Democrats and the Meta-Crisis

Senator Warnock (Dem from Georgia) gave a great speech at the Dem National Convention in Chicago.  Parts of it touched me deeply.  Nevertheless, I've seen nothing anywhere which convinces me that mainstream Democrats (Biden, Obama, Harris, Schumer, Walz, Pelosi, etc.) fully understand the ongoing Meta-Crisis or how to address it.  The very few Dems who do (still not fully, but way above the mainstreamers) are not mainstream, and have been marginalized to the hilt (Sanders, Warren, AOC, Omar, Jayapal, Barbara Lee, Ro Khanna, etc.).  And time is running out.

Do the Democrats understand the Crisis (in general) better than the Republicans?  Yes, apparently so.  Despite that, their grasp of the Crisis falls short of what's needed to navigate through it.  Such is the case mostly because of what appears to be a lack of Systems thinking on their part.  They tend to put each of the various aspects of our predicament into a separate "silo" (so to speak).  Deeply connected parts of the Crisis thus become separated when "solutions" are considered.  [An example is in the next paragraph.]  Most likely, the result will be a series of incomplete (or failed) responses.

Currently, the "Big Kahuna" being dealt with (barely) is Climate Change, a symptom of Ecological Overshoot.  For the most part, it has been placed in its own "silo".  Biodiversity Loss, also a symptom of Eco-Overshoot, is in another silo and is being given short shrift.  Its connection to climate disruption, soil degradation, preventing the spread of disease (pandemics) and more doesn't appear to be under consideration.  There's a lack of holistic thinking and synthesis in such a "silo-ing" approach.  Biodiversity Loss is every bit as important as Climate Change when it comes to responding to the human predicament.

The Green Party fully understands the Meta-Crisis, all aspects of it - sociological, ecological, economic, and ethical.  Those candidates should be elected, but won't be... mostly because Americans (in general) are ecologically illiterate.  [That statement is not an insult; it's an observation.  I'm illiterate about lots of things:  medical surgery, business management, particle physics, auto mechanics, etc.; there's no reason to be insulted about that:]  Plus, there's the unrelenting propaganda from most Republicans, Oligarchs, and Plutocrats.  

C'est la vie

..................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Biodiversity----->Healthy Ecosystems----->Healthy Humans

Here's a nontechnical, concise explanation of the importance of biodiversity in maintaining healthy ecosystems, and how those ecosystems provide value to us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCH1Gre3Mg0

The clip is only nine minutes long.

..................

Biodiversity loss rivals climate disruption as an existential threat to humans for many more reasons than those covered in the piece at the link above.  Am working on a second book, tentatively titled "Biodiversity - the Bedrock of Human Existence".  Have barely started the journal research, but already I can see that biodiversity has deep and crucial connections to soil health, plant and animal health, and ecosystem functioning in general.  Plus, due to critical biogeochemical cycles and biodiversity's part in them, it helps regulate climate.  Everything is interconnected.

Unfortunately, I suspect not nearly enough people on Main Street grasp the significance of declining populations in the wild and ultimately, species extinction.  We're already in dire straits with this situation, and not doing enough to mitigate it.  More on mitigation at a later time.

........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

Biodiversity Loss and Forests

 The following is from the soon-to-be-published book, The Beginning of the Path to Human Extinction, and HOW TO GET OFF IT - Notes on a Paradigm Shift.  It's a small part of a subtopic, biodiversity loss---

.....................................

When thinking about biodiversity loss, imagine a natural forest. It has a rich variety of trees, shrubs, grasses, mosses, lichens, fungi, animals, and microbes. It’s a highly complex ecosystem which provides many “services”, including those well-known, such as the prevention of soil erosion, the production of oxygen, and the trapping of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. Because of its diversity, a natural forest is resilient. It can bounce back from the onslaught of many destructive factors.

Now imagine that a timber company clears it. It’s logged off, and most of the remaining vegetation (shrubs, etc.) is burned or otherwise removed. Then, in place of the previous forest, trees are re-planted on what essentially is now a timber company “plantation”. Usually, only one or two species are grown. Undergrowth (mostly shrubs) is kept to a minimum, or eliminated completely. In other words, biodiversity has been greatly reduced. In addition, pesticides often are used. Some portion of them find their way into the soil, where they negatively impact any number of necessary soil microbes and fungi. This is a bare bones description of how “forest monoculture” operates.

Which of the two forests – the original, or the monoculture “plantation” – do you think will be more resilient? Which one will shelter and nourish a wider variety of organisms? Which will contribute more to soil fertility? [Artificial fertilizers generally are not good for soil microbes or soil structure. They, along with herbicides and other pesticides, commonly are used on tree plantations.] Which one will better prevent soil erosion? Which one will better resist tree-boring or leaf-eating beetles (which are usually specific to each species of tree)? You get the idea.

Consider, too, the following. Humans cut down (worldwide) an estimated fifteen billion trees per year, and re-plant only five billion. About half the forests which once covered almost half Earth’s land surface are now gone. Only approximately one-fifth of our planet’s old growth forests remain undisturbed and in pristine condition. In general and globally, we simply are not sustainably managing a crucial natural resource.

Forests have been called the “lungs” of the world. Luckily for us, they work differently than do animal lungs. Trees take in CO2 and “breathe” out O2. It’s usually easy to take adequate oxygen for granted, but we really shouldn’t. All green plants should be fully appreciated and valued as absolutely necessary to life on Earth. [A possible exception to that would be noxious weeds, such as various thistles & mesquites – both of which are injurious – and poisonous/deadly nightshade.] Arguably, trees should be at the top of the list of green plants to be revered. If for no other other reason, because they provide us with oxygen and are necessary carbon “sinks” (and that’s critical to the climate problem). It has been estimated that deforestation accounts for approximately 20% of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

At times, we no longer seem to fully appreciate that green plants in general truly are a miracle of Nature. As you may recall from your high school Biology class, the process of photosynthesis is one of the main reasons life is possible on this planet of ours. In the presence of sunlight and chlorophyll, plants convert carbon dioxide and water into glucose (food) and oxygen. The balanced chemical equation is: 6CO2 + 6H20 + energy/sunlight & chlorophyll → C6H12O6 + 6O2. The value of that process is incalculable. Photosynthesis is a colossal accomplishment of evolution.

...........................

Not only my opinion.  Be Well

p.s.  The book should be out sometime next week.