie can pole vault over it, clearing it completely, without even using a pole.
PS You and I know that his scandal was orchestrated and media sensationalized because Christie refused to tow the Repug line. He was set up as an example. Not that he's completely innocent. Its just that in perspective, if you tow the line in that party you can get away with murder. Literally! If you don't you get busted for something--like a puppy getting his nose rubbed in his own poop. That is why it is a party that is so full of psychopaths. Only a psychopath can successfully tow the Repug line without question. Also, it is his decent--as well as his present company--that makes him appear as such a genius.
#16
Concerning brain function I personally believe that the main critical factors are heart health and diet. It doesn't matter what your body mass versus brain mass is as long as you don't have any nutrient deficiencies or impairment of oxygen flow to the brain. I would prioritized oxygen first over nutrients second. Regardless of body mass to brain mass ratio, oxygen flow and nutrients are by far the most critical factors. The third factor would be brain exercise. Use it or loss it so to speak. If you strain your brain regularly it will maintain optimal functioning. If you never use your brain it will atrophy.
#17
We might both be right, Marc. Maintaining brain health involves many factors, interconnected with all facets of what comprises general health and wellbeing. In our bodies as in nature, everything is interconnected. - Alice I.W.
#18
Mark sez, regarding the venerable Mr. Christie: "You and I know that his scandal was orchestrated and media sensationalized because Christie refused to tow the Repug line..." Yeah whatever, Marc. Far as I'm concerned, it's all a goddam circus of toxic clowns. I'd like to throw 'em all in a pit and watch 'em eat each other alive. Them and all their blow-dried, airbrushed, puppet pundit shills. They deserve each other, and we deserve better. - Alice I.W,
#19
Nature is a "mother"? Isn't that being just a little bit sexist...not to mention anthropomorphic? ;-}
#20
Fluffy's back! Hey Marc!!
Thank you Palin! - AIW
P.S. By the way Palin, the word you want is "anthrocentric". And you suggest "Mother Nature" is "sexist"? No more sexist than the "Founding Fathers" or "Father Time", to cite two examples. As to the "anthrocentric" part, why anthrocentric?! Even brine shrimp have mothers. - AIW
#21
Aliceinwonderland: Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. Examples include depicting deities with human form and ascribing human emotions or motives to forces of nature, such as hurricanes or earthquakes.--wikipedia
I can't find anthrocentric as you suggested but ...anthropocentric...which I already knew to mean that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet (in the sense that they are considered to have a moral status or value higher than that of other animals), or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective.--wikipedia
So, I believe I was correct in my usage of anthropomorphic. Nature is not human and the term "mother" is more relevant when referring to humans so when you refer to "mother nature" it is more anthropomorphic than anthropocentric.
Although the founding of this country was more of a man's role than a woman's..in numbers anyway..there were plenty of women there as well. They did the baking, and child rearing, and washing, and other home making things. None fought any wars of independence. None were in on the decision making and government processes. That is not to say that the women didn't have to sacrifice dearly...losing husbands in battle must have been pretty rough.Yes, there were a few that stood out in history but I don't think it is too much of a stretch to use the term "founding fathers"...although many may not have been fathers at all.
Saying "founding fathers" is pretty ridiculous at any rate...about as ridiculous as saying "The Fatherland" or the "Motherland"..or "Homeland Security". It's all propaganda terminology anyway.
#22
Palin, I understand anthrocentrism to be the projection of human thoughts or traits into non-human entities, which can be anything from an animal to what we call nature. If ya wanna play tug-of-war over this, then I'll explain my choice of semantics and the logic behind it.
My laptop dictionary calls it "anthropocentrism"; I didn't know about the "po". But it otherwise supports my initial understanding of the term: "regarding humankind as central or most important element of existence". As for the word you used, it simply states that anthropomorphism means "human characteristics"; there's no mention of how humans rank in importance against other life forms where that word is defined. Anyway what I said in that previous post (except for the "po" in "anthropocentric") is supported by my laptop dictionary, which is good enough for me, so I stand by my earlier point regarding terminology.
I don't have a problem with nature described in feminine terms. In our patriarchal society, as in all patriarchal societies and cultures, men take up more than their share of space. Despite this long-standing, entrenched status quo, there remain certain things which reflect more the feminine side and thus, can be referred to in feminine terms. So what the hell's wrong with that, Palin? I used to object to such gender-specific metaphor, dismissing it as "sexist", but I don't anymore. I'm not hung up on that shit because what is it harming(?). At any rate I say, phooey on that. Like everything female, Planet Earth and nature are the gateway to life. They are what make life possible. Therefore "Mother Earth" and "Mother Nature" work for me. - Aliceinwonderland
#23
I am late to the conversation about your interview with Prof. McPherson. He is currently on the Mike Nowak Show on WCPT, Sunday, March 30. It sounds to me that his hypothesis on the coming extinction of humans will initially be triggerd by an economic collapse starting in the USA. It sounds realistic to me that a loss of an economic system could cause a shutdown of infrastructure that delivers things like water food and sanitation. If that were to happen things would go down hill for the majority pretty darn fast. Would people pull together or would society turn savage? I think a combination of both.
#24
John P, that kind of talk scares me. I'd much rather argue about "anthropomorphism" versus "anthropocentrism", and counter Palin's nitpicking about what is (or isn't) sexist language. - AIW
#25
Aliceinwonderland: You shortened the definition of anthropomorphism. You said only: "human characteristics".
The definition is more like "human characteristics attributed to non-human things". And that is what is done when people attach a human term, like "mother", to a non human term, like "nature".
"Anthropomorphism, or personification, is attribution of human form or other characteristics to anything other than a human being. Examples include depicting deities with human form and ascribing human emotions or motives to forces of nature, such as hurricanes or earthquakes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropomorphism
----------------
"Anthropocentrism ...is the belief that human beings are the central or most significant species on the planet (in the sense that they are considered to have a moral status or value higher than that of other animals), or the assessment of reality through an exclusively human perspective."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism
#26
John Pranke: Makes sense to me...that the US may be going through an economic collapse...or will very shortly. The fact that oil rich countries want to get off of the $US standard. When the $US loses it's influence, it will be all those other countries that the US has shat on that will sanction the US. The US could be a pariah that has no teeth.(that's a pun on piranha)
Nazi Germany didn't last very long either. But, with the US, it wouldn't even take a world war to bring their sorry arrogant asses down...although they may try to instigate one...as it seems they are trying to do in Ukraine.
#27
Palin, I checked out my laptop dictionary's definition of "anthropomorphism" again... Upon re-examination, I must say that whatever differences existing between meanings of these words are pretty trivial. I can hardly tell 'em apart; they're both from the same mentality anyway. - AIW
#28
Aliceinwonderland: I agree that they are very similar. One could say that "Anthropomorphic terms are coined by anthropocentrists". But then, I'm sure that there are other linguistic perfectionists that could pick that sentence apart as well. Of course, I suppose we could just stick to non sesquipedalian words. It would sure save on typing.
#29
In Bill McKibben's book "Eaarth" he says that once we pass 350 ppb of carbon in the atmosphere, the climate has/will change. I think we're at 400 or 425. The gist of the book is that we're there we need to learn how to live with it, now and for the future generations. I think we can, as long as the economy continues to move along. The real problem is the 1% or however you wan't to define theforces that do not want a World economy based on renewable, efficicient power. We have lost so much time with Reaganomics, since the time Pres. Carter proposed putting photovoltaics on 20 million roofs back in the 70s!!! Can you imagine a second Carter term? Then we get the SCOTUS appointing GWB to the Presidency. What would a Gore Administration have done? We need a real climate revolution at the ballot box the next 2 cycles if this Country and the World is really going to face this problem head on. I have not lost hope, but do get tired of the up hill slog.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
Images of Thom
Mueller's favorite place to pray (written about in "Prophet's Way"), and the roof of the room where the Last Supper is reputed to have happened.
With His Holiness The Dalai Lama, at His home in Dharamsala, India (Synthesis Dialogues - made into a movie narrated by Harrison Ford)
From The Thom Hartmann Reader:
"Thom Hartmann seeks out interesting subjects from such disparate outposts of curiosity that you have to wonder whether or not he uncovered them or they selected him."
From Unequal Protection, 2nd Edition:
"Hartmann combines a remarkable piece of historical research with a brilliant literary style to tell the grand story of corporate corruption and its consequences for society with the force and readability of a great novel."
From Cracking the Code:
"No one communicates more thoughtfully or effectively on the radio airwaves than Thom Hartmann. He gets inside the arguments and helps people to think them through—to understand how to respond when they’re talking about public issues with coworkers, neighbors, and friends. This book explores some of the key perspectives behind his approach, teaching us not just how to find the facts, but to talk about what they mean in a way that people will hear."
Aliceinwonderland: "men smarter than women".. I wouldn't bet on it either. There's obviously some pretty smart women...even here on this forum...I wouldn't want to match IQs with them! And that goes for some of the men on this forum as well. I'm not naming any names...you all know who you are. ;-}