Anthropocene I and II – the human footprint
The current era on our Globe has its own name now. It is called anthropocene, and refers to the ever lasting footprint that humankind is making on the history of the planet. Just like the preceding era did, like for instance the Jurassic, made famous by the films of Steven Spielberg about the long era of the dinosaurs that finally disappeared into history.
An era is defined because it left a lasting series of marking on the planet that can be researched by different scientific specialties, s.a. geology, archaeology, biologic, botany, astrology, climatology, etc. etc. In the many layers of deposits that can be studied specific events define the era. Often a time-era was started or ended by a specific event, such a sudden climate change, an ice age, geological events or specific things that occurred that showed up in the layers of our soil, a scar on the face of our planet. Never a particular era was attributed to one single species, until now.
Anthropocene is the age that the influences of humankind on Earth are so remarkably visible that it is expected to remain present for ever in future, no matter what happens to our species. It is significant because in a very short period of time our species has managed to destroy the habitat of many other living species and polluted in many ways the Earth’s soil and atmosphere.
This era is not really one to be very proud of. As a natural phenomena the human species has been extraordinarily destructive and aggressive. The question arises why? The species is blessed with a level of self-consciousness that got us to become dominant over other species but also reflective about our own scientific and spiritual awareness of the effects of our existence on Earth. Why would a species that has such a high awareness remain so destructive for its own surroundings, up to a possible point of auto-destruction?
It is very difficult to accept that nature would evolve into a higher level of cognitive reflection and self awareness if such abilities were no advantage at all for the species itself. Aggression for survival is perfectly acceptable for a species living in a state of natural chaos, among equals that challenge each other in their quest for a living. Fear is a natural defense mechanism to remain alert for danger. But when a species reaches a point of dominance, setting the environment to its own hand, without any other danger than itself and the largest forces of the Universe, one would expect that fear is replaced by wisdom and trust in its own abilities? Why then would humankind leave such devastating footprint on its habitat? Why would we not become respective with the only remaining challenge: our universal habitat, accepting our dependence, not our sense of unjust or blind superiority?
When we place ourselves in an imaginary point in future, as an archaeologist studying this particular era of Anthropocene, we would be surprised with the amount of pollution and a totally different biological life before, during and after this era. The layer underneath would be a point of biological reference for the subsequent layers, just like we do now when analyzing the evolution of all species. The layer above however shows important signs of the presence of the human era in all remains of species including the human being itself. Sicknesses such as cancer, HIV, unique forms of hepatitis, lung and heart problems, etc. remain visible in fosils for a long time, just like the genetic disorder that started during the era of nuclear and fine dust pollution, affecting many species, including the ones to come. Many species disappeared all together disrupting the ecological equilibrium to such extend that it affected humankind itself causing massive illness, periods of hunger, war among the populations, etc. Such discoveries, together with the obvious signs of scientific and general intellect, would leave anyone with the question how a species could be so bright and so selfishly stupid at the same time?
There is of course also another reading possible. Are we arriving right now at a point of singularity, a point at which an evolutionary lifestyle comes to a sudden exponential peak and collapses? Will this point mark the initiation of a second human era, Anthropocene II? The first era being destructive as humankind still was busy shaking off its animal behavior of hoarding, territorial aggression, fear for scarcities and tribal protection? And the second one representing a genuine breakthrough into a new level of consciousness that announces the true birth of a unique species that has left its animal genetic origins definitely behind and established a new spiritual order without precedent in universal history, the next evolutionary step of humankind?
If that is indeed about to occur (or occurring right now, as I claim in my books and professional activities) how would the event be marked in the history of our planet and visualized through the permanent markings? The negative effects of Anthropocene I cannot be eliminated but the Athropocene II should become clearly visible as a sudden change in our own lifestyle, surroundings and the effects on other species around this new humankind? Will the point of singularity show as a sudden total collapse of current humankind? With the expected reduction of the population by 75% (Club of Rome)? Or will it be a gradual but fast period of awareness that shows no massive death but a sudden peaceful change in global attitude? Or will humankind remain in Anthropocene I and disappear with it for ever into the history of the planet leaving its signs for ever but no further biological continuation?
The latter seams unlikely to me because it would be a waste of the evolutionary break through of the higher awareness. Yet this breakthrough can happen again, also in other species. Clear for me is that we have arrived today at this unique point of singularity. It is a breaking point. What got us to the breaking point is clear and understood. What will happen now is in our own hands but what will the outcome be? That remains the huge query that needs to cristalize throughout the coming decades.
Sustainocracy (my own definition of sustainable human progress) is Anthropocene II but will it break through? Will it get a chance to flourish? Or will something else, equally Anthropocene II? Or will it die a death along with our persistence to maintain Anthropocene I? The Anthropocene will have existed but not visible enough to become dominant.
Time will tell.
It’s like playing football
Sustainocracy is like playing football. You need four things: a ball, a goal, results through some sense of competition and room to play. This metaphore is surprisingly accurate to get different disciplines of people to work together in a result driven way. Sustainocracy is about results in human based progress, defined by sustainable progress placing the interests of human beings at the kernel of the activities. It requires team work of different disciplines. This can only be achieved if the practicality of the four football needs are respected.
Putting together a successful sustainocratic team requires therefor a bit more than an abstract humankind saving mission. The humanistic overall goal may be clear but what makes a team come together to play and eventually score?
The ball is the clear priority that the team needs to work with, a reason. Throw a ball in a court, a garden or field and people will come to kick it around. In the sustainocratic team of AiREAS the ball is represented by the environmental quality of a city. What is needed to make the city environmentally healthy for human interaction and residence? This defines the game and goal but the ball needs to be something touchable, something that can be passed between the players. In the case of AIREAS this became the highly specialised measurement system of fine dust making the “invisible visible” for all. Certain types of people appeared to play.
The specialised network of high tech hard and sofware is indeed already a mission that excites certain institutional people. But having a ball to play with what will make them win the environmental battle? After all, environmental quality is not just achieved by implementing technology and introducing new regulations. This usually gets people to kick the ball around without ever scoring. Bureaucracy we call that.
It also needs public awareness and behavioral changes. The competition is created by asking the institutional and civilian world to come up with solutions and work together. We have now two teams that interact by playing the same ball, with the same objective but with different talents and tactics. The institutional players with power, products, systems and regulations, the civilian world with awareness, behavior and adaptive creativity. Which will achieve the most goals? And will they compete or play together? Both worlds fear eachother but get excited when challenged to play the environmental game together. In the end everyone wins of course as the game will be never ending while success and bad play will show through the measurement system with me as independent judge.
******
Another example is performed by a colleague trainer and friend. He invites parents with their children to workshops and gets them to work together on some design made of wood. They follow the same learning routine as in AiREAS to gain teamspirit by playing the metaphorical game. The hamer represents the ball (instrument) and the object they have to make represents the goal (a table, bird house, chair…..). This is fun to do but gets exciting when father and child try to excell eachother in dispute how to do the work best. Or when they work with other parent/child combinations at the same time. There is no need or desire to create a formal competition because the human spirit does this itself, simply by comparison. “How did you do it?” “Show me yours”, “No dad, if you do it this way you achieve this”…..”Wow, yours is great”.
Admiration, comparison, positive feedback, recognition, celebrating accomplishments are positive triggers of human interaction and teamwork. Using the football metaphore in team building is useful to determine what is needed to get to great accomplishments. And if those goals are value driven for humankind then you play the City of Tomorrow game, the Sustainocratic way, improving the world with every play.
The last issue needed to succeed is “space”. When playing football you indeed need a field or play ground to kick the ball safely with out hurting or damaging anything. In the metaphore space also refers to the freedom to bring people together to play. In AiREAS it is made possible to play but other sustainocratic ventures have failed because of some old financial interest blocking it. In case of the parent/child relationship real life often does not automatically create space for parent and child to interact as a team and become constructive. Parents re often too occupied with work and other worries.
In all cases it is necessary to create or demand the space necessary to allow the team to assemble and play when a ball is there. Once room is created others may join in making the game more fun still.
Remember these four football issues (reason, objective, results and space) when in need of a team to tackle any issue. You may even become a champ by doing so. Then the game becomes even more fun as it will attract an audience. When people get applauded by the surroundings not even the sky becomes the limit.
They can’t tax my salade
The establishment hates living green
The more living green in the surroundings of the human being the less dependent one gets of economics. If we deal wisely with our living green we can even eliminate largely all money from our daily lives. Living green provides us with a great deal of abundance free of charge (but not free of effort and responsibility).
Health
The first thing that comes to mind is that a green environment has multiple health effects on us. We breath better, feel psycologically better, we feel sheltered and cooler, etc etc. Nature has also many ways to trick our psycology and spirituality by presenting us with a large variety of colors and shapes that we inspire us and that we can admire, as well as seasonal differences that help us understand cyclic patterns and universal wisdom.
food
We can eat a lot of the living green that grows automatically under the free sunlight that we enjoy. It produces a variety of fruits and vegetables that keep our daily needs well availaible if we wisely use this green around us. Insects and small animals are attracted to the vegitation, offering also another diversity of posibilities to us at will.
energy
Living green is the equivalent of nature for our solar panels and batteries. Green is the natural conversion and storage of solar energy into usable living and permamently availability of energy. To obtain the energy we can eat it, burn it, fossilize it for concentrated usage, let it rot or ferment, etc.
recreation
Living green is one of the most satisfying recreational facilities we have directly at hand if we want to. It keeps us busy with numerous hobbyist activities. We walk, jogg, sit, enjoy it by looking at it, tasting and feeling it. We use it to make works of art and utilities. Children run, dig, limb, jump, hide in it as a huge funfare.
water household
Living green attracts, manages, purifies, captures, etc our clean water household in our neighboorhood. It is key for our daily needs as well as the regional and global climatological situation for our wellbeing.
shelter
Living green provides us with direct shelter from rain and dangerous radiations. It supplies us with free building materials for housing.
Uninteresting
With all these benefits of living green why is it not all around us, supported by people and institutions in all the cities and regions of the world?
Because it grows and is used free of financial charges! It cannot be industrialized, manufactured, distributed, taxed and manipulated if we have it at directly at hand. Hence it cannot be economized when available, only when not.
The only way human systems can economize themselves is by keeping the benefits of living green away from us, to eliminate nature from our reality and replace it with money based artificial systems (supermarkets, solar panels, funfares, kiddy gardins, health systems, cooling devices, etc) that try to provide the same yet against a financial cost. Institutions hate green as it acts against their potential profitability. Cities are large money based human concentrations working along the laws of finance, not based on universal laws of nature in which abundance and progress is real, without money.
In current economic systems, whatever cannot be taxed (government tax, profit of business) should not exist. You cannot tax my own salade so it is eliminated from our lives to make it taxable through local scarcety. The world wide human crises have hence to do with the question: how far are you away from living green? Or can you afford that distance?
The solution for sustainable progress is hence: how fast can I get living green again back into my life?
Economics is in a crisis because they cannot tax my salade, and those who have no salade cannot afford it anymore.
Sustainocracy, the new democracy 