Sunday, March 12, 2006

The End of Times & Non-Attachment

Steve Dallas’ Son: “Opus, Pickles and I are having the definitive scientific/religious debate of humanity: The Stars. The Cosmos. Hummingbirds. Espresso. Bonnie Raitt. The Universe! The Whole Enchilada!...”

Pickles: “When will it end?”

SDS: “In billions of years!!”

Pickles: “No!! Any day now!!

- Excerpted from “Opus,” by Berkeley Breathed

Lately, a friend of mine has been accusing me of being apocalyptic. I strongly dislike apocalyptic thinking. In no way do I believe the Rapture will be coming anytime soon to punish the wicked and save the righteous. However, I am prone to make statements about the potential unraveling of the United States government and the eventual dissolution of the Catholic Church.  I do believe, intuitively for the most part, that things (institutions, governments, even relationships) are shifting, many of them evolving into something else and some collapsing altogether.

There are a number of peak oil theorists and researchers. Their approach ranges from the extremely doom and gloom, conspiracy theorists to the slightly more hopeful realists. Mike Ruppert (www.fromthewilderness.com) is of the doom and gloom variety, and while his website is full of valuable links to extremely pertinent international news related to peak oil and the potential crash of the U.S. dollar, you get the feeling that you have stepped into the world of ruthless global politics and economic hitmen. I have no doubt that these things exist, I just have a hard time reading about them regularly.

Also, in this camp of extremely poor outlooks, is the Olduvai theory or the “sliding toward a post-industrial stone age” theory. Engineer and energy analyst, Richard C. Duncan presented his paper in 1989 entitled, “The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge” (www.hubbertpeak.com/duncan/olduvai2000.htm). Based on world population data and energy production, Duncan believes that modern industrial civilization will have a projected life-span of about 100 years. He starts counting in 1930. World energy production peaked in 1979, since that time we have been producing less and less energy each year, what Duncan refers to as the “Olduvai Slope.” Between 2000-2011, he sees us entering the “Olduvai Slide” which he characterizes as similar to the “Great Depression.” From there we reach the “Olduvai Cliff” between 2012 – 2030, here he simply states, “I know of no precedent in human history.” Duncan sees the ultimate collapse as involving epidemic black-outs worldwide. “When the electricity goes out, you are back in the Dark Age. And the Stone Age is just around the corner.” Not exactly a cheery subject. Duncan reportedly went into a severe depression for a number of years after formulating the theory, testing and re-testing it.

Our culture seems to thrive on the morbid and the apocalyptic, but when is it important to pay heed to these messages of doom and gloom? The global issues around energy production and use in many ways appear to be insurmountable. We simply can’t force a cataclysmic change in lifestyle on millions of people in just a few years. So what is an individual to do?

Here is where I really tick-off my friend, because I espouse the approach of non-attachment and acceptance—it allows me to function on a daily basis. He sees this approach as passive. And he questions why I do what I do—write a Sustainable Living column, write this blog site, get involved with my community??

Buddhism defines two different forms of detachment, viveka (meaning separation, aloofness, seclusion) and viråga, which is linked to the practice of mindfulness and to seeing into the truth of things. For Buddhists, therefore, non-attachment or detachment (viråga) does not mean a withdrawal from the world but a movement towards seeing the true nature of things more clearly, being less judgemental and more impartial, standing back and allowing events to unfold according to their own rhythm. When we are too closely attached to outcomes, people, places, things it usually comes from our own ego and not from a basis of love or true compassion. Non-attachment is not indifference or lack of love. In fact, it has the potential to be real love, because it is not defined by outward appearances.

As a parent, I try to practice viråga daily. I love my children deeply and while I need to establish firm boundaries for them and instill in them a sense of responsibility, at their core I cannot control who they are, who or what they will like, how they will dress, what careers they will choose or what music they will listen to. And why would I want to? In the midst of another tantrum, if I can step back and not let my emotions take over, I can provide a stable foundation where they can begin to regain composure and see an example of sustainable emotions being played out. If I can provide for my children the space and freedom they need to grow, expand and learn to have trust in themselves, if I can learn to accept them as they are, I will have truly learned the meaning of love.

Can this approach be applied at a global level? The Buddhist believes it can. In the face of skyrocketing food and energy costs, a collapsing economy, global warming, and limited supplies of drinking water, I can still actively engage with my world, yet disengage from the fear by trusting that catastrophic global events may be part or our collective process. I do not need to have faith in institutions such as the United States government or the Catholic Church, while both have aspects of beauty and truth within them, at their core they are temporal. Their potential dissolution does not need to shake my trust in humanity or its continual evolution.

So like those “new-age wackos,” I have hope that all of this is part of our process of becoming and I look forward to the end of the Mayan calendar (2012) not for its end of times scenario, but for its potential to usher in a new, richer, deeper, more humane era.

5 Comments:

At 5:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is such a beautiful expression of the pragmatic, clear-sightedness of living without one's head in the sand, but also without looking up and screaming "the sky is falling!"

Whatever will be, will be. The karma of the pending economic collapse of a non-sustainable, greedy empire such as ours is obvious.

 
At 12:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

During my first stint in graduate school in the mid 1970's, the world's petroleum reserve was set at 35 years. I learned in a conservation of natural resources class that in the 1950's reserves were also in the 35 year range. Not until the so called third world countries of China and India began to develop a taste for energy in the 1990's did the 35 year reserve figure begin to slip. It had to. Even a modest increase in energy use by 2 billion plus people was bound to change the statisistics.

My concern is not so much about the economic collapse of the US and Western European economy as petroleum supplies deminish as it as about the environmental impacts of the energy sources we use to replace petroleum. My fear is that the western world will take the easy way out and switch back to coal. Much of the improvement in air quality since the Clean Air Act was passed was "bought" by switching from coal to oil and natural gas for electricity production. I don't know the exact time period, but I wouldn't be surprised to find coal being able to sustain our fossil fuel addiction for anoher century. That's not just for power plants. In the 1940's nazi Germany managed to wage a significant war while cut off from most of the world's oil fields by converting coal to liquid fuels. The technology can be revived.

Conscientious energy consumers need to drive the market away from coal conversion toward more earth friendly bio-fuels, methane from waste organic material (the big downside of your compost pile is the generation of methane a greenhouse gas more potent than CO2), methanol, entanol and bio-diesel. I don't list hydrogen as little free hydrogen exists on earth, the gas must be produced by using energy to split water molecules. The laws of thermodynamics tell us we can not get more energy back from hydrogen than it takes to produce it. Hydrogen is a way to store and transport energy; tidal energy used to produce electricity in a costal area can create hydrogen to be shipped by pipeline to inland demand sites or to power vehicles using fuel cells.

We need to tell "big oil" to stay the course toward bio-fuel production; that we will not sacrifice the environment for coal derived liquid fuel should it turn out to be cheaper. We need subsidies like those enacted in Washington this year to insure that the bio-fuels industry gets the push it needs to establish the infrastructure to compete with petroleum and natural gas.

We need to tell government regulators that we don't want air quality laws relaxed so coal can be economically burned in electric power plants.

Individually we need to soften our own impact on the energy scene. Don't heat your house to 75 degrees in winter or cool it to 65 in summer -- even if you have good insulation. Before you go out and buy the "feel good" 30 mpg hybrid car, ask yourself can I get by with the 50 mpg non-hybrid? The latter is a much better environmental choice. A bicycle is even better. Does anyone know the long term environmental impact of making an disposing of all those metal hydrid batteries essential to the hybrid?

We also need to act as individuals to encourage small scale sustainable energy. A small backyard windmill, currently illegal under many zoning codes and subdivision covenants, could provide a few hundred watts of power. That's enough to provide most of your home's lighting in the evening or run the fans and blowers on a gas furnace. The same can be said for a solar panel. The effectiveness of these systems is enhanced using batteries, but that creates a wole new set of sustainability issues. For most people the cost of setting up a legal intertie between off grid and on grid power is prohibitive. It will take several hundred dollars to connect a system that may save a few tens of dollars in electricity per year. You'll never recover the cost in energy savings. As anyone who has looked into environmentally friendly, sustainable living knows, it is expensive.

I'll end this discourse with a final comment. My biggest concern regarding the pending energy collapse isn't that there will be no energy. Rather it is: how much of the envirnment will Americans and Western Europeans give up to avoid change and keep energy cheap?

 
At 6:56 AM, Blogger amkirsch said...

Thank you for such a thoughtful comment.

 
At 6:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello
Great site!

 
At 4:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hello
[URL=http://animalsex-videos.blogspot.com] animal sex [/URL]
animal sex

 

Post a Comment

<< Home