Probability of our civilisation to survive without facing a catastrophic collapse estimated at less than 10% in most optimistic scenario

Hi @Gabriel_L I did see the urgency of establishing in practice, at least minimum to becoming skilled to enter in jhanas, of-course to become successful in practice. IMO, I cannot relate the reason for urgency to prediction of civilisation survival. The more I think about these predictions the more restless I become because I am feeding restlessness.

Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. - Snippet from MN19

The definition of Right Livelihood by Bhante Vimalaramsi made me more sense. He calls Harmonious Lifestyle, means it’s important what you keep in front of your mind during the daily activity. If we keep things uplifting, it’s beneficial.

I had done an experiment of not reading news for sometime, I found myself much harmony. Later I realised that, meditation is not just while we are sitting, Meditation is life, Life is mediation, so it’s important what content I am feeding to my mind. There can be many contents (about predictions) which doesn’t helps us to keep our mind uplifted, so spending time on those stuff is not worth (ideally).

There is probability that the roof might fall down while I am writing this response, if I keep thinking about that it doesn’t going to help me. That’s why IMO there is urgency of practicing Dhamma, but reason for urgency is not prediction of civilisation survival.

4 Likes

Fair enough! May we all be successful in our development and endeavours in the eightfold path! :anjal:

PS: This is a Watercooler post and if its contents annoy or disturb you, feel free to mute it. I do it all the time! :sweat_smile:

2 Likes

I understand completely, I really do. But it seems that for many people, the opposite of “not reading news” is not “peace of mind”; it’s QAnon. Information is the antidote to delusion.

In the spirit of which,

This is not what right livelihood means. It means, “making a living (which for most people is their job) in a harmless way”.

It’s possible to present Dhamma in an engaging way without confusing basic concepts.

4 Likes

I ask sorry for any confusion, Bhante Vimalaramsi definition does includes what you had mentioned, but it include more to it. Lee me share

SAMMA ᾹJĪVA" - Harmonious Lifestyle (or Right Livelihood): This has always been a curious part of the 8-Fold Path. The standard way of describing this has been not to kill living beings on purpose, not to sell poisons or weapons, and not to deal in slavery and selling human beings. But how does this relate directly to one’s meditation practice? If it is important enough to be put in the 8-Fold Path, then there must be more to it that leads to the cessation of suffering. Don’t you agree? These above things do give us this idea of Right Livelihood ( Harmonious Lifestyle )- in a general way, but just how does Harmonious Lifestyle (“Right Livelihood”) relate to our true understanding and practice? An interesting question, isn’t it? And it becomes even more interesting when we consider that the Buddha gave these instructions with the very first discourse that he gave to the Five Ascetics and he was showing them about the direct experience of meditation practice. These ascetics surely did not kill living beings, they didn’t sell poisons or weapons, or sell slaves – so what was the Buddha actually talking about when he mentioned Harmonious Lifestyle (Right Livelihood)?
When we take a look at mental development through the eyes of Harmonious Lifestyle (Right Livelihood), it may make a little more sense. For instance, Harmonious Lifestyle (Right Livelihood) means how we practice our observation ( Harmonious Observation Right Mindfulness) and meditation of the present moment during all of the times that we are not doing our sitting meditation (in other words our daily activities). We are practicing being in harmony with a mind that is alert, calm, joyful and uplifted ( Harmonious Movement and Harmonious Communication or Right Action and Right speech with ourselves -a short note this is why I encourage students to smile whether doing their sitting meditation or their daily activities). The trick is seeing how, when things are not going the “way I want them to” and mind becomes heavy with emotional issues (Unharmonious Movement or Wrong Action) – how the observation of how minds attention becomes weak and the subtle “I like it, I don’t like it” and thinking unwholesome thoughts (craving and clinging – unharmonious Communication or wrong speech) causes us even more suffering.
In other words, having a Harmonious Lifestyle (Right Livelihood) means that we learn to carry the meditation ( Harmonious Observation, Harmonious Communication, Harmonious Imaging, Harmonious Perspective, Harmonious Practice, Harmonious Collectedness and Harmonious Movement in other words the entire 8-Fold Path) with us all of the time, in our daily activities. In this way, we then truly begin to understand that the impersonal process of Dependent Origination ( Harmonious Perspective) is in everything that arises. Having a Harmonious Lifestyle (Right Livelihood) is having an uplifted happy mind that is smiling, joyful, alert and free from unwholesome thoughts, or feelings.
The emotions that are heavy and tend to pull mind away from the present moment, are the cause of suffering. Why? Because the meditator tends to take these thoughts and feelings personally, with the wrong perspective of “I am That” attitude. This personal perspective (wrong life style) in our daily lives is the reason that so many people suffer so much! Also, too many times when someone does a meditation retreat, the meditator gets very serious and heavy in mind without really recognizing it. The heavy distracted Unharmonious Lifestyle (wrong Livelihood) is the mind that is being caught by the personal (atta) belief ( Unharmonious Perspective ). They become distracted by opinions, concepts, thoughts, daydreaming and the general dissatisfactions of life. Or we can say that whenever mind has heavy emotional states in it, this is considered to be Unharmonious Lifestyle (Wrong Livelihood). This is the mind that is out of balance and gravitates toward unhappiness and suffering. When one is practicing the Harmonious Lifestyle (Right Livelihood) it makes all meditation and life a continuous flow of happiness that leads us toward the cessation of suffering. In this way, “Meditation is Life, Life is Meditation”!
Source: The 8-Fold Path in Practical Terms

Once again, this is simply not what the Buddha was talking about when he used the words “right livelihood”. What Vimalaramsi calls “the standard way” is simply what it says in the Suttas. It has nothing to do with having a “harmonious lifestyle” or with mindfully observing in every moment (which, if anything, belongs under right mindfulness). It has to do with making your living in a way that doesn’t cause harm.

What we do at work is a crucial determinant in who we are; we identify by our profession: “I am a monk”, “I am a waiter”, “I am a repo man”. It shapes how we spend most of the day, and in doing so, shapes our intention. A right livelihood gives us a sense of meaning, as our job is something that actually helps others. Someone who is a farmer, or a builder, or a doctor gets a palpable sense of meaning and accomplishment in serving others, whereas someone selling ads or poisons, for example, does not.

What Vimalaramsi is talking about is general mindfulness practice. Should a farmer try to be mindful when working? Sure, good on them! But that has nothing to do with the nature of the livelihood as such.

The problem with this is that “right livelihood” becomes divorced from the actual ethical consequences of your job. Anyone can try to be mindful while working for Evil Inc., and smile joyfully while they take pay from impoverished workers and give it to the executives, or keep “noble” silence while trillions of dollars of criminal money are funneled through the shiny bank they work at.

But wrong livelihood is corrosive. It eats your soul. It turns what should be a source of joy and meaning into a life-sapping dread. Once you get used to the money and the trappings, you start to ask yourself, “why am I doing this?” “How is this making the world a better place?” This is, of course, why modern corporations are full of internal motivational messaging, trying to keep their workers happily ignoring the consequences of what they are doing.

And let me be clear, this is by no means separate from the modern mindfulness movement. On the contrary, mindfulness training is frequently used in corporations for precisely this purpose. Employees are distressed, unfocused, unhappy? Let’s get them practicing mindfulness, that’ll help them to stay on track! CEOs are taught mindfulness so they will have the confidence to sack workers. Soldiers are taught mindfulness to help them get back to war.

So when we see that the Buddha did not emphasize being mindful while at work, but instead, emphasized understanding the harmful moral consequences of one’s work, this is not something to be dismissed lightly. It is something to be reflected on deeply, for the teachings of the Buddha are profound. They have meanings and nuances that last, that resonate, that fit in on a deeper level that is not always apparent on the surface.

18 Likes

With due respect, I am accepting your explanation of Right livelihood. I agree that the ones living profession should not cause harm to others.

I have a humble last question, if a person is by birth have a body not supportive to take up any work and he is completely dependent on family/relatives/others. For such persons how Right Livelihood is applicable?

I created a new thread to discuss Right livelihood, as it is side tracking actual thread title. Please answer in thread

4 Likes

“baby doomers”

In the article, Mann says that doomers have been tricked by Russian disinformation. I can’t find any information on this. Does anyone know of any proper research on this point?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2018/03/01/congress-russians-trolls-sought-to-inflame-u-s-debate-on-climate-change-fracking-and-dakota-pipeline/

2 Likes

Thanks! Checking the link, though, it merely has instances of Russian trolls wanting to “inflame” debate on climate change. There is nothing here specifically about Russian trolls encouraging doomerism.

The link reports on findings by a committee that was led by Lamar Smith (R-Tex.) “a longtime advocate for increased oil and gas drilling in the United States [who] counts the industry as one of his biggest political benefactors … [and had] questioned the veracity of climate science.”

The aim of the Russian trolls is to promote chaos by inflaming all sides of the debate. It is a dangerous trend, for sure, but this particular example seems rather lame.

One such post from the Internet Research Agency account “Born Liberal” — appearing on both Facebook and Instagram — highlighted how oil giants reaped billions of dollars in profits last year as public schools lacked funding.

Which is, of course, true.

Republicans on the House’s top science panel say that Russian posts sought to link climate change to catastrophic weather events

Again, also true.

If this is the best that a denialist Republican from Texas with all the resources of the US Government can come up with, it is oddly underwhelming.

1 Like

That’s not a bug, Bhante… that’s a feature!

Almost all government, corporate and NGO propaganda units these days deploy Nudge theory targeted at particular user groups via Social Media to bring about the desired change.

One important component of social media is the idea that featured information feeds will reinforce preferences of the user. People have a tendency to select and interpret information for all types of issues, including scientific ones, that supports their existing viewpoints (Yeo, Xenos, Brossard, & Scheufele, 2015). Scholars are concerned this process is exacerbated in the online media environment, in which users can personalize their information feeds by following, liking, and sharing information from other users who are like them, often referred to as an “echo chamber,” in which individuals cluster among like-minded individuals (Sunstein, 2007). Recent evidence shows scientific news users engage in this behavior in social media sites like Facebook and YouTube (Bessi et al., 2016). Algorithms may also augment these processes by relying on users’ preferences to portray future content, further reinforcing the content that users see to be like the content with which they mostly interact (Pariser, 2011).

Is that targeted change of mass behavior going to be for good or for bad? As in the Ajahn Brahm tale … “Who Knows?!”

5 Likes

I started writing a response to this article in these comments, but it got too long, so now it’s another article!

6 Likes

I’ll look for that! I was wondering if you would pick up on the distinction in the WaPo article. I had been just glancing at SC while out and posted that link without comment, but if I had taken my time (which I see I should have – mindful posting!) then I would have qualified that.

I can’t demonstrate this, but I reckon that the Grauniad writer added that detail without being prepared to have it fact-checked, and it was not fact-checked. Or perhaps Mann has an offhand example or two, relayed it because it sound sensational, and the journalist left it in.

I think it’s of far, far less importance than the issue greenwashing, which Mann’s book is really about and which is far more consequential than any foreign trolling. It’s inseparable from consumer culture now. I and virtually everyone I know has bought into it to some degree, but climate reversal can never happen because enough nice people reduce, reuse, recycle, boycott Amazon, buy Priuses and post scary articles on social media. There has to be radical systemic change (like the Green New Deal and the Green Marshall Plan), but it’s being successfully delayed indefinitely in part by successful greenwashing. I suspect the young doomers either see clearly or sense the disingenuousness, and are reacting against the fashionable virtue signalling that passes for climate activism (adults are hypocrites!!) far more than responding to Russian bots.

EDIT: I didn’t realize on first read that you had already written and linked to your article. I thought… I don’t know what I thought. Still getting used to the forum! I’m sort of new.

I am glad to have read it and I suspect I will reflect be reflecting on it. One note though… as suggested in prior paragraph here, while none of can know for sure because it’s not available yet, Mann’s book seems to comprise timely, vital critiques of poor policy and arguments as well as constructive criticism of current reformist policy proposals, and not condescending intergenerational armchair psychologizing. So calling it “fallacious” seems a bit overstated.

Seems like it’s also a friendly challenge to AOC!

2 Likes

2 Likes

Hi Bhante, to make up for posting a link that did not contain the requested info, I will post one that does.

The congressional committee report found that 4% of Russian troll activity was about climate change, and as has been noted in the thread, the primary purpose was to inflame division. To that end, they targeted conservatives with memes such as the ones in the article linked in this post.

Oh, absolutely. And it goes back a long time.

Well, I’m not talking about his book, but about his anti-doomerism. Mann has been anti-doomer for quite some time.

And whenever I see the anti-doomer sentiments, they seem to completely miss the mark.

In the above article, Mann criticizes Thunberg:

“Swedish activist Greta Thunberg echoed the sentiment in her speech to the World Economic Forum, declaring that ‘pretty much nothing has been done’ on climate change.” That one of leading youth activists on climate is falling prey to a certain degree of futility is alarming to Mann. “Not enough has been done, for sure. But to say that nothing has been done is simply false. It is dismissive of the actions that countries, states, cities, companies, and individuals are taking every day to move us off fossil fuels, and neglects the hard data … demonstrating that we are indeed making progress toward decarbonizing the global economy.”

But the quote is out of context, and it misrepresents what Thunberg said. The full quote is:

Pretty much nothing has been done since the global emissions of CO2 has not reduced. If you see it from that aspect, what has concretely been done, if you see it from a bigger perspective, basically nothing … it will require much more than this, this is just the very beginning.

Her point being, not that no action has been taken, but that such action has not resulted in a significant overall reduction in global CO2 emissions. Which is similar to the argument I make, except I focus on global CO2 levels (as emissions tell only part of the story: what matters is the sum of emissions over absorption, and that is accurately measured by the overall CO2 level in the atmosphere.)

Mann goes on to say that China “are going to exceed their [Paris] commitments”. Which is true, but it ignores the fact that in many respects China’s policy is weak and even regressing (new pro-coal policies, phasing out renewable subsidies, etc.) Some good news popped up today, though!

China is complicated!

Berkeley climate scientist David Romps echoes his criticism of doomers:

To those who say we are already doomed and so there is no point to switching away from fossil fuels

Who exactly are these people? I mean, I’m sure they exist, there are all kinds of irrational views out there. But I’ve never met anyone who argues this, nor have I seen any serious advocate.

If you look at the responses to the Guardian article in /r/collapse you’ll see how Mann is alienating people who might even become potential climate activists. I’m not saying you should look at it, nor am I endorsing or encouraging doomerism. I’m encouraging acceptance of the fact that people will have a wide variety of responses to the climate crisis, and that this is normal and reasonable. There is a sense of realism and acceptance among the doomers that is genuinely deeper, I think, than the shallow “hopism” of conventional environmentalists. One person on the thread summed it up:

We made sure young people had no hope so now we’re mad they’re not hopeful

All I’m saying, really, is: meet them on their turf.

Indeed. It’s no accident that the article I link above is from Berkley. There’s a rising sentiment among young progressives in the US to react against the comfortable, boomer gradualist approach to social change, as exemplified by Berkley academics. That attitude is expressed clearly by Mann:

I’m committed to the belief that there will be a moment, perhaps not in the too distant future, where the political winds writ large will be more favorable. I think at that point, we will see the tipping point on climate action

There it is: he is committed to the belief. I’m not. I think this is wishful thinking, the kind of “hundredth monkey” fallacy I’ve heard my entire life from old-school greenies.

I just saw Australia through the worst bushfires in history. Everyone was saying the bushfires would be a tipping point. I didn’t believe them. I pretty much think that when civilization has collapsed and there is one denialist left alive on the planet, they will die gasping of thirst and fire, and with their last breath they will croak out, “But the climate has always been changing!”

The Liberal (read “conservative” for those overseas!) government, which is ranked worst of 57 countries in their response to climate change, is currently favored 54% over 46% for re-election. If you want to persuade me that there’ll be a tipping point, give me a reason, not a belief.

3 Likes

Ha! That’s a good question. The doomer I know is convinced that we have to return to a pre-industrial society, or it’s over. So, this person does get very despondent whenever the conversation comes up, predicting the mass of extinction of most life on earth until I talk them down by pointing out that the world has been trying to make the switch to renewables, etc. The impression I have is that social media has been full of “environmental news and analysis” that focuses on “but that’s not good enough!” messages. As in, “solar power isn’t the solution because you use energy and plastic to manufacture them and did up all those rare earths!” So, these people have been painting themselves into a corner of despair. Their hearts are in the right place; it’s just amazing what social media does to people.

2 Likes

Thanks for the links! While I had a feel for the doomer v boomer debate, I didn’t know much about the details or the origins.

Overall I’m pretty sympathetic to your take. It’s a bad look for Mann to be picking on kids, although I think his anti-doomerism is on surer ground w/r/t to Wallace-Wells and Franzen and their respective highly prominent and influential publishers. I’m not sure how it can be clearly demonstrated those parties dampened climate activism and provoked popular doomerism by (over)emphasizing worst-case scenarios, but but google and social media trends might hold evidence, and anyway it’s a reasonable charge. Were there anything to that charge, then it was an own goal for Wallace-Wells who wanted to get people moving, not give up. Franzen seems genetically a doomer without a genuine science bone in his body and sophisticated readers know that, but a lot of people just understand “the New Yorker says we’re doomed.”

The heart of the issue is responsibility in communicating science that has political implications. It has to be simplified because science has its own language which the general public can’t be expected to learn, so it needs to be translated. A Christian can dispense with a priest and read the Bible themselves, but that’s not analogous to scientists and science journals. And so, whether real or perceived, bias and spin is introduced in translation no matter what – the political charge of the topic ensures that. When there are not just political but existential implications, it becomes even trickier. The communicator – i.e. one who holds some sway or power in the discourse – has to take responsibility for the emotional impact of their words. It’s comparable to bedside manner.

An oncologist could come in a patients room and say, “So we got the results back, and holy moly dude, you might be seriously doomed! All the tests are bad. Like all of them! And check out this x-ray… your tumor is HUUUGE. Are your kids around? Hey kids… come check out your dad’s brain tumor. It’s bananas! And with your dad’s lifestyle, I don’t think he stands much chance of getting better. We all know he’s not going to put up with chemo or change his diet or anything. I guess you could try and get him to change, but honestly… do you think he will?”

If a doctor actually did that, he might very well have his medical license suspended or at least prevented from engaging with patients – even if he was right.

So by this analogy, I’m not convinced hopism, boomerism, optimism, “faith in humanity” etc. is in and of itself bad and must be called out and discredited. For we unenlighteneds, positive thinking generally needs to be encouraged for positive change to happen. I assume Mann to be making a good faith, well-supported argument, and the hopefulness he underpins it with his choice to make. Is he giving false hope? Anyone can say he is, but no one can say for certain. Intuitively, I’m pretty sure that if more people gravitated to the boomer side and fewer people gravitated to the doomer side, positive change would be more likely to happen – assuming the same set of facts. I’m talking about noble lies or well-intended propaganda, I’m talking about attitude independent of facts.

I appreciate your point that hope v despair is a false dichotomy and artifact of Christianity, but the people with the power to stop the CO2 problem mostly live in a Judeo-Christian world and there, hope and despair must be accounted for. I’m not sure pushing a “bare reality” approach actually helps solve the existential problem we face as a world-wide community, even if it helps free the individual. I was also wondering what the Buddhist equivalent of despair v hope would be. My best guess would be the hindrances of doubt & torpor v faith & energy.

I do agree that Mann could be alienating people in his anti-doomerism, however (that reddit sub seems cool). In any political discourse where there is a power dynamic, you only punch up, never down. He’s so used to being a punching bag, he might not grasp how much power he now has. It’s comparable to Hilary Clinton and her “deplorables” gaffe.

Having written all that, I’m not actually satisfied. :face_with_raised_eyebrow: Maybe it’s a dialectical thing… what’s the synthesis of the antitheses of doomerism and boomerism? I get that you’re not encouraging doomerism.

As for gradualism, granting some exceptions, we are all gradualists because gradually is the only way things change barring violence – actual law-violating violence, not rhetorical, and actual violence is forsworn by most everyone on the science side of the debate. Maybe kids refusing to go to school is violent – in a sense they are hurting themselves, holding themselves hostage. Never going to happen tho.

I had seen that China story – interesting! The version I saw was that it was in part politically motivated so as to position China as the anti-America (Trump version). Pretty savvy… it’s certainly going to help their image on the world stage and facilitate the development of their competing pointillist empire, the belt-and-road initiative. Hopefully they really mean it too.

2 Likes

Well, tell 'em from me that I think that sounds nice.

The crucial question, for me, as to whether something is an “-ism” is the standard of proof required. Among the “hopists” we regularly see people speak, as Mann did, that they are “committed to the belief”. That’s an ideology right there.

I’m not committed to any belief. I’m looking for evidence. And when the hopists show me their evidence, it just doesn’t seem convincing.

It’d be interesting to see to what extent this is social media in general, and not just some peoples’ feed. That’s why I was trying to follow up on the “Russian bots fuel doomerism” claim.

I can’t help feeling that there is a false dichotomy between doomersim and denialism. We know for a fact that the richest and most powerful entities (Exxon, Fox, GOP, etc.) have been deliberately lying at an industrial scale to promote denialism, and this has been going on for decades. And the Russians were able to amplify this. But there doesn’t seem to be any comparable scale of promotion of doomerism. A couple of prominent articles and books? A few radical scientists and disaffected environmentalists? How is this a movement? If doomerism has indeed become so prominent based on so little, what does that tell us?

Well, what would happen to a doctor who, when the patient’s prognosis really was fatal, then told the family that they still must have hope? So the family had no time to properly grieve, to say their goodbyes, to spend time in acceptance with their loved ones? That’s what I would want. I don’t want a doctor who lies to me.

Citation required. My opinion, as a monk of twenty-five years, is that this is an assumption, conditioned by Californian pop psychology.

https://www.amazon.com/Bright-Sided-Positive-Thinking-Undermining-America/dp/0312658850

I agree, I don’t think it solves anything. I don’t have any particular theory that one way is going to work or not. I don’t do what I do in order to achieve an end. In fact, I think that calculating your message by how effective you think it will be is also part of the problem. I’m just trying to be honest, that’s all.

Don’t synthesize, avoid the extremes! :wink: Don’t subscribe to an -ism, look for the facts. Believe it or not, every day I look for reasons to have an optimistic view of the future. I just haven’t found them.

Indeed, I’m sure that is a big part of it.

In spite of all the anthropogenic causes, something this might be more likely IMHO…:comet::boom::smile: