Climate change & the evolution of science
For a long time the standing scientific paradigm has declared that the scientist is completely separate from the science. As an impartial and independent observer, the scientist measures ‘what’s true’ and based on the results, is able to declare the true nature of our world.
The pioneers of quantum mechanics began to undermine this paradigm early last century through their investigation of the wave-like nature of reality at a quantum particle level. Their investigations suggested that reality relies on an observer to trigger a collapse from an uncertain state of multiple possibilities (probabilities) into a finite state that we observe as ‘real’ or ‘true’. In quantum theory, different observers may see different versions of the ‘truth’ depending upon their knowledge of the system. Metaphysical theories take this one step further and suggest that the intent of the observer, ie what the observer intends to see by prior choice (conscious or subconscious), will influence what’s seen.
And now the global climate change debate has shone a bright light on the old scientific paradigm, highlighting its unreliability. A quick Google and you can find scientists claiming to have evidence both for and against the human influences on climate change. The strong push to prevent further human damage to our climate seems to have been undermined by revelations that much of the science is apparently ‘biased’ one way or the other. So here is the impact of the observer creating the ‘truth’, right on centre stage. Perhaps this is the tipping point for our mainstream scientists, inviting them to move on from the old paradigm?
While the degree of human influence on climate change remains uncertain for many people, the degree of human influence on the science is hard to ignore.
Fighting words or saving face?
This article in the Huffington Post outlines a leak from senior administration officials of Obama’s plan for Afghanistan. In brief, it involves an accelerated timetable for inserting an additional 30,000 US troops, bringing total numbers to above 100,000 by the next northern summer. The plan will also include the announcement of an exit strategy, with US troops commencing withdrawal in just 19 months from now.
The operation against the Taliban has failed to appreciate the likely motivations that are fuelling aggression against the Operation Enduring Freedom coalition. Based on an understanding of the current life conditions in Afghanistan and on an understanding of human nature using Graves’ model, here’s what I think the US and allies are facing…
I’ll attempt to simplify this as best I can, but the fact is that human nature is highly complex and dynamic – always changing. The strongest themes likely to be found in Afghanistan are that of Tribalism, with its emphasis on kin connections, sacred tribal land and the safety of the tribal group. This worldview alone is enough to trigger aggression against anyone who would trespass on sacred land and threaten the safety of the tribe. Simply by being there uninvited, the coalition forces are generating hatred amongst the general population.
A second strong theme is that of Powerful Empires, which is reflected in the warlords and power struggles among 
factions and tribes in the country. In an evolutionary sense, this theme is the next natural step after tribalism. History is our witness to that; any tribal people will eventually move into a power based society complete with violence and domination. This may look ugly to westerners but it’s normal human behaviour in these circumstances. By invading and attempting to dominate by power, the coalition forces are declaring themselves players in the local power struggles and will attract aggression from those whose territory they invade.
A third theme overlaid on these first two is that of Authoritarian Order, characterised by the fundamentalist belief systems of the Taliban. This worldview typically uses ‘absolute truths’ such as religion to justify rigid adherence to rules and sacrifice in the name of duty to a higher cause. When combined with the motivations of tribalism and power plays, this third theme can justify and fuel suicidal sacrifice for a cause.
These three themes represent natural, sequential stages of development for countries like Afghanistan. Whether the Taliban is present or not, the first two themes are virtually guaranteed to fuel aggression against an invader. There are many other complex issues at play as well, including the opium trade and cross border dynamics with neighbouring countries.
Unfortunately the US administration has failed to appreciate the complexity of the situation and the motivations of its opponents, and has failed to learn from history – particularly the unsuccessful attempt by the USSR to pacify Afghanistan 1979-1989.
Another 30,000 US troops will simply invite greater opposition from the locals, and by announcing an exit strategy it signals that the goal of ejecting the invading forces is within reach. For Obama, who has inherited this mess, I suspect the main aim is to achieve a short term win and then exit while it looks good, thus saving political face.
Seashells in the desert (a clue?)
It seems we are swimming in a sea of conflicting opinions and scientific evidence when it comes to climate change.
Seashells in the desert. A clue?
Whatever your opinion, you can Google it and find support for it, including quoted scientific evidence. Whatever you look for you will find. One thing I’m sure of is that the climate is changing. It has never stopped changing in fact. It always was, long before the arrival of Homo Sapiens and it and always will be. Hence we find seashells in deserts and rainforest remnants under the ice in various parts of the world. Really, we shouldn’t be surprised.
An increasing number of people on the planet are voicing their concerns about our impact on Mother Earth and this suggests that they’ve reached the sixth stage of human development, as mapped by Dr Clare W Graves. This means that more people are thinking in more complex ways.
As this new worldview grows, it’s becoming increasingly evident that many of the world’s powerbrokers are still at less complex stages of development. The evidence lies in their materialistic priorities and the placing of financial profit over and above issues that could threaten the continued stable existence of the human race. Some of these issues include over population, the availability of drinking water, food and adequate healthcare, and natural resource depletion.
The upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is unlikely to result in any meaningful global action to cope with climate change. The primary reason is that the political decision makers who will attend face conflicting opinions from powerbrokers in industry and from within their voting constituencies. Few will have the courage to go with their own feelings at the risk of a voter backlash. Most will look for a nice comfortable compromise.
At the very heart of the climate change matter, the wrong questions are being asked. Namely, is climate change our fault and if so what should we stop doing? Anyone who has trained in NLP will know that negative messages often bring the opposite of the desired result. Hence the failure of programs that ask people to stop or reduce their carbon emissions. We need to focus on positive messages if we want results.
Anyone who knows human nature will realise that people respond to signals in their immediate environment. If everything feels fine, why should we reduce carbon emissions? The impression of the majority is that more immediate hurt will come from reducing carbon emissions than from continuing to live the way we do.
So what’s the alternative then? Firstly, to stop arguing about whether humans are causing climate change. The climate has always been changing. Secondly to focus on what the world needs ‘to do’ (positive language) to help humans cope with climate change. Some regions on Earth can no longer support the agriculture they once did, because of climate change. Other places are being inundated with sea water as levels rise. These are immediate and very real impacts, not scientific postulations.
A more subtle message hidden within the problem of dealing with climate change is that our democratic system of government is in the early stages of failing. As the world’s problems become more complex and our capacity to have global influence increases, we need our very best leaders and problem solvers driving the bus. These people are rarely the ones elected by a majority vote. This is a very challenging issue and one that the world isn’t quite ready to deal with yet. I suspect things will need to get a lot worse before we start looking at options other than one-vote-one-value democracy, but eventually we will need to.
