IT IS 3 (now 2) MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

I think "crisis overload" is definitely a real phenomenon. I have been reading for decades now about how we are on the verge of one collapse or another. Yet somehow, so far things keep not collapsing, at least not in a way that noticeably affects my comfortable American middle class lifestyle. So as the years go by, I tend to get more and more blasé about each new prediction of doom.

Which isn't to say that I don't believe that the some of the current crises are real. For example I am personally quite convinced that human-caused climate change is real, and it is definitely going to bite us all in the ass, very hard, at some point. Only the timeline of the catastrophe is unclear.

The doomsday clock is just a metaphor that tries to illustrate one particular group's perception of the danger the world currently is in. The "3 minute" value has no useful absolute meaning, it's only meaningful when compared to past positions of the clock.

Mainstream media is definitely crisis-driven, the problem is they focus on the wrong "crises". e.g. if you believed cable news, ISIS is about to destroy the world. Which just distracts everyone from the real threats.

ObjetDart said:

Mainstream media is definitely crisis-driven, the problem is they focus on the wrong "crises". e.g. if you believed cable news, ISIS is about to destroy the world. Which just distracts everyone from the real threats.

Click to expand...

+1. Some might even be cynical enough to suggest that the faux-crises are manufactured for the purpose of distraction from more serious ones. Why, whatever happened to Ebola, anyhow? I was really worried there (right around election time), for a while.

</cynicism>

I think it more about ratings and profit. Politically motivated distractions is giving the media too much credit.

smkettner said:

I think it more about ratings and profit. Politically motivated distractions is giving the media too much credit.

Click to expand...

Now boys, you must stop this bickering.

You know what it is really all about.

+1 for manufactured crises. Wag the Dog anyone? A distraction made up so another political problem can be ignored. or another movie, the James Bond "Tomorrow Never Dies". News outlet creates a situation and then they can report on it.

If unnoticed, will these types of "news" crises become...obsolete? Well, the $$$ tell a different story.

I'm just saying...

smkettner said:

I think it more about ratings and profit. Politically motivated distractions is giving the media too much credit.

Click to expand...

Hit Klein's book or video. Yes, media's about ratings and profit - no doubts there. But there's more going on than that.

I'm dating myself a bit, but I'm reminded of this album/cover/title that I really liked, in the '70s:

• • 

I think it reflects the sentiment/malaise of a large portion of the populace -- both then and now. :-|

AndyH said:

smkettner said:

I think it more about ratings and profit. Politically motivated distractions is giving the media too much credit.

Click to expand...

Hit Klein's book or video. Yes, media's about ratings and profit - no doubts there. But there's more going on than that.

Click to expand...

Six-minute overview

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuyRdJupbvU[/youtube]

Naomi Klein - The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

Click to expand...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg[/youtube]

Book:
http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999

Full documentary

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrpA46YS7P0[/youtube]

ObjetDart said:

I think "crisis overload" is definitely a real phenomenon. I have been reading for decades now about how we are on the verge of one collapse or another. Yet somehow, so far things keep not collapsing, at least not in a way that noticeably affects my comfortable American middle class lifestyle...

Click to expand...

Of course, as the American middle class continues to shrink, the proportion of Americans who will be able to buy their way out of the effects of an environmental catastophy, will also.

mbender said:

...Why, whatever happened to Ebola, anyhow? I was really worried there (right around election time), for a while...

Click to expand...

> 22,500 cases, and > 9,000 deaths so far.

http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/case-counts.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But not a real threat for middle-class people, yet.

Still killing mostly poor people, in poor countries.

So Ebola only gets a fraction of the daily news coverage of a mumps outbreak in Idaho.

Back on -topic:

="ObjetDart"
...The doomsday clock is just a metaphor that tries to illustrate one particular group's perception of the danger the world currently is in. The "3 minute" value has no useful absolute meaning, it's only meaningful when compared to past positions of the clock...

Click to expand...

Why the clock was moved forward, does have useful absolute meaning.

The BAS now considers anthropomorphic climate change a greater risk than Nuclear proliferation.

(OP) The Doomsday clock has been moved forward to its most advanced level in ~three decades, and climate change is now placed first among the risks.

Click to expand...

http://thebulletin.org/timeline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

IMO, they have it right.

I think it's fair to say that Ms. Klein is a partisan, but it's important to note that this "crisis=opportunity" thinking is embraced by both parties at the highest levels. The partisan part likely only comes into play in what policies are pushed through in taking advantage of said crises (real or fabricated):

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mzcbXi1Tkk[/youtube]

Furthermore, in some circles (motivational speaking? new age?), there is an oft-quoted but probably false adage that "the Chinese character for 'crisis' is the combination of those for 'danger' and 'opportunity'." danger = crisis + opportunity: you've probably seen or heard it!

Disclaimer: Although I have heard Ms. Klein speak (in person), I have not read this book. So she may very well point out that it is a tactic used by both "sides", and denounce both of them. As we know, many ills in this world are a result of human -- not necessarily 'partisan' -- weaknesses (love of money, power, status and pleasure being chief among them :-|).

mbender said:

I think it's fair to say that Ms. Klein is a partisan, but it's important to note that this "crisis=opportunity" thinking is embraced by both parties at the highest levels.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

The point of the book/talk/documentary is that Klein shows the origin - from early shock treatment through real-world uses of techniques designed to 'soften' the public and make them more easily...guided...

Yes, it's about political power, profit, the media, and the public - and the government take-overs and other experiments designed to make attaining the former more efficient and effective.

edit... From the book:

That is how the shock doctrine works: the original disaster—the coup, the
terrorist attack, the market meltdown, the war, the tsunami, the hurricane —
puts the entire population into a state of collective shock. The falling
bombs, the bursts of terror, the pounding winds serve to soften up whole societies
much as the blaring music and blows in the torture cells soften up
prisoners. Like the terrorized prisoner who gives up the names of comrades
and renounces his faith, shocked societies often give up things they would
otherwise fiercely protect. Jamar Perry and his fellow evacuees at the Baton
Rouge shelter were supposed to give up their housing projects and public
schools. After the tsunami, the fishing people in Sri Lanka were supposed to
give up their valuable beachfront land to hoteliers. Iraqis, if all had gone according
to plan, were supposed to be so shocked and awed that they would
give up control of their oil reserves, their state companies and their sovereignty
to U.S. military bases and green zones.

Click to expand...

The Shock Doctrine, P17

"...shocked societies often give up things they would otherwise fiercely protect." Like, maybe, the way American citizens gave-up large chunks of their civil rights via the so-called "Patriot Act" after 9/11...

Saying that Klein is a partisan is misleading, in that she is not, IIRC, a capital-D Democrat. She is a progressive with a jaundiced view of both the large US parties.

edatoakrun said:

Why the clock was moved forward, does have useful absolute meaning.

The BAS now considers anthropomorphic climate change a greater risk than Nuclear proliferation.

Click to expand...

That seems relative, by definition.

LeftieBiker said:

Saying that Klein is a partisan is misleading, in that she is not, IIRC, a capital-D Democrat. She is a progressive with a jaundiced view of both the large US parties.

Click to expand...

You're right, and perhaps "progressive" would have been a better word than 'partisan'. She is a journalist after all, and tries to be even-handed, objective and non-partisan in her broad social and economic critiques. But I think it's fair to say that she is left-of-center: she comes from a politically active family and that's part of why she is Canadian/was born in Canada in the first place. Exempli gratia : I saw her speak in Berkeley and the crowd loved her; I doubt she'd receive as warm a welcome or applause (or even invitation) in a "red" venue!

And lest my pointing all of this out be mistaken for antipathy, absolutely not. I really like and respect her, and in no small part because her criticisms and analysis do transcend party lines! (If only more people understood that the real, and largest, "enemies of state" and life similarly transcend party lines, and actually benefit from all of the intramural bickering and back-and-forth... :-\ )

http://globalchallenges.org/wp-content/uploads/12-Risks-with-infinite-impact-full-report-1.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The 12 Risks that threaten human civilisation, as ranked above, in the comprehensive 212 page report:

# 1

Extreme Climate Change

# 2

Nuclear War

edatoakrun said:

The 12 Risks that threaten human civilisation, as ranked above, in the comprehensive 212 page report:

# 1

Extreme Climate Change

# 2

Nuclear War

Click to expand...

Two rather different threats.
Nuclear war would be a crisis, but I'm not sure that the word crisis applies to climate change.

Crisis defined:

Full Definition of CRISIS
1
a : the turning point for better or worse in an acute disease or fever
b : a paroxysmal attack of pain, distress, or disordered function
c : an emotionally significant event or radical change of status in a person's life <a midlife crisis>
2
: the decisive moment (as in a literary plot)
3
a : an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially : one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome <a financial crisis>
b : a situation that has reached a critical phase <the environmental crisis>

Click to expand...

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/crisis

Using definition #3a), mostly, I suggest that there may never be a decisive change in climate. It just might get warmer and warmer, and gradually people will either adapt or die.
There is a distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome, but there may never be a critical phase.

Crisis to me doesn't match a slow decay in livable climate, much as I don't think crisis describes a disease like type 2 diabetes. Or for that matter, a frog in a pot of water gradually being raised to a boil. There may not be a point when we can say "if we don't do something soon, bad things will happen soon". Instead, it just gets hotter and hotter.

MOD NOTE: Some posts moved to snippiness.

WetEV said:

Nuclear war would be a crisis, but I'm not sure that the word crisis applies to climate change.

Click to expand...

It's a crisis for the US Navy. Why? All of their bases are at sea level.

It's a crisis for the citizens of more than 13 towns and villages in Alaska that have been "living in fear" for many years already.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/interactive/2013/may/15/newtok-safer-ground-villagers-nervous

It's a crisis for any number of Pacific island countries.

It's a crisis for the worlds climate refugees. It's a crisis for the countries that can no longer grow enough food for their people.

And it's just the beginning - the very early hours.

AndyH said:

WetEV said:

Nuclear war would be a crisis, but I'm not sure that the word crisis applies to climate change.

Click to expand...

It's a crisis for the US Navy. Why? All of their bases are at sea level.

Click to expand...

Crisis in what way? Sea level rise at Norfolk is ~6 mm per year. Norfolk is a special case, flooding there is as much due to the meteor crater rubble compacting than the oceans rising due to warming, that is at ~3 mm per year. A problem, yes. But a crisis? I don't think so. In twenty years of so, the increase in sea level + the decrease in land level will almost equal the year to year variation caused by variations in the Gulf Stream. 5 inches. Can be a problem, yes, agree. But not a crisis.

http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/epubs/bolide/ground_subsidence.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Look again at the definitions:

"a situation that has reached a critical phase"

Which exact mm of sea level rise is critical? And why?

"an unstable or crucial time or state of affairs in which a decisive change is impending; especially : one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome"

At what exact level of sea level rise does a decisive change happen?

Seems to me that the Navy Base will become less useful over decades, with no decisive change in any given day, month, year, and decade. Crisis is the wrong word. A bad problem, yes, eventually will lead to abandonment of the facility, but that doesn't mean it is a crisis, or ever will become a crisis. Slow problems may not have a crisis, at least until it is far too late to do anything about it.

Humans can deal with crisis problems better than slow problems. Climate change is a slow problem.

WetEV said:

AndyH said:

WetEV said:

Nuclear war would be a crisis, but I'm not sure that the word crisis applies to climate change.

Click to expand...

It's a crisis for the US Navy. Why? All of their bases are at sea level.

Click to expand...

Crisis in what way? Sea level rise at Norfolk is ~6 mm per year.

Click to expand...

You might want to learn a bit about the US Navy before typing. Norfolk is but a single base. Norfolk is NOT the US Navy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7udNMqRmqV8[/youtube]

In the past, sea level has risen a small amount each year. The rate of rise is increasing. How about four inches in two years?
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150224/ncomms7346/pdf/ncomms7346.pdf

The coastal sea levels along the Northeast Coast of North America show significant year-to-year fluctuations in a general upward trend. The analysis of long-term tide gauge records identified an extreme sea-level rise (SLR) event during 2009–10. Within this 2-year period, the coastal sea level north of New York City jumped by 128mm. This magnitude of interannual SLR is unprecedented (a 1-in-850 year event) during the entire history of the tide gauge records.

Click to expand...

Additionally, the Navy is now responsible for a new 'northern ocean' that's opening up. Then there are the climate-change fueled famines, storms, and floods that they (and the rest of our military) respond(s) to. Every single one of the situations we responded to during the nine-years I was stationed at the HQ US Transportation Command (USAF, USA, USN, Coast Guard, Reserves, and national agencies) was by definition a crisis - and in spite of the wars in Bosnia and Iraq, more than 50% of our work was taking care of people affected by climate related crises.


Pretend this is your house, Wet - crisis or not?


It's a crisis that's continuing to get worse and is taking more lives because too many otherwise intelligent "first-world" people are wasting their time fighting rather than solving the problem. :x