Last week, I wrote a post on this blog questioning the "busy-ness" of today's world, asking specifically what kind of world are we all so busy creating?
(This question is also one of the main questions of my novel about life 30 years from now, "The STARLING Connection.")
The"STARLING" story takes place 30 years from now in the fictional town of Briarwood in North America.
The novel's 15-year-old narrator Simon Laramie and his friends, Jaya, Pete and Flower, are living in a world in which concentrations of particular greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen beyond 450 parts per million, the level at which scientists have warned would increase average global temperature to a point where neither humans nor natural ecosystems could easily adapt.
(Note that CO2 atmospheric concentrations surpassed 400 parts per million in 2013.)
Beyond the numbers, the deeper question is what exactly is driving climate change?
In writing "The STARLING Connection," I dug deep into this question in relation to human nature, what we work for, and, importantly, our perceptions of reality and the self.
Again, what precisely is driving CO2 levels in the atmosphere beyond levels considered safe for our species and so many others species on our "pale blue dot"?
I'm sad-concerned to say, the truth is: I am.
As I write these words, I am using a laptop connected to the Internet. The laptop contains some metals (mined) and plastic made primarily out of oil (hydrocarbons from eons of plant life) taken out of its natural storage place in the ground.
The laptop and the Internet operates by the electrical power grid which is primarily powered by burning carbon in the form of coal. I also drive an automobile and engage in numerous other activities fueled by burning carbon.
What's curious is that despite knowing the realities of impact on the natural environment, I do not immediately cease and desist my activities!
Is it true or not that "enjoying 'my' 'life'" and "creating 'my''self'" is the "most important thing that could possibly exist because 'this' is all there is," i.e. "the only possible reason for the existence of Nature or consciousness"?
Obviously, I continue to think about this question (I write MUCH more deeply from different points of view through my characters in "The STARLING Connection").
I believe part of the reason I continue my carbon-burning activities, is that the artificial modern environment itself perpetuates "my" activities ("STARLING" asks serious questions about "choice" and "freedom" in the context of certain realities).
If, on an individual level, I decided to stop burning carbon, I may find it nearly impossible to do so completely. Even if I could make everything my physical body would need to survive all by my little self (highly unlikely), I'd still need a non-carbon burning power source (meaning a complete life cycle non-carbon burning power source). Meaning, I can't simply go out into the woods alone and burn wood to cook food or stay warm enough not to freeze to death in winter. Even if I could survive, on a basic level, I'd still be burning carbon.
Moreover, the existence of the estimated seven-plus billion people on the planet currently depends on today's way of doing things... Essentially, we are here on the Earth in these numbers because we have the tech to pull carbon from the past out of the Earth. Most of us are essentially living on the fumes of the past.
Thus, it's most likely that without burning carbon and the scientifically-connected resulting climate change (along with other technologies), Theodore Webb wouldn't be here at all writing this or having this conversation with all the folks now able to communicate instantaneously across the globe via the Internet.
I find fascinating, the implications of the question: Could the very tech that enables so many people to live could also be a direct bridge to the ultimate demise of us all?
This is part of why, philosophically, I remain skeptical that technology created from the limits of our consciousness-perception of reality in reality has the power to truly save humanity from those same limits of our consciousness, as many seem to believe or have a total faith in these days... What exactly is technology capable of or not capable of, with or without consciousness? How certain are we of the answer to this question?
At least since 2005, I've felt humanity is moving ever-more quickly toward a mass-existential crisis point in which we may be faced with very limited options...
Perhaps homo sapiens will evolve into something that is not homo sapien (as our ancestors evolved into us) and then find a new way to survive?
Or perhaps our species will become extinct at our own hands, along with countless other species (such as our honey bees) which our existence is directly connected to.
Is there another possibility? How large is Nature exactly? Is our consciousness the only consciousness?
Despite our best science, we apparently remain a long, long, LONG way from having primary-fundamental, or precise, knowledge of how large Nature is. Likewise, we don't seem to know exactly what Nature is or why it exists.
Is it possible technology exists not necessarily for any humanitarian reason, for example to "save" us from ourselves, but may be serving something we don't understand? Could our use of technology inadvertently be increasing our pace toward a possible breaking point? (Personally speaking, I suspect humanity crossed a specific, particular technological "point of no return" several decades ago when we crossed into the atomic age. It appears that only "game theory" mathematics have "saved" us so far, but what could happen as Moore's Law advances? Perhaps we have no "choice" whatsoever in what is unfolding? Or perhaps, perhaps, the whole Reason for It All is for us to find a way to choose? I wonder...)
Does one of the keys to unlocking the future begin with individuals-humanity becoming fully responsible for the questions: Who am "I" in the context of Reality? What am "I" creating? What does the "observer" manifest?
Continuing my 2015 thank you to readers via the sharing of excerpts from my novel, "The STARLING Connection," let's welcome back our friend, Simon Laramie, the 15-year-old narrator. We love how you describe the year 2045, Mr. Laramie:
(This question is also one of the main questions of my novel about life 30 years from now, "The STARLING Connection.")
The"STARLING" story takes place 30 years from now in the fictional town of Briarwood in North America.
The novel's 15-year-old narrator Simon Laramie and his friends, Jaya, Pete and Flower, are living in a world in which concentrations of particular greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have risen beyond 450 parts per million, the level at which scientists have warned would increase average global temperature to a point where neither humans nor natural ecosystems could easily adapt.
(Note that CO2 atmospheric concentrations surpassed 400 parts per million in 2013.)
Beyond the numbers, the deeper question is what exactly is driving climate change?
In writing "The STARLING Connection," I dug deep into this question in relation to human nature, what we work for, and, importantly, our perceptions of reality and the self.
Again, what precisely is driving CO2 levels in the atmosphere beyond levels considered safe for our species and so many others species on our "pale blue dot"?
I'm sad-concerned to say, the truth is: I am.
As I write these words, I am using a laptop connected to the Internet. The laptop contains some metals (mined) and plastic made primarily out of oil (hydrocarbons from eons of plant life) taken out of its natural storage place in the ground.
The laptop and the Internet operates by the electrical power grid which is primarily powered by burning carbon in the form of coal. I also drive an automobile and engage in numerous other activities fueled by burning carbon.
What's curious is that despite knowing the realities of impact on the natural environment, I do not immediately cease and desist my activities!
Is it true or not that "enjoying 'my' 'life'" and "creating 'my''self'" is the "most important thing that could possibly exist because 'this' is all there is," i.e. "the only possible reason for the existence of Nature or consciousness"?
Obviously, I continue to think about this question (I write MUCH more deeply from different points of view through my characters in "The STARLING Connection").
I believe part of the reason I continue my carbon-burning activities, is that the artificial modern environment itself perpetuates "my" activities ("STARLING" asks serious questions about "choice" and "freedom" in the context of certain realities).
If, on an individual level, I decided to stop burning carbon, I may find it nearly impossible to do so completely. Even if I could make everything my physical body would need to survive all by my little self (highly unlikely), I'd still need a non-carbon burning power source (meaning a complete life cycle non-carbon burning power source). Meaning, I can't simply go out into the woods alone and burn wood to cook food or stay warm enough not to freeze to death in winter. Even if I could survive, on a basic level, I'd still be burning carbon.
Moreover, the existence of the estimated seven-plus billion people on the planet currently depends on today's way of doing things... Essentially, we are here on the Earth in these numbers because we have the tech to pull carbon from the past out of the Earth. Most of us are essentially living on the fumes of the past.
Thus, it's most likely that without burning carbon and the scientifically-connected resulting climate change (along with other technologies), Theodore Webb wouldn't be here at all writing this or having this conversation with all the folks now able to communicate instantaneously across the globe via the Internet.
I find fascinating, the implications of the question: Could the very tech that enables so many people to live could also be a direct bridge to the ultimate demise of us all?
This is part of why, philosophically, I remain skeptical that technology created from the limits of our consciousness-perception of reality in reality has the power to truly save humanity from those same limits of our consciousness, as many seem to believe or have a total faith in these days... What exactly is technology capable of or not capable of, with or without consciousness? How certain are we of the answer to this question?
At least since 2005, I've felt humanity is moving ever-more quickly toward a mass-existential crisis point in which we may be faced with very limited options...
Perhaps homo sapiens will evolve into something that is not homo sapien (as our ancestors evolved into us) and then find a new way to survive?
Or perhaps our species will become extinct at our own hands, along with countless other species (such as our honey bees) which our existence is directly connected to.
Is there another possibility? How large is Nature exactly? Is our consciousness the only consciousness?
Despite our best science, we apparently remain a long, long, LONG way from having primary-fundamental, or precise, knowledge of how large Nature is. Likewise, we don't seem to know exactly what Nature is or why it exists.
Is it possible technology exists not necessarily for any humanitarian reason, for example to "save" us from ourselves, but may be serving something we don't understand? Could our use of technology inadvertently be increasing our pace toward a possible breaking point? (Personally speaking, I suspect humanity crossed a specific, particular technological "point of no return" several decades ago when we crossed into the atomic age. It appears that only "game theory" mathematics have "saved" us so far, but what could happen as Moore's Law advances? Perhaps we have no "choice" whatsoever in what is unfolding? Or perhaps, perhaps, the whole Reason for It All is for us to find a way to choose? I wonder...)
Does one of the keys to unlocking the future begin with individuals-humanity becoming fully responsible for the questions: Who am "I" in the context of Reality? What am "I" creating? What does the "observer" manifest?
Continuing my 2015 thank you to readers via the sharing of excerpts from my novel, "The STARLING Connection," let's welcome back our friend, Simon Laramie, the 15-year-old narrator. We love how you describe the year 2045, Mr. Laramie:
I guess the 'adults' don’t have any time to stop and think about it like some of us teenagers do. Who wants to admit they’re destroying the world by 'creating themselves'? That’s way too much for most people to think about or deal with, whether they’re a grown-up or not. It’s way too much personal power and responsibility.
Do we "create reality"? Or does "reality create us"?
How can we know?
Read "The STARLING Connection"
Click pic to read. Share with friends!
