Idealism and Realism: Salon of possibilities and ABC’s Earth 2100
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
image by rachaelvoorhees
For several months I’ve been noodling over the idea of holding a “Salon of Possibilities” at my house—a chance for people to get together and talk about some bigger-picture stuff that doesn’t often come up in day-to-day conversation. Last night we had the first one; together we read and discussed this interview with Susan Neiman, author of Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists.
This article appealed to me because I’ve been called an idealist in a semi-disparaging way for many years now, as if being idealistic—holding the belief that things can be better than they are now, and that we can make them that way—is a sign of naivete or simple misunderstanding of “the way things work.” But, Neiman says, when people are “realistic,” even if they present their point of view (“humans are violent and greedy and we just need to deal with it”) as common sense, in actuality, underneath that view of humankind is a metaphysical framework that they are imposing on reality. Neiman argues that a truly realistic point of view, being what she calls a “grown-up idealist,” means holding both visions—of the way things are and of the way they ought to be—at the same time, and operating from an understanding of both.
Our conversation was wide-ranging and inspiring to everyone in the room, I think. We discussed Barack Obama, who Neiman mentions in her article as a perfect example of a “grown-up idealist.” We discussed the role of art in idealism, and how the interplay of commerce and consciousness can breed cynicism. Over the two-plus hours we talked, we forged a deeper understanding of ideals and responsibility, and I learned a lot about my friends—things that, even with all the time I’ve spent with them, I didn’t know. It was a powerful night, and I’m looking forward to doing it again.
After everyone left, I opened up Worldchanging and saw a mention of an ABC program called Earth 2100, an evening’s exploration into what human civilization might look like over the rest of the 21st century. Intrigued, I turned the program on about halfway through. When I joined the program, huge storm surge waves were about to hit New York, and the gates people had built to keep them out were failing. Over the course of the next 45 minutes, things steadily got worse and worse—hunger, disease, and poverty took over humanity, and New York was abandoned back to nature.
To be honest, I tuned the program out after a few minutes and went back to surfing my favorite sites to learn about the cool stuff happening right now that may prevent ABC’s catastrophic nightmare from becoming reality. I was disconcerted, not because of the dystopian vision on the show, but by the fact that this is the vision that ABC chose to present. Two hours to talk about the future, and it wasn’t until 1 hour and 48 minutes in that the possibility of the future NOT being a horrible place was even addressed.
We’ve talked before on The Sunny Way about science fiction and how it creates the future. Dystopian visions like this might operate as a wake-up call, but they also might lower people’s expectations and encourage them to ride this civilization business-as-usual style until the wheels fall off, rather than seeing the future as something full of possibilities that we can impact through our actions right now.
On one hand, I’m glad that this question is being raised in mainstream society. But on the other, after seeing it, I felt much as I did after watching The 11th Hour. Why spend so much time on the “OMG we’re all gonna die!!!” and so little on the idea that we are capable of choosing a different destiny? The world is full of incredible people working on amazing projects to transform the way we do everything. It would be great to see them get more exposure.
After such a fun and inspiring conversation amongst friends about holding a vision for the way things ought to be, it was especially jarring to watch a program all about the way things are gonna be if we continue our wicked ways. It was a very real demonstration of the difference between realism and idealism.
What do you think? Do films like Earth 2100 and The 11th Hour perform a useful service in scaring the bejeezus out of people? Could it actually work better to present an inspiring vision of a magnificent future instead?
(15) Comments | Permalink
See more articles by Megan Dietz.
Megan
good post. You asked what we think. I think this: and i say this as an eternal optimist in his early 60s, Tufts 1971, longtime idealist:
RE: “Why spend so much time on the “OMG we’re all gonna die!!!” and so little on the idea that we are capable of choosing a different destiny?” DANNY: Because we are going to die off in a massive human die off. Not now, but in 500 years. So we need to face the truth. Read James Lovelock. At 90, he knows. But you are right, giving in to negativism will not be good. So here’s my idea: we need to face the facts that global warming is going to wipe human civilizartion off the face of the earth by year 2500 or so, and that’s 30 generations from now, grandkids etc….. We need to start planning mentally AND spiritually, in a very post-modern way, but which way you want to go is up to each individual, but we need to prepare NOW mentally and spiritally for the coming GREAT INTERRUPTION, my term. from 2121 to 3131 life for humans will be terrible. Mad Max meets The Road. Worse. But….we will survive, Megan, some of our future descendats that is, not all…..9 billion will die off, but around 200,000 will surive as breeding pairs in Artcic region polar cities….read Lovelock and BLoom on this. We need to face facts…...But we have time, so there is no need to panic now and there is still lots of wo0rk to be done now, positive work. Let the reality sink in. The humanh species has reached the tipping point. It’s all downhill from 2121 to 3131, so we have 100 years , 3 generations to prepare. that is what i am doing in my own small way….. see this:
http://pcillu101.blogspot.com
and this
http://tufts2099.blogspot.com
RE: “it was especially jarring to watch a program all about the way things are gonna be if we continue our wicked ways. It was a very real demonstration of the difference between realism and idealism.” DANNY: BUT WE MUST FACE FACTS, Megan. WE are headed down cormac Mccarthy;s ROAD soon. we must prepare. and keep love in our lives. yes.
RE: ‘‘What do you think? Do films like Earth 2100 and The 11th Hour perform a useful service in scaring the bejeezus out of people? Could it actually work better to present an inspiring vision of a magnificent future instead? ” - DANNY: we need to scare everyone 10000%. yes, scare them and wake them up. most people are still sleeping walking. the 2oth century is over, Megan. the dream is over. we must stop all car traffic and planes NOW. we must stop CO2 now. turn off the CO2 faucet now. There is no INSPIRING vision of the future, sad to say. we are headed to uncivilized not a pretty picture future. get used to it. plan to your death and teach things about survival and hope and love to the next generation, but 30 generatiosn down the road, there won’t be much left…..but these 200,000 breeeding pairs will survive and come back out into the sunshien again, eys eys yes, but not until 3500…..prepare nopw and teach the children to prepare.
wow, danny, i appreciate your point of view, but i sincerely hope that you aren’t right! i guess there’s only one way to know what the future will bring, and that’s to keep living and working to create what we want to see.
Danny, I’m going to tell you the truth, and I’m not going to be polite about it, because most of the others of your kind weren’t polite to me.
Your approach is a FAILURE. The fruit of your approach hasn’t been ‘waking people up’. Whether it’s been in politics, religion, or environmentalism, all you have managed to do is not only terrify people into numb submission, but convince them so vehemently to give in to despair that they would rather shout down anyone who even proposes trying to help them, or to help each other on more than a miniscule level, rather than take them seriously. Most of the people that seem to have internalized the message you’re sending aren’t even looking for chances to make things better: they’ve either withdrawn, are paralyzed because they can’t substantively withdraw, or like Kunstler, lash out at anyone different from them when they can get away with it.
All of this practically guarantees the worst case scenarios-because nobody’s looking for any ways of stopping them.
Megan Dietz
RE: “wow, danny, i appreciate your point of view, but i sincerely hope that you aren’t right! “
DANNY replies: “Me too, I hope I am not right. i really want to be wrong about this. I am on your side. BUT….”
This just came in about James Lovelock. A friend of mine is a reporter and recently interviewed him face to face. My friend told me: “Danny, I did ask Lovelock about your polar cities ideas (http://pcillu101.blogspot.com).... . , and….. He remembered your emails/ideas and said you were right and that we’d need something like polar cities sooner than we think…. “
AND: “Lovelock is a very relaxed and ordinary kind of guy, taking time with everyone, happy anyone is taking any interest. A tiny man, but sturdy and with a handshake of a man 40 years younger. Talked, answered questions and signed books for three hours and then off to lunch w NGOs—and that’s after a full slate of media interviews the day before…more stamina than i’ve got.”
And Harvey Winston:
RE:
“Danny, I’m going to tell you the truth, and I’m not going to be polite about it, because most of the others of your kind weren’t polite to me.”
Your approach is a FAILURE. The fruit of your approach hasn’t been ‘waking people up’. Whether it’s been in politics, religion, or environmentalism, all you have managed to do is not only terrify people into numb submission, but convince them so vehemently to give in to despair that they would rather shout down anyone who even proposes trying to help them, or to help each other on more than a miniscule level, rather than take them seriously. Most of the people that seem to have internalized the message you’re sending aren’t even looking for chances to make things better: they’ve either withdrawn, are paralyzed because they can’t substantively withdraw, or like Kunstler, lash out at anyone different from them when they can get away with it.
All of this practically guarantees the worst case scenarios-because nobody’s looking for any ways of stopping them. “
Harvey, I hear what you are saying, and you are right. SIGH. BUt i must soldier on. This is not about me or you or Kunslter or the media. This is about the future. So I solder on. But your words are well spoken and your points are well made, and i agree with 99 percent of what you wrote, sir. But for the 1 percent, I soldier on. Just ignore me in the future. My messages are not for you. You already have a direction. Good. I understand what you are saying. keep speaking out!—DANNY
I support Danny, sharing what he discovers. This is important.
Of course some will not respond constructively to push decision-makers to stop industrial logging of old-growth forests, accelerate shift to non-carbon economy, and address/mitigate disparities in access to sustenance which this will cause.
Some will just worry.
But they might just worry anyhow or support Obama because of his smile and reassuring demeanor. Even as he reverses many of the positions necessary to avoid war, environmental catastrophe etc.
So the worriers and the easily-reassured might be soothed and engaged in areas other than politics or activism. But sometimes, like when they despite-all-evidence push for a candidate who promises to expand the *Iraq, Afghanistan, drug* wars, invest in false solutions (cap-and-trade/carbon capture & sequestration/ etc.), they need to be confronted with reality (both historical and present) and urged to be realistic.
There is no evidence that Obama is a grown up idealist b/c we don’t know what he is thinking. We do know that his promises to expand wars have been kept and that doesn’t bring our world closer to where I feel it ‘ought’ to be.
People who might think that it does b/c of ‘where we are’ are just giving in to cynicism about humans and hope about obama.
Action is the Antidote for Despair.
i value danny’s contribution and, if things turn out the way he thinks they will, i will be glad that he’s thought through “what then?”
as far as obama being a grown-up idealist, there’s lots of different ways to look at this. i don’t pretend to know everything there is to know about the various wars we are involved in around the world. but what i do see in obama is a recognition that now is a transformative time, and a willingness to do everything he can to push that transformation in the best direction.
where i think the world ought to be seems to be at least somewhat in line with where he thinks it ought to be. perfect agreement is not possible. but while i maintain objectivity, i also want to allow myself to be hopeful that the changes he’s seeking—creating market forces around fossil fuel usage, pumping cash into research and rollout of cleaner technologies, building high-speed rail—can happen.
regardless, i don’t mean to get into a debate about the finer points of president obama’s policies. what i’m trying to point to is the idea that progress seems to come out of a positive, morality-based vision of the future. whereas dystopian visions seem to lead down darker paths.
jen, i couldn’t agree with you more. once we have an idea of how things ought to be, we must act on it, or else it’s just another useless bit of fluff floating around in our heads.
I agree, ACTion is the ANtidote to DEspair. yes. go go go. all of us, go go go. Yes.
Rob, I too support Danny’s right to his viewpoints, as well as yours. Much like anything involving time, there are seemingly infinite horrific outcomes. Hell, our planet could be rendered unfit for human life by a comet or asteroid (we actually missed a potential extinction level event by about 6 hours a few years back, as an asteroid the size of Houston passed through our orbit).
But I wanted to share this spark of optimism since you specifically identified cap-and-trade as a false solution http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/009948.html
It works. It’s working now. Is it enough? Time will tell, but one thing is for sure: Where there’s successful change, there’s hope.
But maybe I’m just optimistic because, like Megan, I only caught the last few minutes of the show.
Ed: here’s an answer in part to the ‘optimism’ of Joe Romm:
http://www.carbontax.org/blog/
Joseph Romm is a ‘fellow’ at the Center for American Progress which receives approximately $25 million per year in funding from a variety of sources, including individuals, foundations, and corporations.
The Center receives undisclosed sums from corporate donors.
Some open government groups, such as the Sunlight Foundation and the Campaign Legal Center, criticize the Center’s failure to disclose its contributors, particularly since it is so influential in appointments to the Obama administration.
They have been a major opponent of the position on health care supported by a majority of Americans, namely the single-payer system.
They do Obama’s bidding on the escalation of war (http://rebelreports.com/post/94549885/rahm-emanuels-think-tankers-enforce-message) and now exude his optimism on false solutions that benefit brokers, consultants, and polluters, all in the name of addressing climate change.
Anyhow, I’ll get you more details on how Europe has failed if you like. But there’s much at http://www.carbontax.org/ including nice comparisons between carbon taxes and carbon trading.
I just read this, really interesting. Also the comments on Earth 2100. the thing is, what impressed me that perhaps the writer did not see in the film, since she states she did not see the entire thing..was that it showed at the beginning all the warnings and even a global summit to try to correct/prevent the inevitable if things continue environmentally as they are..and the leaders all went home not coming to any conclusion.
And then things continued to go down, until there was no communication, no cell towers, Internet, food, beaches, transportation…just of course the worst case scenario. BUT the thing is, the film went over the last part of the movie in a different scenario, with the changes that would happen for good if everyone worked right now together, globally. And the end was how great everything was, or could be, on our earth.
It ended with a statement that there is a global summit in Denmark this year to discuss the issues we need to work on NOW, and how important it will be. so, yeah, it was a negative picture/scenario to begin with, but really was thought provoking at what must be done.
It told a story of a young 7 year old girl named Lucy and her life through her late seventies, in the worst case scenario, so it was like a story…but then the best case scenario for our Earth if things were taken seriously, and dealt with.
I found this very interesting, because being brought up in a Christian home, with basic teaching in church, etc. that the earth would not be destroyed, that God would never let that happen, so no worries. And that eventually there would be a new heaven and a new earth anyway.
Then there were the others who said, we were given this Earth to care for, and preserve for future generations, and what we all do will affect the earth and the people, animals, nature, everything..
coming after us.
I just thought it was a good film to show how individually and collectively we, globally, need to take care of this earth, and the U>S> will make decisions that will affect the whole world in this area. so, like in the Sunny Way, it can work together, because we CAN see the future as full of possibilities that we can impact through our actions right now. I really enjoyed reading what Megan Dietz had to say, and I think group discussions like this
would be truly inspiring and thought-provoking.
Pam Funston,
That was one of the best responses to the Earth 2100 show I have seen anywhere online. Thanks for a great post, and for summing up the story arc of the TV show, from beginning to end. and ABC is right, if we don’t take action Now, this year, at Copenhagen, and elsewhere, and even in our own lives, then there VERY WELL MIGHT be big trouble in the future. So let’s work HARD now to prevent my vision of polar cities from ever coming true. We need to shut off the CO2 spigot right now, and that means stopping all car and truck traffic now, stop driving now, bike to work, walk to work, get used to it, suffer, and stop all air traffic and tourism now….... the CO2 faucet is on full blast and we are putting tons and tons of CO2 in the air right now as we speak….we cannot do this anymore. this is a global emergency of the first order! Pam, I liked your post. Bravo.
I didn’t see the show, so your summary was very good for me to read. ThAnks…
Rob,
Outstanding response! Thank you for the links and the info. Time to open a can of whoopass and write as many letters as can be sent. Thank you sincerely for the info.
ed
thanks, ed.
I hope folks here make the carbontax blog one of their first sites to check when big political climate legislation is being discussed.
Just check out the last few posts and you’ll recognize how indispensable it is:
http://www.carbontax.org/blog/
rob
check out this excellent effort. Please promote it (i’ve seen nothing as clear and scientifically-grounded on advocacy for adequate climate change legislation and against the current counter-productive ACES legislation):
http://www.climatesos.org
Post a comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.