Three posts about ecological singularity and the avalanche of change
The Eco-Singularity is near. Preface (I) – … Definition (II) – … Solutions (III)
.
Eco-Singularity? Never heard of it?
About “the Singularity” you find a lot on the web, due to the wellknown notions of Vernor Vinge, I. J. Good and of course Ray Kurzweil. But before I introduce the concept of eco-singularity I will tell you the personal backstory for better understanding.
Extended fires (n=600) in Russia after high temperature anomalie in 2010 (image is processed; source: Google earth, dutchintell.com http://bit.ly/cU3g57)
Hello, the world is burning, I am back blogging
You know the Social Web universe is still in dynamic change – and it will remain so. Did twitter kill the blogs – and my blogging drive? No. The 140 characters limit is really restrictive. It is absolutely impossible to unfold arguments, showing some new theory or an innovative point of view in this tiny space (see the post of Paul Carr, Techcrunch). And it is meant to be for status messages, aka it is the beat of the social pulse in your network somehow – at least for some. Even the (more than ambigious) ”power of Facebook” was not the reason to retreat a bit from my narrowcasting habit, which never was very ambitious.
Backstory: Fail of global politics causes crisis on the individual level, sometimes
What was the reason to become hesitant with blogging? It was something beyond social media overkill and the inevitable social media fatigue I felt since end of 2009: It was a crisis in thinking and orientation. This phase actually started same time, when the Copenhagen Climate Summit failed in December 2009. No political realist thought of a “real success”, but the summit failed to an extent I did not expect. I was not prepared to this total fail of politics. Brave men have identified eight reasons for the disaster (news.bbc.co.uk), maybe I would find eight consequences resulting from it on a personal scale.
Consequences of Russian heat record 2010. First man tamed the fire, now it might tame him. (Source: dutchintell.com http://bit.ly/cU3g57)
For me the Kopenhagen fail meant rethinking the business of corporate foresight, being concerned with the future in general. Assume that the very framework for our global/local/personal future is about to be destroyed, why should you construct any narratives around that term, why construct scenarios the way you did the last ten years? Responsible foresight should stop the “business as usual” attitude here, it should take a break and think about the big picture, reflect the own role and draw some consequences. Fore some months now I am trying to develop insight, strategy, find a viable path for the decade ahead, a decade which might be more troublesome than e.g. the financial crisis, which apparently is lying behind (second dip not excluded).
.
Three posts about ecological singularity and the avalanche of change
The Eco-Singularity is near. Preface (I) - … Definition (II) - … Solutions (III)
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 16, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Eco-Singularity is near. Definition (II) « future facts blog
[...] global change, society impact | Tags: 2020, climate change, global change, global crisis | by WS Part I was about getting there, the backstory of why and when I wanted to get deeper into the issue of [...]
November 4, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Eco-Singularity is near. Solutions (III) « future facts blog
[...] The Eco-Singularity is near. Preface (I) - … Definition (II) - … Solutions (III) [...]
December 31, 2010 at 7:00 pm
bee
There is no consensus on man made global warming because man made global warming is not occurring.
There are few facts supporting the assertion. See Burt Rutan’s presentation for a quick review.
One of the great tragedies is that futurists have bought into this lie and have actively used it to sell their services. It is unethical and immoral. You and those like you pushing this lie undermine futuring asa discipline.
January 2, 2011 at 8:48 pm
WS
Hi bee!
Thank you for your comment and the hints to the different perspective concerning man made global warming. Please do not be too quick with your verdict. I really love science – and I dislike propaganda too,
*** Core message
First in my analysis (see the three posts I-III) the CO2 issue and man made global warming is only *one* of the global challenges ahead. See my post talking about an avalanche of problems. There are challenges like
• dwindling natural ressources,
• deforestation,
• decreasing biodiversity
• ……
the causal network of the challenges will probably be something that makes it more difficult to find (inexpensive) solutions the longer we wait to solve them. It is not unthinkable that this civulization is becoming ever more fragile and just collapses some day if we do not adapt in time.
The core message can be put like this: Waiting to solve the “mega problems” might end fatally in a situation, when the “costs to change” exceed the money we need as mankind to solve the mess. This might result in mega and giga casualities. By all moral standards we are committed to think about how to avoid a situation like this.
In case there is no *Anthropogenic* Global Warming (AGW) or if there is another cause of warming my main argument in the three posts still holds.
*** Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
Yes, there is still controversy, and it is ok to be a bit skeptic, when there is a lot of money and reputation at stake like in climate research. And the mass media like politicians are guilty of simplifying the complex issue of climate change. E.g. people should know that there is much natural variation of average temperature in the timeline. Even in the Wikipedia you find a sentence like this one:
“Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period).
The problem is: Even if the anthropogenic part is only a part of the whole, even then some measurements might be necessery and urgent to “cut the costs” of climate change, caused by extreme whether conditions, increase of hurricans etc. Or is there no increase in that events in your opinion? Newest extreme event Queensland/AUS floods.
BTW: There is more free speech out there than you might think even in Wikipedia. E.g. see the
“List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
—
*** Some more links for the interested reader:
Global climate change debate portal – Debatepedia http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Global_climate_change_debate_portal
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Is_climate_change_chiefly_human-caused%3F#Warming_trend:_Is_there_a_clear_warming_trend_that_shows_human_finger-prints.3F
Global warming controversy – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Climate Skeptics Arguments – DBResearch
http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/DBCCAColumbiaSkepticPaper090710.pdf
Historical climatology – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_climatology
History of climate change science – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science
—
Concerning the “Global Challenges” some quick links for better understanding
15 Global Challenges (UN view – not necessarily my view)
http://www.millennium-project.org/millennium/challeng.html
Bertelsmann Stiftung view – not necessarily my view
http://futurechallenges.org
March 24, 2011 at 1:23 am
Eco-Singularity … and Fukushima (IV) « future facts blog
[...] The Eco-Singularity is near. Preface (I) - … Definition (II) - … Solutions (III) [...]