Tuesday, July 5, 2022

Overlooking Overshoot

As most of you know, I am a big admirer of the Christian group known as the Bruderhof and am a regular reader of Plough Quarterly, their excellent publication. However, I have both appreciation for and some serious questions about their Summer 2022 issue titled Hope in Apocalypse

“Hoping for Doomsday”

Peter Mommsen, the great-grandson of Eberhard Arnold (1913~82) who was the founder of the Bruderhof, is the able editor of Plough Quarterly. I have often been helpfully informed and challenged by his perceptive editorials.

I was dissatisfied, though, with his six-page editorial in the current issue of Plough. It is titled, “Hoping for Doomsday: The times are troubled. That’s why we need the promise of apocalypse.”

While Mommsen writes some about the possible disastrous effects of climate change, he seems to think that it is less a threat to humanity than the potential destruction of earthly life as we know it because of nuclear war.

After briefly looking at those two apocalyptic threats, he writes,

one day homo sapiens will go extinct, with or without our help through carbon emissions or nuclear war, and the game will be over. At least that is what current scientific models foretell. Perhaps it will be at the next round of global glaciation, predicted in a hundred millennia or so . . . .

What he goes on to say in that paragraph is what I learned in the 1960s. But, and this was my dissatisfaction, he makes no reference to what some scientists (and others) have said in recent years about ecological overshoot.

In passing, Mommsen does mention Don’t Look Up! the movie I wrote about in my Jan. 25 blog post (see here), but he makes no reference at all to the frightening phenomenon of overshoot.

Ecological overshoot occurs when human demands exceed what the earth’s biosphere can provide through its capacity for renewal. According to some ecological scientists, the industrial world is nearing the overshoot apex and will soon begin to collapse, an irreversible phenomenon.

For a good introduction to this matter, see Michael Dowd’s video Overshoot in a Nutshell: Understanding Our Predicament and also YouTube talks (such as this one) by William Rees, professor emeritus of British Columbia University. These articulate what some scientistic models are now foretelling.

(Rees, b. 1943, is primarily known for creating the ecological footprint concept. Wikipedia, here, gives a good, brief introduction to Rees and his academic work.)

Mommsen’s failure to make any reference to the concept of ecological overshoot and the work of thinkers such as Dowd and Rees is a major deficiency in his editorial.

Why is Overshoot Overlooked?

A main reason is doubtlessly unawareness. In spite of valiant efforts by Dowd, Rees, and others to warn us of the perils of overshoot/collapse, there is little public awareness of that real and present danger.

My “Google alert” for overshoot in recent weeks has yielded surprisingly few “hits.” There are some pertinent articles found at EcoWatch (such as here), but these important essays are read by relatively few people.

Most, I’m afraid, don’t know (and don’t care?) about what is likely to happen before the end of the present century.

But some are aware (to varying degrees) of overshoot but find the idea unbearable. Some who do know at least something about overshoot just don’t want to think about it, because it is too upsetting to consider.

Perhaps a major reason overshoot is overlooked by many, especially serious Christian thinkers such as Mommsen, is that the possibility of such is unthinkable.

Earlier this year, Brian McLaren’s new book Do I Stay Christian? was published. While he does not say a lot about overshoot, he does mention the concept and makes a passing reference to Michael Dowd.

The seventh chapter of McLaren’s scintillating book deals with “Christianity’s great wall of bias, which includes the “tendency to reject anything that doesn’t fit in with our current understanding, paradigm, belief system, or worldview” (p. 67).

Perhaps this helps us understand Mommsen’s lack of serious attention to overshoot.

Much more needs to be said about this—and I plan to write at least a little more about it soon.

25 comments:

  1. Quite honestly, I don't think I'd seen the word "overshoot" with regard to the environment, although certainly I'm aware of the reality of what we're doing to our environment. I've thought for a very long time that it is the most intractable social problem of all our social problems because it is--to oversimplify--in everybody's interest and nobody's interest to solve. The "tragedy of the commons." You already know how pessimistic I am regarding the current directions of the USAmerica and the world. My only hope is that the doomsayers like me are missing something or the chaos of history takes some unexpected and very good turns. Thanks for today's blog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Anton, and for helping me to learn something that I had missed up to this point.

      Thanks to you, I learned that "In economic science, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use, act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action." And, "In environmental science, the 'tragedy of the commons' is often cited in connection with sustainable development, meshing economic growth and environmental protection, as well as in the debate over global warming." (Wikipedia)

      From what I can tell, you probably haven't missed anything--other than maybe Michael Dowd's calm and peaceful acceptance of the upcoming collapse of the world as we know it. See some of what he has posted in his Post-doom series of videos at this link: https://postdoom.com/

      Delete
  2. Wow, Leroy, the dilemma you pose is apocalyptic in the sense that our own sureties "reveal" our overconfidence in "knowing" how "right" we are about our beliefs and how unaware, or unpracticed, we are in the mandate to examine all matters comprehensively and cooperatively in the "here and now" and with an eye to a possible human future short of an absolute apocalyptic end of days. This is about reality as we could know and experience it more consciously. Overshoot is the stuff of science fiction, but science fiction deals with our greatest collective fears. For example, why in SF does the theme, "Alien invaders to Planet Earth deploy vast hypertechnical machines to extract all mineral resources from the planet -- indeed, the planet itself?" a recurrent novelistic and cinematic theme? (Or, "once we're out of stuff, we must seek new energy sources elsewhere in the cosmos," so that we become the extractive invaders? But wait! isn't that reality already--is this not a parable to our own actual ultramodern, Promethean hypertechnical activities already? Aye, for most folk, it is inconceivable, though, but necessarily apocalyptic.

    MacLaren's "great wall of bias" seems right. Our minds are "made up" in ways that preclude constructive responses.

    I offer a snippet or two from the "Planetary Service: A Way into the Third Millennium" (1978, 1990) by Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy (1886-1973); he argued for a new understanding of "planetary" reality (this is all we've got!) and the need for a new conception and deployment of planetary service (along the lines of his public service program development in the Weimar Republic and, as an immigrant to the 1930s US, a cofounder of camps later reconceived as the Civilian Conservation Corps and even the Peace Corps):
    (1) "Future society is threatened with the fate of metamorphosing, on the Doomsday of history, into a heap of seconds and days from an engagement calendar. Opposing this threat is the weak, and unpresupposing person who has stayed sufficiently free from engagement calendars to sign, "One doesn't need to know more." Two incompatible types of time are colliding here." Might this apply to the "wall of bias"?
    (2) "The child of the planet makes bold to live in a different time, in a time of unknowing "not yet." Is it possible that both times should exist side by side, that both have to exist?"

    ERH argued for the humility of openness on the way to insisting humanity can do something about the future--I take this to be well in line with Jesus' teachings on the "New Order", the Kingdom, the Realm of Christ. Audacious, some would say idealistic, his take on planetary and transformative service nonetheless suggested a comprehensive (universal) plan of service in the Spirit. We would have to learn to speak to one another better, though, and to deliver--together--on our speech through our life commitments. We need to practice a divinely directed "overshoot" in radical stewardship. My take? As long as "God's people" have such low expectations--a negative "expectation bias"--can we convincingly do our proper part in making a better future? Why are we content with such unawareness as you point out?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, Jerry, for your substantial comments. But overshoot as it is being analyzed by Dowd, Rees, and others is not about science fiction but about scientific models of what is happening to planet earth right now.

      With regard to "alien invaders," the 20th chapter of McLaren's book begins with his writing about the [Enrico] Fermi paradox: "If the universe is as old and as vast as it appears to be, Fermi wondered, why haven't we been visited by alien life forms?" The he (McLaren) writes, "Perhaps every intelligent species masters the skills of exploiting its planet before it develops the wisdom to preserve its planet. Perhaps every successful species falls victim to overshoot and collapse" (p. 150). And then in the endnote related to this last sentence, McLaren introduces the books "Overshoot" (1982) by William Catton and "Collapse" (rev. ed., 2011) by Jared Diamond.

      Thanks for the information about Rosenstock-Huessy and his book "Planetary Service," which I don't remember hearing of before.

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the probing response, Leroy.
      I like the Maclaren comment. It and your comments in response made me wonder: are we behaviorally, functionally, as aliens when we reject God-given stewardship and hustle towards extractive and destructive activities?

      And, in line with your point, is it theologically justifiable to disregard the revelatory (not only informative but prophetic) role of scientific research? (Why should anyone doubt that possible value in science?) This matter rankles; how many of the public and of our "leaders" have treated the scientific findings as if they were science fiction? It "seems" easy to confute or refute computer "models" and prognostications about the planetary climate. But how many of the confuters/refuters look routinely and habitually at the weather forecasts and reports? Consider their cumulative analytical (prophetic?) force if compiled and expertly studied over time, which they have.

      I guess my point related to a conviction that our "humanities" learning, expression and presentations, even including science fiction, may and often do interact with or interrogate our supposedly "common sense" interpretations of the world. That puts our "common sense" politically-motivated assurances too often (and so stridently) in the Sci-Fi genre.

      Mainline academics, by the way, often dismissed Rosenstock-Huessy, who confessed himself to be "an impure thinker" and thus not only distasteful but too hard to categorize and interpret according to professional conventions. I find his strongest contributions to be powerful, certainly; his less compelling work nonetheless urges thoughtful reflection. He was one of the thousands of brilliant refugees from Germany in the 1930s who found a home and opportunities to serve as immigrants to the United States. The place to find out more about him is here:https://www.erhfund.org/

      Delete
  3. Thinking Friend Gayle June (and yes, June is his last name) sent me this brief email message:

    "Thank you for this essay, I will do some digging on your links. Have you read "Ministry of the Future"? A great book dealing with many issues you bring up."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Gayle, for your comments/question. Earlier this year I heard about Kim Stanley Robinson's 2017 "cli-fi" novel "New York 2040" and was interested in reading it--until I saw that it was 625 pages long. His book that you mentioned, published in 2020, also is one I would like to read, but it is 575 pages long, so I probably won't tackle it either--but thanks for telling me about it. If you have some specific comments or quotes you could share from the latter, I would like to hear them.

      Delete
  4. Here are comments from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "I used to read 'The Plough,' but I found the apocalyptic aspect too weighty for me. I feel more hopeful for some of the same reasons Jane Goodall cited in her autobiography: the human brain, the vitality of youth, human evolution, et al. To those I have to add God—a conviction that our lives are directed toward some meaningful end and not just moving at random, or, as Gregory of Nyssa theorized, being pulled upwards and forwards. Meantime, we have to do our damndest to make sure we take the right steps forward toward the 'high calling of God in Jesus Christ.'"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your candid comments, Dr. Hinson. I certainly don't agree with all the articles in "Plough Quarterly," but I find many that are very instructive and even those I disagree with are worth reading and thinking about.

      In contrast to what you wrote about Jane Goodall, I have become less supportive of her work/ideas, for I haven't seen/heard anything indicating that she has acknowledged the fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot.

      Delete
  5. And these comments are from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for bringing up this issue.

    "The earth's resources are finite and our current rate of using those resources is not sustainable. To avoid the otherwise disastrous prospects for our future, we must begin a serious effort to reduce our use of resources through more intensive recycling and reduced demand for goods. The problem may be mitigated through population decline, which is already happening in some countries. Each one of us, especially in the U S, needs to find ways to reduce our personal consumption and waste. The US accounts for about 20 percent of the world's GDP with only four percent of the world's population, which means we consume about five times what the rest of the world consumes per capita. This simply cannot continue.

    "It seems odd that Mommsen failed to mention this problem, so I agree with your criticism of his article."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your important comments, Eric. I agree with what you wrote about beginning "a serious effort to reduce our use of resources," but, frankly, I don't see that happening on any widescale basis. And even if that effort did start and proved to be largely successful, it would most likely not be enough to avoid the collapse caused by ecological overshoot. Still, as I hope to write more about later, making valiant effort to delay the disastrous effects of the coming collapse is certainly a good thing that we should do.

      Delete
  6. Thinking Friends Jerry Jumper in southwest Missouri comments,

    "Very thought provoking. I only recently became aware of overshoot. Scientific advances--vaccines, pasteurized milk, many others--allow more people to live, and longer. How much 'stuff' then is required to support the increase? And where does it end? I look forward to learning more about this in your coming posts. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Jerry. You correctly mentioned "increase"--and that is the basic source of the problem: an ever-increasing population using resources in an ever-increasing way. And where does it end? According to Dowd, Rees, and others, it will inevitably end in collapse of civilization as we know it now. That, they say, is the predicament we are facing, and I have come to think they are probably right.

      Delete
  7. This is a little too deep for me, but doesn't The Bible tell us that GOD will intervene before we destroy ourselves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your question, John Tim. What some of the environmental scientists are predicting about overshoot and collapse doesn't necessarily mean the extinction of the human race but just the end of civilization as we know it. So, no, I don't think the Bible tells us that Western industrial civilization will be "saved" by God's intervention.

      Delete
  8. The first comments received today were from local Thinking Friend Vern Barnet (and I apologize for not posting them here sooner):

    "Thanks for looking ahead. Shudder.

    "A possible, if not likely, future is the cyberization of human beings, 'homo sapiens' transformed with electrodes implanted in the brain into 'homo cybergenesis.' A rational analysis by our descendants would lead to the discarding (death) of 'homo sapiens' (by disease, hunger, war, etc.) and allocation of resources for the new species. The survival of the rich."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Vern, for this intriguing insight of what might well be a part of the future by, what, the last part of this century?

      Your comments caused me to realize that part of what needs to be said about overshoot/collapse is that it will most likely not mean the total demise of the human race but just a huge reduction of the population--and those most likely to survive the longest with something like the present lifestyle are, of course, the rich, as you suggest.

      As Rees and others have conjectured, though, it is those who have a very "primitive" lifestyle now and those who adhere to ancient ways of various indigenous cultures that will likely be most able in the long run to survive the collapse of our current industrial civilization. I seriously doubt that there would ever be enough “homo cybergenesis” beings to survive the collapse of the industrial world.

      Delete
  9. Here are comments received yesterday evening from a Thinking Friend in Arizona:

    "I found your latest blog very interesting. I am curious to learn more about the 'overshoot' concept of looking at the predicament humans, mammal's and the earth are in. I also like the concept of the parallel with unsustainable/sustainable and unfaith and faith. I am halfway through Professor William Rees' YouTube video. Makes a lot of sense to me. I recently watched a documentary called 'Planet of the Humans,' which also supports the overshoot component that greater efficiency and higher technology will not 'fix' the circumstances we have found ourselves in, in the 21st century."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for these comments--and for making reference to "Planet of the Humans." June and I watched that documentary soon after executive producer Michael Moore made it available on YouTube for free viewing on April 21, 2020, the eve of the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Day. It was quite controversial and criticized by many environmentalists, but I think it most likely told things that many of those critics did not want to hear or made known. That film, as well as follow-up critical videos and rebuttal videos by Moore are available on YouTube, although the film itself now costs $4 to view.

      Delete
  10. Yesterday afternoon I received these comments from Thinking Friend Andrew Bolton in England:

    "Thanks for your latest blog on overshoot.

    "Jewell and I lived in the Bruderhof for a year. Although we did not stay, we remain good friends. The Bruderhof’s story and witness has had a big impact on my life. Acts 2 is possible not only for monastics but for families.

    "I agree the Plough magazine is excellent and I just came from reading the Summer 2022 issue, 'Hope in Apocalypse' at breakfast this morning, to reading your blog email. May the debate continue! Peter Mommsen is a good editor as you say.

    "I would just add that the Bruderhof lifestyle probably has a significantly lower ecological footprint than most of us in the industrialised world. When we lived at the Darvell Bruderhof in England, about 400 people walked to work and school every day. They had about 6 cars for doctor and hospital appointments etc., a bus and a couple of minibuses. Their lifestyle is simple, their life communal, but I appreciated the hot showers!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Andrew, for your comments about the Bruderhof. Perhaps you had told me about living in the Bruderhof, but if so, I had forgotten that--but I was impressed by your doing that.

      I certainly agree that if the Bruderhof lifestyle had been and was continuing to be practiced by far, far more people, the ecological predicament would much, much less dire than it is now. They have been a tiny light shining in vast darkness, but I hope and pray their light will continue to shine--and shine even brighter in the years ahead.

      Delete
  11. I just recently found your blog when looking for a blog post about Peter Kreeft's Between Heaven & Hell. I found a piece you did on it a few years back and quite enjoyed it and even linked it on my Summer reading blog post about the book. It does my heart good to see someone my Dad's age still active in the blog-o-sphere. Next time I'll comment on your current post rather than one from the way-back machine.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Local Thinking Friend Fred Heeren sent me a long and helpful email that led to an article published by BioScience in Nov. 2017. It is titled "World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice"--and it is a second notice because it refers back to a 1992 article of the same name written by the Union of Concerned Scientists, more than 1700 independent scientists, including the majority of living Nobel laureates in the sciences.

    The word "overshoot" was not used in that article, but that is definitely what it is talking about. Here is the link to that article:
    https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/67/12/1026/4605229

    Reference to the above is found in the main link in Fred's email, a blog article titled "Steven Pinker’s Ideas About Progress Are Fatally Flawed. These Eight Graphs Show Why" by Jeremy Lent and "What Will It Really Take to Avoid Collapse?" by the same author.
    https://patternsofmeaning.com/2018/05/17/steven-pinkers-ideas-about-progress-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/
    https://patternsofmeaning.com/2017/12/19/what-will-it-really-take-to-avoid-collapse/

    Fred also sent information about Kate Raworth's "doughnut economics," which does mention overshoot in a helpful chart. See this link:
    https://www.kateraworth.com/doughnut/

    I much appreciate Fred sending this substantial information that I had not previously seen.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Earth Overshoot Day for 2022 is July 28. This means that by July 28 we will have used the equivalent of all the earth will produce for the year. This is the earliest Overshoot Day yet. You can read more here: https://www.overshootday.org/about/#:~:text=Earth%20Overshoot%20Day%20marks%20the,Day%20lands%20on%20July%2028.

    ReplyDelete
  14. After publishing my prior comment, I noticed the Overshoot Day link also contained a sobering chart giving national Overshoot Days for various countries, ranging from February 10 for Qatar to December 20 for Jamaica. The USAmerica date is March 13. There actually is a gap around the average, with the closest countries being Panama with an Overshoot Day of July 17 and Brazil of August 12. Of course, at the rate Brazil is burning down the Amazon, their date is probably headed our way fast!

    ReplyDelete