Naomi Klein: How Science Is Telling Us All To Revolt

Naomi Klein Warsaw Nov. 19 2008 Fot Mariusz Kubik 02Ms. Klein asks “Is our relentless quest for economic growth killing the planet?” Climate scientists have seen the data – and they are coming to some incendiary conclusions. From the New Statesman:

In December 2012, a pink-haired complex systems researcher named Brad Werner made his way through the throng of 24,000 earth and space scientists at the Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, held annually in San Francisco. This year’s conference had some big-name participants, from Ed Stone of Nasa’s Voyager project, explaining a new milestone on the path to interstellar space, to the film-maker James Cameron, discussing his adventures in deep-sea submersibles.

But it was Werner’s own session that was attracting much of the buzz. It was titled “Is Earth F**ked?” (full title: “Is Earth F**ked? Dynamical Futility of Global Environmental Management and Possibilities for Sustainability via Direct Action Activism”).

Standing at the front of the conference room, the geophysicist from the University of California, San Diego walked the crowd through the advanced computer model he was using to answer that question. He talked about system boundaries, perturbations, dissipation, attractors, bifurcations and a whole bunch of other stuff largely incomprehensible to those of us uninitiated in complex systems theory. But the bottom line was clear enough: global capitalism has made the depletion of resources so rapid, convenient and barrier-free that “earth-human systems” are becoming dangerously unstable in response. When pressed by a journalist for a clear answer on the “are we f**ked” question, Werner set the jargon aside and replied, “More or less.”…

There was one dynamic in the model, however, that offered some hope. Werner termed it “resistance” – movements of “people or groups of people” who “adopt a certain set of dynamics that does not fit within the capitalist culture”. According to the abstract for his presentation, this includes “environmental direct action, resistance taken from outside the dominant culture, as in protests, blockades and sabotage by indigenous peoples, workers, anarchists and other activist groups”…

[continues at the New Statesman]


Majestic is gadfly emeritus.

Latest posts by majestic (see all)

80 Comments on "Naomi Klein: How Science Is Telling Us All To Revolt"

  1. If science is telling me to do it, then it must be the wrong thing to do.

  2. Federation of Autonomous Communities.

    • by that I mean, sustainable communities that drop out of the mainstream live autonomously but band together for the sake of trade and other purposes. its not illegal as long as taxes are being paid(render unto Caesar)and the laws of the land are abided(yeah that can suck, but its not any different than what we do now). if enough people could do this the economy could be crippled and an example would be given for those still in the mainstream. Communities bing autonomous means some could be communist, others laissez-faire, others only Lesbian, etc. As long as communities can remain peaceful it wouldn’t be a problem. And the incentive for peace would be high because of interdependence. Of course, a (loose and decentralized) Federation of Autonomous Communities would have problems but at least there is Autonomy. I don’t believe in a centralized authority overseeing, either. I use the term federation to mean banded together for trade purposes.

      • ishmael2009 | Oct 30, 2013 at 9:18 pm |

        Like the Amish you mean? I’m not being snarky, genuine question.

        • Amish communities are actually pretty autonomous. that’s why you’ll see some of them use gas engines and other technologies, while others won’t use any.
          but, yeah, pretty much like the amish, except I’d imagine MUCH more diverse. but on 2nd thought I don’t know if there is a centralized authority overseeing the separate Amish communities. I don’t think so, I think they’re pretty well autonomous.

        • I can’t think of any long-lasting, successful autonomous communities that aren’t the Amish.
          When I think of “autonomous communities,” Italy is the first thing that comes to mind. Then, immediately after that, “dysfunction and international ridicule.”

          • shakers lasted a real long while. the Oneida community lasted many years. there are plenty of communities i know of in the US that have been around for many years. you’d be surprised. and if communities were more pervasive so if you want to join or visit another, they could last longer. if there was more support, there would be more. and it takes people to support them. the more fucked up Babylon gets, the more people will yearn for community, and join or help start em.

          • Being religious and communistic appears to be the key to success.

          • that sure seems to help. I cant think of many long lasting communities that were neither.

          • the advantage to the idea I proposed, of a Federation of Autonomous Communities is that it is actually quite practical and could be conceivably achieved in our lifetime, unlike most revolutionary proposals. It is more effective than any type of reform. It appeals to many disparate segments of the population, be they libertarian, Marxist, anarchist, religious, non-religious, gay, homophobic and even racist. some communities can choose to be isolationist, so be it. others might choose to be all-inclusive. it gives many different political systems the opportunity to see what works and what doesn’t. no one is forced to live in a capitalist society or communist. and it is unjust that, as it is now, we are forced. it makes the phrase “love it or leave it” not seem so bad.

  3. BuzzCoastin | Oct 30, 2013 at 2:38 pm |

    “Is our relentless quest for economic growth killing the planet?”

    it’s just killing humanity & a few innocent bystanders
    as soon as humanity is gone
    the Earth will fully recover

    • Quite true.

      But….it’s good to remember human beings aren’t “on” the Earth. We ARE the Earth.

      As Alan Watts liked to say, we weren’t “put” here from somewhere else. We GREW out of the Earth like an apple grows out of an apple tree.

      In that sense, humanity is one of the most precious organs of the planet. If humanity dies off, it would be like the frontal cortex of the planet’s brain dying off. That’s not cool.

      I’m not really keen on the people who say humanity is a cancer or virus on the planet. We didn’t invade the planet as though it were a host. We grew FROM it. It’s more like our mother. The term “Mother Earth” may be cheesy…but it’s got quite a bit of truth to it.

      It’s easy to see humanity as a cancer when you merely look at the cherry-picked acts of humanity deemed as “news” or when you look at the political/economic/religious leaders.

      But, in truth, I’d say about 97% of humanity is good to the core. Most of us are moral people who love this planet, love life, and want a good future for ourselves, our neighbors, and our descendants. Most of us want that. Also, most of us feel overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the problems we’ve brought about. Even if we know the solution, it will NOT be easy. And that’s assuming we find a solution…in time.

      It’s enough to get really apathetic and depressed about. But….in that apathy comes the chance to throw caution to the wind, say “to hell with the norm,” and start a revolution. Even if it doesn’t work…even if we go extinct in the end…wouldn’t you rather go down fighting the good fight? If nothing else, wouldn’t that be more FUN than sitting around brooding about how hopeless it all is?

      If we do go extinct soon…that would be terribly sad. Existentially nihilisticly depressing. But….even IF humanity does NOT go extinct…you personally WILL go extinct, guaranteed. Most of us will be dead 100 years from now. Our world will end no matter what. So….in the mean time….let’s have fun revolting against all the insanity and absurdity mounting against us. Why not? It’s a better way to pass the time than sitting in your lonely apartment scouring the internet for stuff to make you scared, depressed, and apathetic.

      So…..let’s start a revolution! It’ll be fun. I’ll bring the pot brownies. 😀

      • BuzzCoastin | Oct 30, 2013 at 3:27 pm |

        my hyperbole is designed to provoke thought
        I don’t think “everyone” will die out
        but like every evolutionary change humanity has experienced
        there is a mass extinction
        that separates the archaic from the new
        this seems to have been happening every 100K years or so
        for as far back as wee can look

        I agree most people are basically good by nature
        but acquired conditioning
        eventually perverts & subverts their “original face”
        and requires that each
        find a way to shake off acquired conditioning
        and align with their “true nature”
        unfortunately, most don’t

        • Totally agree.
          I wasn’t disagreeing with what you said…just adding a thought. 🙂

          • Sorry, why is it ‘not cool’ that humanity will go extinct? As far as I can tell there’s nothing moral about the rise and fall of the dinosaurs.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:37 am |

            There is no such thing as humanity. There are only populations.

          • I remember that one!

          • Ask a dinosaur that. I’m pretty sure they’d give a different answer….if they could.

            I mean, morality is a human construct. Without humans, human morality, obviously, wouldn’t exist.

            So, yes, to us in the present moment, the idea of 100% extinction of humanity is about the gravest existential threat we can imagine.

            Just imagine every single work of art, literature, history, architecture…every relationship or romance that ever was…every friendship…every thought, idea, joke…all the irony and pathos and love that ever was…..GONE. Forever.

            Surely that would be a loss in the universe. Humanity has problems, of course. But so what? Without problems to overcome, we wouldn’t be anywhere hear as interesting, diverse, and beautifully flawed as we are.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 3:00 pm |

            ‘Morality’ is a biological construct and exists in degree throughout the spectrum of evolutionary development.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:06 pm |

            In what possible sense is that statement true?

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:23 pm |

            OK Biology:




            adjective: biological; adjective: biol.


            of or relating to biology or living organisms.synonyms:biotic, biologic, organic, living;

            OK Construct:


            noun: construct; plural noun: constructs



            idea or theory containing various conceptual elements, typically one
            considered to be subjective and not based on empirical evidence.

            “history is largely an ideological construct”

            So you are saying morality is subjective concept that evolved over time among organisms? Like paramecium morality->squid morality->fish morality->fucking…..lizard morality?

            is this passed on through oral tradition?

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:31 pm |

            In science construct has additional meaning.

            As to the rest, if the topic actually interests you there are resources to explore it.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:33 pm |

            what is the method of transmission? are you saying morals are genetic?

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:40 pm |

            I have read all kinds of evolutionary psychology. This particular idea of morality as a “biological construct” that exists “throughout the spectrum of evolutionary development” strikes me as reductio absurdum.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:45 pm |

            I cannot account for the level of comprehension you have acquired nor how things strike you.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:51 pm |

            You appear to be saying something ridiculous. So you are saying you are simply talking over my head now? You are saying morals evolved incrementally over the course of biological evolution and exist in some type of spectrum or continuum. I am curious how you can say that since morals are Values or ideas and exist in the realm of culture. You might sy they are symbols that often point to biological imperatives among other things, but I don’t see how you can say these symbols evolved over time in the minds of simple organisms. That appears to be really backwards. symbolic culture originates with humans. This is the realm of memes. are you saying plants and animals pass on memes?

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:55 pm |

            Symbolic culture did not originate with humans.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:57 pm |

            Ok so what are some examples of symbols in the animal kingdom?

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:03 pm |

            There is a whole field that studies it Ted. Go play.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:23 pm |

            Morals are aspects of social behavior which extend from biological imperatives. Social behavior did not begin with humans. For example most people would place incest aversion in the realm of morals. However, unless under severe isolation & population duress higher social animals also engage in this behavior. Humans with the advent of language have been able to codify & process many of their underlying evolutionary cognitive regulatory mechanisms.

          • you don’t honestly believe that all examples of moral behavior extend from “biological imperative”, do ya? nor can you say they are all learned behaviors, and might not be novel (I would say inspired). a quick example would be sexual abstinence. which in my part of the world, is far from actively encouraged and the opposite of a biological imperative.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:35 pm |

            Sexually abstinence has many possible motivations. As a moral issue it usually involves concepts of ‘purity’ & thus value as a mate & intergroup exchange and bonding, which are indeed biological imperatives.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:02 pm |

            I think Nietzsche had more interesting things to say about the origin of abstinence/asceticism. He also said “there are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretation of phenomena” a claim you are contradicting. Though I would really like to see it supported by more than a vague appeal to unnamed sources.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:03 pm |

            I am not contradicting such a claim.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:04 pm |

            You were a minute ago.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:06 pm |

            That is your interpretation of the phenomenon.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:12 pm |

            You said: “‘Morality’ is a biological construct and exists in degree throughout the spectrum of evolutionary development.”

            You are saying morals are “biological constructs” that exist “in degree” throught some spectrum or contunuum of some “evolutionary development”

            Which implies that morality evolved over time and exists in various degrees throughout the animal kingdom. Which implies that morals or morality has an objective existence. This is the exact opposite of the meaning of the Nietzsche quote.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:23 pm |

            Perhaps you should take note of the quotation marks around the word morality.

            The End.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:46 pm |

            I guess maybe you are talking about this kind of thing:

            Which I had seen before, on here, actually. I still think what you said was problematic. More because of the way you said “biological construct” and “degree throughout the spectrum of evolutionary development”

            If by “biological construct” you mean a construct created by biologists, then fine.

            As far as things existing in degree throughout the spectrum of evolutionary development, that implies that organisms of the past were teleologically evolving into “moral” humans, and that all existing organisms are frozen in time, as it were, displaying various levels of moral development.

            I still find that idea ridiculous. As far as the guy in the TED talk goes the monkeys are social animals similar to the way in which humans are social, I will grant you that.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 2, 2013 at 9:20 am |

            You might find something to interest you in Biosemiotics .

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 2, 2013 at 10:10 am |

            Thanks. Seems very speculative at this point. I didn’t think you were into that kind of thing. You seem to poo poo a lot of other stuff that challenges current paradigms on things such as anththromes in ecology. I still think Rupert Sheldrake is onto something, with morphogenetic fields.

            I guess I can see what this approach is all about. Studying consciousness in a reductionist materialist type way, starting with simple organisms and working up toward humans.

            Animals with tiny brains seem to do some really smart things. I personally think there is some type of non local field involved that individuals tap into.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 2, 2013 at 10:26 am |

            I am far more interested in seams than seems.

          • there are no phenomena, only interpretations of phenomena.

          • Eric_D_Read | Nov 2, 2013 at 1:56 pm |

            The definition Calypso gave of morality isn’t really contradicted by Nietzsche’s moral nihilism, which essentially states that the idea of morals as universals is an illusion even if they provide benefit to humans.

            While many moral constructs do provide evolutionary benefits to those that hold them a moral nihilist would say that taking those notions of what is morally required, what is permissible, and what is forbidden as holding true on a universal level is equivalent to arguing over whether the number 5 is sweet or sour.

          • morality is so immoral!- Nietzsche

          • celibacy would have nothing to do with finding a mate. and how could it be that sexual promiscuity AND sexual abstinence are both biological imperatives? to me, this idea seems very unscientific, yet seems to be the consensus in current science. there may be lots of proof that we are just driven by “evolution”. but that’s not the whole story and it is still largely speculation. i’m sure you can honestly seek and find many behaviors that are not biological imperatives. biology may be a potent force but it isn’t the MOST potent force. Release from “biology” may be stronger(and stranger).

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 2, 2013 at 11:52 am |

            as i said there are many motives. now you are moving into a more complex one. first you should look into costly-helping scenarios and the deferring of mating. If you want to move into the idea of total celibacy there are plenty examples in nature where a particular class of organism completely gives up reproductive rights in favor of the greater social-organism. If you are talking about human meta-physical explorations there are very easy ways to see how observation of the natural world and the internal self would lead to such behavior. The conservation of potency is primary among these. Temporary abstinence to preserve male prowess is far more common than total celibacy and is much easier to equate with such behavior. In the animal world there are males that die after mating and this is recorded in the earliest writings on conservation of life force. That humans would note the physiological & psychogenic effects of suppressed sexual expression is simple awareness & exploration of the body habitus & shows a growth in cognitive feedback. Biological imperatives are all about feedback. As an organism grows in complexity it is able to superimpose greater state awareness of its system dynamics. Basic cybernetics. ‘Biology’ is just one formulation of ‘nature’. One is just as bound by other strata. To think that nature has been finalized at this level would be rather premature.

          • huh, yeah, I see what you mean, now, that abstinence and promiscuity can both be biological imperatives. but I still don’t believe that ALL human behaviors, even all plant and animal behavior can be reduced to practical survival. even fundamentalists can take examples of behavior to PROVE that god or the devil are behind the behavior.
            have you read anything by P.D. Ouspensky? He writes an interesting book titled, A New Model of the Universe, which can be taken as New Age “woo”(written before there even was a section in the bookstores called New Age). I might disagree with some of his ideas, and others are harder for me to quite comprehend, but he brings up some interesting ideas to refute evolutionary theory. One example is that mimicry in nature is not mathematically possible through natural selection. For example, a stick bug is as likely to be formed through natural selection as it is likely to find a fully formed knife in the bedrock. For how could that conceivable occur? A bug couldn’t just mutate to look exactly like a stick. Nor could it mutate each of the traits that make it look exactly like a stick. Also, there is a bug that looks like a leaf. Now, when it dies it looks exactly like a dried up dead leaf. How would that be conducive to survival? I agree that there is such a thing as biological imperative and I don’t totally deny natural selection and the evolution of organisms. But I don’t think that is the only imperative of nature, nor even the most important. Ouspensky claims there is an aesthetic imperative in nature, and mimicry is an example of this, and it just so happens to encourage survival, but not always. I’m not sure I agree, but its an interesting possibility.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 2, 2013 at 2:18 pm |

            I have read Ouspensky/Nicoll/Bennett/Gurdjieff & the like extensively.

            All behaviors can be reduced but that does not mean that is what they are. Things become more than the sum of their parts, new properties emerge.

            PS: How is mimicry in nature mathematically impossible ? especially in light of mandlebrot.

          • not sure, not a math wiz, though Mandelbrot really intrigues me.
            but ouspensky claims it is impossible for an organism to mutate the traits of its object of mimicry, one by one, through each generation. a bug that mimics a leaf would have to have mutated its color, one generation. then one generation it mutates to have the shape of a leaf. then the veins of a leaf, etc. it is also impossible that it could mutate all of those traits in one generation.

          • im not a scientist, but I did a quick google search and found someone who asks the same question but formulates it much better.
            a biology forum where this is discussed (if you could read both pages of posts, particularly the questions asked by Nick7, perhaps you can tell me how you believe mimicry is possible through natural selection. i’m currently reading through the posts now, cause this seems interesting to me):


          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:32 pm |

            well…animals have instincts. You can say that humans also have instincts and that these have been developed through human culture into morals. I really don’t see why you would say that animals have morals or values.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:40 pm |

            I didn’t say animals have ‘morals’.
            I said morality emerges from biological evolution and exists in degree along a continuum. That being said humans are animals; though the existence of morals among this species has been used to ascribe a special significance and connection to ‘divinity’ from which the morals are supposedly derived.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:42 pm |

            evolution exists on a continuum? who says that?

            anyway you really sound like you are putting the cart before the horse. Even a three toed horse as it were.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:45 pm |

            Do you think organisms such as insects are “less evolved” than humans? Did you know trees have magnitudes more base pairs of DNA than humans?

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:47 pm |

            No Ted, I didn’t know that. Tell me more. Insects sure do seem primitive.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:56 pm |

            You never struck me as a creation scientist. You seem to be postulating some type of teleological moral development through biological evolution. Its seems to me you were just thinking out loud or musing. I would really be surprised if there were contemporary evolutionary biologists talking about this.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:00 pm |

            What seems to you & would be surprising if, is not and there are.

          • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 9:14 pm |

            clearly clarity is not your strong suit.

          • I wonder if you could call their behavior incest “aversion”. I had a cat(among many) who was clearly homosexual and would only have sex with male cats who happened to be his brothers and other near relatives. now, none of my other cats did that, maybe some practiced incest. but i’m not sure i’d call it aversion. its not like my homo cat was treated as an outcast. the other cats didn’t seem to care. they just didn’t have the same desires as him. but were they averse? not sure I would say that. do animals have taboos?

      • Virtually Yours | Oct 31, 2013 at 12:50 pm |

        I love your comment and pretty much agree with everything you said, though one line gave me pause: “you personally WILL go extinct, guaranteed”. I would encourage you to not completely discount the possibility of uploading. Given the current rate of technological and scientific acceleration, it is arguable/plausible that it could happen within the next forty to fifty years…assuming we aren’t blasted back into the Dark Ages by some random catastrophe or other before then.

        But if we are able to make it to that point, at least we will have options…not everyone will be interested in partaking of such an experience, but for those of us who are curious, at least we will have that choice. Of course, there is no guarantee that it will ever happen, even barring cataclysms of doom…perhaps the science/tech will ultimately prove too far beyond our ability to comprehend/adapt.

        While I personally believe that we will be able to figure it out, rest assured that I am no frothing fanatic…either it will happen or it won’t, and if this is all the time we get, then it will still have been worth every moment. Uploading can be something to look forward to, just in case; but in the meantime, yes…let’s do everything we can to bring about innovative change and rational revolution, so that things are as equitable and stable as possible for everyone concerned!

        • kelethian | Oct 31, 2013 at 8:07 pm |

          you want to upload yourself to the sidpa plane??? argh

          • Virtually Yours | Nov 1, 2013 at 1:11 pm |

            I suppose one could create a simulation of a Sidpa-like realm, but that is only one of nearly an infinite number of digital destinations. You could also upload your consciousness into a space-faring vessel and then – whenever it was necessary and/or desirable to do so – you could clone a meat-sack to download back into temporarily, perhaps while exploring the surface of some far-off planet (you could customize your meat-sack to suit the local environment) or while partaking in flesh-fueled orgies involving alien extremities. Once you are done dabbling in the biological, you could discard/recycle said sack and upload back into a purely digital state. If and when you ever got bored or tired of living this sort of life, you could either store yourself for future awakening or you could always just go ahead and wipe your own program out of existence.

          • kelethian | Nov 1, 2013 at 4:12 pm |

            what im saying is that you would instantly be translated to the ghost existence. Assumng you ever figured this kind of thing out, or even if its possible

          • I’m not convinced that consciousness is merely an arrangement of electrons, which the concept of uploading seems to imply. If my memories were copied, would I experience bilocation? I don’t believe so.

          • Calypso_1 | Nov 1, 2013 at 5:24 pm |

            The mind already experiences forms of bilocation in having multiple appendages & sensory inputs. Yet we perceive this in an integrated fashion.

          • True, but that supports my (intended) point, which is that wetware matters.

          • Virtually Yours | Nov 3, 2013 at 5:08 pm |

            Suppose you could always run a wetware program/simulation “in the background” and then ween yourself off of it over time, assuming that something like that was even necessary in the first place (who knows…)

          • Virtually Yours | Nov 3, 2013 at 5:02 pm |

            “I’m not convinced that consciousness is merely an arrangement of electrons” What gives you pause/doubt or makes you think that there would need to be anything more than that? Not being snarky…genuinely curious. I am agnostic and open to a lot of different ideas, so long as there is credible evidence and/or a plausible theory. I believe that everything is ultimately quantifiable and that experiences which are currently described by some as being spiritual and/or mystical in nature (while very Real for those who experience them directly) do in fact have rational explanations, which should not detract from the significance that they inspire.

            As for multiple copies, I do not believe you would experience bilocation. It would be an exact copy of you up to that point, but then everything that happens to each copy would be experienced individually. Hopefully there would be a way to reconstitute the copies, thus allowing them to share all of their unique experiences since being split apart.

            But you don’t necessarily have to make a copy of yourself in order to upload. Imagine replacing one neuron at a time with a mechanical equivalent. Your memories still flow through your Mind and you still experience the world as you. Now, imagine that you have swapped all of the neurons except for one…what will happen when that final biological bit is replaced? If there is no disruption in the flow of memory/experience, then why wouldn’t it still be you?

          • > What gives you pause/doubt or makes you think that there would need to be anything more than that?

            Because I’m not a dualist. I don’t believe existence and essence can truly be separated, nor that form can truly be separated from matter. Nor do I believe that everything is quantifiable, or more specifically, that quantifiability is not the same as measurability, and that both are at least partially subjective.

            I believe consciousness is one of the 11 (or so) dimensions of our universe, and thus that it is a quality matter can have. Different matter, different consciousness.

            If each copy experiences individually, then the copy would experience differently than the original, and thus when the original is destroyed, the flow of memory/experience would stop (or perhaps experience an “afterlife” dimension).

          • Virtually Yours | Nov 4, 2013 at 12:07 pm |

            “I don’t believe existence and essence can truly be separated” Guess I don’t view it as the same kind of separation (ie: your essence-via-consciousness would still exist) but for now, at least, there is no way to prove or disprove this notion, so I respect your opinion/belief.

            “I believe consciousness is one of the 11 (or so) dimensions of our universe” Interesting. I know that some physicists speculate that there are anywhere from 10 to 26 dimensions, depending on which theory you employ. But I am not as familiar with the idea of consciousness being its own dimension. Just did a quick bit of Googling…does this have anything to do with Monopsychism? Also, it seems that Rupert Sheldrake has claimed that minds are not “confined to brains” though I find his explanation to be somewhat hokey and unconvincing. Can you point me in an alternative direction? I am skeptical but curious…

            “and thus when the original is destroyed…” Sorry, but why would the original be destroyed?

      • Ted Heistman | Nov 1, 2013 at 8:08 pm |

        How do you know that humanity hasn’t been parasitized by alien memes?

    • moremisinformation | Oct 30, 2013 at 11:30 pm |

      “Is our relentless quest for economic growth killing the planet?”

      When I hear people talk about destroying or saving the planet, the phrase, anthropogenic douchebaggery comes to mind. Yea, it probably doesn’t make sense but you get the idea.

  4. rhetorics_killer | Oct 31, 2013 at 7:52 am |

    Man –not my friendly American community here around to tell otherwise– has an issue with energy. We are greedy for more and more power to run, to fly and by the way take advantage. When a good amount of wealth is secured, one will stress for more energy to add on. And one will use even more energy to get along his way. The so-called ‘climate change’ is no more than a (collective) mind unable to master itself while absorbing its nourishment.

  5. rainbow warriors

Comments are closed.