1 December 2014

Six Myths About Climate Change that Liberals Rarely Question

Note: The word ‘liberal’ in this article may confuse people in some nations. The word ‘progressive’ has similar meanings. 


Myth #1:  Liberals Are Not In Denial 

“We will not apologize for our way of life” - Barack Obama

The conservative denial of the very fact of climate change looms large in the minds of many liberals.  How, we ask, could people ignore so much solid and unrefuted evidence?   Will they deny the existence of fire as Rome burns once again?  With so much at stake, this denial is maddening, indeed.  But almost never discussed is an unfortunate side-effect of this denial: it has all but insured that any national debate in America will occur in a place where most liberals are not required to challenge any of their own beliefs.  The question has been reduced to a two-sided affair—is it happening or is it not—and liberals are obviously on the right side of that.

If we broadened the debate just a little bit, however, we would see that most liberals have just moved a giant boat-load of denial down-stream, and that this denial is as harmful as that of conservatives.  While the various aspects of liberal denial are my main overall topic, here, and will be addressed in our following five sections, they add up to the belief that we can avoid the most catastrophic levels of climate disruption without changing our fundamental way of life.  This is myth is based on errors that are as profound and basic as the conservative denial of climate change itself.

But before moving on, one more point about liberal and conservative denial: Naomi Klein has suggested that conservative denial may have its roots, it will surprise many liberals, in some pretty clear thinking. [i]  At some level, she has observed, conservatives climate deniers understand that addressing climate change will, in fact, change our way of life, a way of life which conservatives often view as sacred.  This sort of change is so terrifying and unthinkable to them, she argues, that they cut the very possibility of climate change off at its knees:  fighting climate change would force us to change our way of life; our way of life is sacred and cannot be questioned; ergo, climate change cannot be happening.

We have a situation, then, where one half of the population says it is not happening, and the other half says it is happening but fighting it doesn’t have to change our way of life.  Like a dysfunctional and enabling married couple, the bickering and finger-pointing, and anger ensures that nothing has to change and that no one has to actually look deeply at themselves, even as the wheels are falling off the family-life they have co-created.  And so do Democrats and Republicans stay together in this unhappy and unproductive place of emotional self-protection and planetary ruin.


Myth #2:  Republicans are Still More to Blame

“Yes, America does face a cliff — not a fiscal cliff but a set of precipices [including a carbon cliff] we’ll tumble over because the GOP’s obsession over government’s size and spending has obscured them.”  - Robert Reich

It is true that conservative politicians in the United States and Europe have been intent on blocking international climate agreements; but by focusing on these failed agreements, which only require a baby-step in the right direction, liberals obliquely side-step the actual cause of global warming—namely, burning fossil fuels.  The denial of climate change isn’t responsible for the fact that we, in the United States, are responsible for about one quarter of all current emissions if you include the industrial products we consume (and an even greater percentage of all emissions over time), even though we make up only 6% of the world’s population.  Our high-consumption lifestyles are responsible for this.  Republicans do not emit an appreciably larger amount of carbon dioxide than Democrats.

Because pumping gasoline is our most direct connection to the burning of fossil fuels, most Americans overemphasize the significance of what sort of car we drive and many liberals might proudly point to their small economical cars or undersized SUVs.  While the transportation sector is responsible for a lot of our emissions, the carbon footprint of any one individual has much more to do with his or her overall levels of consumption of all kinds—the travel (especially on airplanes), the hotels and restaurants, the size and number of homes, the computers and other electronics, the recreational equipment and gear, the food, the clothes, and all the other goods, services, and amenities that accompany an affluent life.  It turns out that the best predictor of someone’s carbon footprint is income.  This is true whether you are comparing yourself to other Americans or to other people around the world.  Middle-class American professionals, academics, and business-people are among the world’s greatest carbon emitters and, as a group, are more responsible than any other single group for global warming, especially if we focus on discretionary consumption.  Accepting the fact of climate change, but then jetting off to the tropics, adding another oversized television to the collection, or buying a new Subaru involves a tremendous amount of denial.  There are no carbon offsets for ranting and raving about conservative climate-change deniers.

Myth #3:  Renewable Energy Can Replace Fossil Fuels

“We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.” – Barack Obama

This is a hugely important point.  Everything else hinges on the myth that we might live a lifestyle similar to our current one powered by wind, solar, and biofuels.  Like the conservative belief that climate change cannot be happening, liberals believe that renewable energy must be a suitable replacement.  Neither view is particularly concerned with the evidence.

Conventional wisdom among American liberals assures us that we would be well on our way to a clean, green, low-carbon, renewable energy future were it not for the lobbying efforts of big oil companies and their Republican allies.  The truth is far more inconvenient than this: it will be all but impossible for our current level of consumption to be powered by anything but fossil fuels.  The liberal belief that energy sources such as wind, solar, and biofuels can replace oil, natural gas, and coal is a mirror image of the conservative denial of climate change: in both cases an overriding belief about the way the world works, or should work, is generally far stronger than any evidence one might present.  Denial is the biggest game in town.  Denial, as well as a misunderstanding about some fundamental features of energy, is what allows someone like Bill Gates assume that “an energy miracle” will be created with enough R & D.  Unfortunately, the lessons of microprocessors do not teach us anything about replacing oil, coal, and natural gas.

It is of course true that solar panels and wind turbines can create electricity, and that ethanol and bio-diesel can  power many of our vehicles, and this does lend a good bit of credibility to the claim that a broader transition should be possible—if we can only muster the political will and finance the necessary research.  But this view fails to take into account both the limitations of renewable energy and the very specific qualities of the fossil fuels around which we’ve built our way of life.  The myth that alternative sources of energy are perfectly capable of replacing fossil fuels and thus of maintaining our current way of life receives widespread support from our President to leading public intellectuals to most mainstream journalists, and receives additional backing from our self-image as a people so ingenious that there are no limits to what we can accomplish.  That fossil fuels have provided us with a one-time burst of unrepeatable energy and affluence (and ecological peril) flies in the face of nearly all the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves.  Just starting to dispel this myth requires that I go into the issue a bit more deeply and at greater length.

Because we have come to take the power and energy-concentration of fossil fuels for granted, and see our current lifestyle as normal, it is easy to ignore the way the average citizens of industrialized societies have an unprecedented amount of energy at their disposal.  Consider this for a moment: a single $3 gallon of gasoline provides the equivalent of about 80 days of hard manual labor.  Fill up your 15 gallon gas tank in your car, and you’ve just bought the same amount of energy that would take over three years of unremitting manual labor to reproduce.  Americans use more energy in a month than most of our great-grandparents used during their whole lifetime.  We live at a level, today, that in previous days could have only been supported by about 150 slaves for every American—though even that understates it, because we are at the same time beneficiaries of a societal infrastructure that is also only possible to create if we have seemingly limitless quantities of lightweight, relatively stable, easily transportable, and extremely inexpensive ready-to-burn fuel like oil or coal.

A single, small, and easily portable gallon of oil is the product of nearly 100 tons of surface-forming algae (imagine 5 dump trucks full of the stuff), which first collected enormous amounts of solar radiation before it was condensed, distilled, and pressure cooked for a half-billion years—and all at no cost to the humans who have come to depend on this concentrated energy.  There is no reason why we should be able to manufacture at a reasonable cost anything comparable.  And when we look at the specific qualities of renewable energy with any degree of detail we quickly see that we have not.  Currently only about a half of a percent of the total energy used in the United States is generated by wind, solar, biofuels, or geothermal heat.   The global total is not much higher, despite the much touted efforts in Germany, Spain, and now China.  In 2013, 1.1% of the world’s total energy was provided by wind and only 0.2% by solar.[ii]  As these low numbers suggest, one of the major limitations of renewable energy has to do with scale, whether we see this as a limitation in renewable energy itself, or remind ourselves that the expectations that fossil fuels have helped establish are unrealistic and unsustainable.

University of California physics professor Tom Murphy has provided detailed calculations about many of the issues of energy scale in his blog, “Do the Math.”  With the numbers adding up, we are no longer able to wave the magic wand of our faith in our own ingenuity and declare the solar future would be here, but for those who refuse to give in the funding it is due.  Consider a few representative examples: most of us have, for instance, heard at some point the sort of figure telling us that enough sun strikes the Earth every 104 minutes to power the entire world for a year.  But this only sounds good if you don’t perform any follow-up calculations.  As Murphy puts it,

“As reassuring as this picture is, the photovoltaic area [required] represents more than all the paved area in the world. This troubles me. I’ve criss-crossed the country many times now, and believe me, there is a lot of pavement. The paved infrastructure reflects a tremendous investment that took decades to build. And we’re talking about asphalt and concrete here: not high-tech semiconductor. I truly have a hard time grasping the scale such a photovoltaic deployment would represent.  And I’m not even addressing storage here.” [iii]

In another post,[iv] Murphy calculates that a battery capable of storing this electricity in the U.S. alone (otherwise no electricity at night or during cloudy or windless spells) would require about three times as much lead as geologists estimate may exist in all reserves, most of which remain unknown.  If you count only the lead that we’ve actually discovered, Murphy explains, we only have 2% of the lead available for our national battery project.  The number are even more disheartening if you try to substitute lithium ion or other systems now only in the research phase.  The same story holds true for just about all the sources that even well-informed people assume are ready to replace fossil fuels, and which pundits will rattle off in an impressively long list with impressive sounding numbers of kilowatt hours produced.  Add them all up–even increase the efficiency to unanticipated levels and assume a limitless budget–and you will naturally have some big-sounding numbers; but then compare them to our current energy appetite, and you quickly see that we still run out of space, vital minerals and other raw materials, and in the meantime would probably have strip-mined a great deal of precious farmland, changed the earth’s wind patterns, and have affected the weather or other ecosystems in ways not yet imagined.

But the most significant limitation of fossil fuel’s alleged clean, green replacements has to do with the laws of physics and the way energy, itself, works.  A brief review of the way energy does what we want it to do will also help us see why it takes so many solar panels or wind turbines to do the work that a pickup truck full of coal or a small tank of crude oil can currently accomplish without breaking a sweat.  When someone tells us of the fantastic amounts of solar radiation that beats down on the Earth each day, we are being given a meaningless fact.  Energy doesn’t do work; only concentrated energy does work, and only while it is going from its concentrated state to a diffuse state—sort of like when you let go of a balloon and it flies around the room until its pressurized (or concentrated) air has joined the remaining more diffuse air in the room.

When we build wind turbines and solar panels, or grow plants that can be used for biofuels, we are “manually” concentrating the diffuse energy of the sun or in the wind—a task, not incidentally, that requires a good deal of energy.  The reason why these efforts, as impressive as they are, pale in relationship to fossil fuels has to do simply with the fact that we are attempting to do by way of a some clever engineering and manufacturing (and a considerable amount of energy) what the geology of the Earth did for free, but, of course, over a period of half a billion years with the immense pressures of the planet’s shifting tectonic plates or a hundred million years of sedimentation helping us out.  The “normal” society all of us have grown up with is a product of this one-time burst of a pre-concentrated, ready-to-burn fuel source.  It has provided us with countless wonders; but used without limits, it is threatening all life as we know it.


Myth 4: The Coming “Knowledge Economy” Will be a Low-Energy Economy

“The basic economic resource – the means of production – is no longer capital, nor natural resources, nor labor. It is and will be knowledge.”  – Peter Drucker

“The economy of the last century was primarily based on natural resources, industrial machines and manual labor. . . . Today’s economy is very different. It is based primarily on knowledge and ideas — resources that are renewable and available to everyone.”  – Mark Zuckerberg

A “low energy knowledge economy,” when promised by powerful people like Barack Obama, Bill Gates, or Mark Zuckerberg, may still our fears about our current ecological trajectory.  At a gut level this vision of the future may match the direct experience of many middle-class American liberals.  Your father worked in a smelting factory; you spend your day behind a laptop computer, which can, in fact, be run on a very small amount of electricity.  Your carbon footprint must be lower, right?  Companies like Apple and Microsoft round out this hopeful fantasy with their clever and inspiring advertisements featuring children in Africa or China joining this global knowledge economy as they crowd cheerfully around a computer in some picturesque straw-hut school room.

But there’s a big problem with this picture.  This global economy may seem like it needs little more than an army of creative innovators and entrepreneurs tapping blithely on laptop computers at the local Starbucks.  But the real global economy still requires a growing fleet of container ships—and, of course, all the iron and steel used to build them, all the excavators used to mine it, all the asphalt needed to pave more of the world.  It needs a bigger and bigger fleet of UPS trucks and Fed Ex airplanes filling the skies with more and more carbon dioxide, it needs more paper, more plastic, more nickel, copper, and lead.  It requires food, bottled water, and of course lots and lots of coffee.  And more oil, coal, and natural gas.  As Juliet Schor reports, each American consumer requires “132,000 pounds of oil, sand, grain, iron ore, coal and wood” to maintain our current lifestyle each year.  That adds up to “an eye-popping 362 pounds a day.”[v]  And the gleeful African kids that Apple asks us to imagine joining the global economy?   They are far more likely to slave away in a gold mine or sift through junk hauled across the Atlantic looking for recyclable materials, than they are to be device-sporting global entrepreneurs.  The Microsoft ads are designed for us, not them.  Meanwhile, the numbers Schor reports are not going down in the age of “the global knowledge economy,” a term which should be consigned to history’s dustbin of misleading marketing slogans.

The “dematerialized labor” that accounts for the daily toil of the American middle class is, in fact, the clerical, management and promotional sector of an industrial machine that is still as energy-intensive and material-based as it ever was.   Only now, much of the sooty and smelly part has been off-shored to places far, far away from the people who talk hopefully about a coming global knowledge economy.  We like to pretend that the rest of the world can live like us, and we have certainly done our best to advertise, loan, seduce, and threaten people across the world to adopt our style, our values, and our wants.   But someone still has to do the smelting, the welding, the sorting, and run the ceaseless production lines.  And, moreover, if everyone lived like we do, took our vacations, drove our cars, ate our food, lived in our houses, filled them with oversized TVs and the endless array of throwaway gadgetry, the world would use four times as much energy and emit nearly four times as much carbon dioxide as it does now.  If even half the world’s population were to consume like we do, we would have long since barreled by the ecological point of no-return.

Economists speak reverently of a decoupling between economic growth and carbon emissions, but this decoupling is occurring at a far slower rate than the economy is growing.  There has never been any global economic growth that is not also accompanied by increased energy use and carbon emissions.  The onlyyearly decreases in emissions ever recorded have come during massive recessions.

Myth 5: We can Reverse Global Warming Without Changing our Current Lifestyles

“Saving the planet would be cheap; it might even be free. . . . [It] would have hardly any negative effect   on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth” – Paul Krugman

The upshot of the previous sections is that the comforts, luxuries, privileges, and pleasures that we tell ourselves are necessary for a happy or satisfying life are the most significant cause of global warming and that unless we quickly learn to organize our lives around another set of pleasures and satisfactions, it is extremely unlikely that our children or grandchildren will inherit a livable planet.  Because we are falsely reassured by liberal leaders that we can fight climate change without any inconvenience, it bears repeating this seldom spoken truth.  In order to adequately address climate change, people in rich industrial nations will have to reduce current levels of consumption to levels few are prepared to consider.  This truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.[vi]

Global warming is not complicated: it is caused mainly by burning fossil fuels; fossil fuels are burned in the greatest quantity by wealthy people and nations and for the products they buy and use.  The larger the reach of a middle-class global society, the more carbon emissions there have been.  While conservatives deny the science of global warming, liberals deny the only real solution to preventing its most horrific consequences—using less and powering down, perhaps starting with the global leaders in style and taste (as well as emissions), the American middle-class.  In the meantime we continue to pump more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere with each passing year.


Myth 6: There is Nothing I Can Do.

The problem is daunting; making changes can be difficult.[vii]  But not only can you do something, you can’t not do anything.  Either you will continue to buy, use, and consume as if there is no tomorrow; or you will make substantial changes to the way you live.  Both choices are “doing something.”   Either you will emit far more CO2 than people in most parts of the globe; or you will bring your carbon footprint to an equitable level.  Either you will turn away, ignore the warnings, bury your head in the sand; or you will begin to take a strong stance on perhaps the most significant moral challenge in the history of humanity.  Either you will be a willing party to the most destructive thing humans have ever done; or you will resist the wants, the beliefs, and the expectations that are as important to a consumption-based global economy as the fossil fuels that power it.   As Americans we have already done just about everything possible to bring the planet to the brink of what scientists are now calling “the sixth great extinction.”  We can either keep on doing more of the same; or we can work to undo the damage we have done and from which we have most benefitted.

Please let us know your thoughts and reactions in the comments section below. Written by Erik Lindberg. Originall published in Transition Milwaukee.


[i] http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

[ii] http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/about-bp/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-world-energy.html

[iii]  http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/09/dont-be-a-pv-efficiency-snob/#sthash.C1jCJK3V.dpuf).

[iv] http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/

[v] Schor, Juliet.  Plentitude, p. 44.

[vi] As Flannery O’Connor would say.

[vii] Making changes is especially difficult to do alone.  Fortunately, community efforts such as Transition Towns are popping up around the globe, giving people both practical help and the emotional support necessary to tackle such a large task.



pintada says:

“… to bring the planet to the brink of what scientists are now calling “the sixth great extinction.”

It all made sense until this sentence. BRINK? The author: 1. made a typo; 2. doesn’t know the meaning of the word; 3. does not understand our predicament; 4. made a calculated decision to lie (just like the other lying liberals) thus making the “There is Nothing I Can Do” paragraph more reasonable sounding to the uninitiated.

brink |briNGk|
an extreme edge of land before a steep or vertical slope: the brink of the cliffs.
• a point at which something, typically something unwelcome, is about to happen; the verge:

I have heard better – more plausible – reasons to do something:
Wendell Barry ( http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-wendell-berry-poet-prophet/ ) just says “That isn’t the right question! The question is what can i do?”

Derrick Jenson has written entire books on the helplessness of “hope”

Brink! My god, it really set me off. LOL

I agree with your disappointment over the treatment of Myth #6, pintada. Besides vastly understating the severity of our crises, it only discusses personal reduction in consumption, not the organized resistance necessary to stop the destructive system of industrial civilization. For a much more thorough treatment of “what I can do”, read the Deep Green Resistance strategy of Decisive Ecological Warfare. O

Otherwise, though, this piece is an excellent analysis!

pintada says:

When despair for the world grows in me and I wake in the middle of the night at the least sound in fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be, I go and lie down where the wood drake rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds. I come into the peace of wild things who do not tax their lives with forethought of grief. I come into the presence of still water. And I feel above me the day-blind stars waiting with their light. For a time I rest in the grace of the world and am free.

- Wendell Barry

kjmcl says:

Pintada, I appreciate your thoughts on despair. I would,however, suggest we need to reflect on the forms of COLLECTIVE action we need to consider if we accept that systemic breakdown is at least a plausible scenario, if not inevitable. In other words, what should we be doing now to prepare our communities to respond creatively to a period of profound turbulence and uncertainty? Or, as one scholar here in Australia recently put it, how do we ‘brace for collapse’?

‘To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.’
Raymond Williams, Sources of Hope, 1989

kjmcl says:

I have serious misgivings about the author’s response to Myth #6. Individual life-style changes are important for personal integrity but do not address global systemic issues. Only COLLECTIVE action can make a difference – it’s what we do TOGETHER that matters. The critical question is what forms of collective action are feasible and relevant within the timeframe now available, given the system lag effects of the damage we have already done.

Russell Edwards says:

I really fear myth #3 is not a myth at all. I fear it, because if it is not a myth then the planet may be doomed to permanent human domination to an extent that far exceeds even our current level of excess.

If you think it’s impossible to cover most of the Earth’s surface with solar energy generation units, take a look around you. Nature has done exactly that, with photosynthesis. And guess what humans are working on? Artificial photosynthesis. It produces concentrated fuel (e.g. hydrogen or ethanol) and/or food (e.g starch). That could make AP infrastructure financially a higher yielding land use than agriculture, rendering it obselete. And it could also make use of land that is currently really only left for “conservation” because it’s no good for agriculture. And it could make use of ocean surfaces also.

Do you see where I’m going with that? Much or all of the Earth’s surface covered with these things. Underneath them a mega city housing only one species, human beings, plus all of the infrastructure needed to artificially meet all so-called ecosystem services. Permanently. All powered by an immense, inexhaustible source of energy.

Hopefully we don’t figure out how to do this — yes, people are trying, thinking it’s a good thing, thinking we can use the technology wisely and with restraint, Ha! — because if it’s possible, it will be profitable and therefore, given the proven ruthlessness of our culture, it will happen.

sharon lawrence says:

Your thoughts are disturbing; thank you for the jolt.
Reminds me of ‘Brave New World’, a book that made me sick, just as your phrase ‘doomed to permanent human domination’ does.

I just imagine a simpler, kinder world. If others could, too, maybe we will see the ‘how’ and work on it. My neighbour cannot even imagine that, but can picture having ‘more’ quite easily.

Maybe we need a better imagination – we already have a reason to change.

Kim Hill says:

I don’t feel like the focus on individual carbon footprint is helpful at all, it’s just another liberal myth, that lifestyle change can make a difference. The US military spends something like $60million an hour, which is many orders of magnitude more than any individual could consume, so any changes to anyone’s lifestyle are meaningless while the US military still exists. Better to focus on the footprint of global civilization as a whole, which needs to be zero to be truly sustainable. Instead of reducing consumption, let’s aim to stop production, which is consuming the living world, and converting it into commodities.

BARC says:

substantial changes are not feasible when you are forcibly required to maintain the same lifestyle and wage slavery prevents people from making changes (like not driving to work, or not profiting from energy intensive industry). If there is going to be a “moratorium” on harmful practices, there needs to be a subsequent “subsidizing” or solidarity program for the population so they can have a basic income(mutual aid) while they learn how to live in a post-civ world. that requires…?

Anarco Soma says:

I think our per capita emissions in Australia are up in the mid twenties – maybe they have not included exports. I think its good you are writing this stuff but especially in Australia,transformation could be close if people focused on the pressure points. The overall economic growth paradigm and consumption culture is important but ultimately we have to stop consuming the types of shit that is served up rather than stop consuming although some austerity will be needed. What happens if we regulate away petroleum based plastics that are not biodegrading, once you do that the oil/petrol chemical paradigm collapses. In Australia industry uses over 50% of electricity and in many cases is given this for less than it costs to make so they are globally competitive, most of it is for stuff we shouldn’t be making anymore. In WA the Synergy power retailer is not making enough from ripping off its residential and business consumers to pay this subsidy, so now the WA govt is going to pay it directly. In most industrialized western nations you are subsidising big industry to pollute, we are paying for climate change – I’m not talking about the tax breaks and direct start up subsidises but ongoing cheaper than it costs to make electricity. Once that subsidy ends the wheels fall off. Renewables are then left with a challenge that is half to a third the size. We need to have product standards that say – this is chemically compatible with the earth, even the solar panels and electric cars need to reach a high standard and activists need to drive that standard. If you really embrace the environment at a technological level with no half measures, our technology can do this, its the fact that the system we have doesn’t want to change because it is not profitable to do so – its going to have to be forced, the weather going crazy will be enough but the vanguard of the environment movement will need to apply enough pressure so the world is not full of lithium batteries in 30 years time.

Alison says:

Thank you for this article. Business as Usual (BaU) can’t continue and we have had the warnings for more than 4 decades. If something isn’t sustainable it must end, by definition. BaU isn’t sustainable. I don’t know the solution, but I believe it will have to be a suite of tools including individual and organised action (as the author suggests), technology, etc., etc. There is much happening around the globe (see e.g. Paul Hawkins “Blessed Unrest”) and localisation seems to me to be a promising solution, but only if developed, implemented and governed locally. These examples may be the best tool local leaders have to take their communities forward, but how to alert leaders to the fact their leadership is needed i.e. get the message across. Compassion fatigue, anxiety, depression are known to be the outcomes of the cold, hard facts message. Empowering people with what has come to be known as Education for Sustainability rather than simply about sustainability is needed and there are many working on how to best do this. Experiencing localised solutions seems to hold the best learning and not everyone seems to need to know the why in this situation i.e. it is enough to experience the rewards of community, connection, less stuff, growing food, sharing economy, etc. But while we are all busily engaged in driving the economic machine, a social construct that now governs us rather than us it (much more frightening than artificial intelligence controlling us!) there are not enough of us to get the critical mass/social norm/whatever we want to call it, to have real impact for change. Will it take a catastrophic catalyst and how soon might that be? I don’t know so I am heading into the garden…

Jenni Storytree says:

I love your work!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>