The Brilliance (and Stupidity) of The Age of Stupid
Last night I attended the global premier of The Age of Stupid here in NYC. It was really exciting to be in a movie theater and see not just a film but a live, global premiere event complete with statements addressing the issue as well.
Congratulations to the filmmakers for creating this significant innovation in the art (and science/technology) of movie openings! ... and for getting the actress Gillian Anderson, the musician Moby, and former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to speak at the event! Wow!
Regrettably, this brilliantly staged premiere was for a motion picture that was not really all that brilliant itself. In fact, in some ways, the film is rather stupid. Which may ultimately be a good thing - and may turn out to be why, in a sociological sense, the film was made. That's because when such a well-meaning attempt to solve a problem is as incomplete as this film is, it opens a door for those who know what's missing to take responsibility for the situation and fill in the gaps.
So, let me be clear. I think "The Age of Stupid" was made by people with tremendous heart and for whom I have nothing but respect and admiration. It took them years to make this film. And they enlisted the support of hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people, many of whom donated their time to the cause. The filmmakers were very innovative in how they financed their project too, using what they call crowd-funding. It's fantastic that they were able to fiance this film using a "we, the people" model.
However, after all that innovative thinking, the film they made tells the same old people keep doing stupid things - like not building windmills because they spoil the landscape - and we all die story. It's essentially the same rant against stupid behavior we've heard for years, dressed up in an elaborate, well-intended package. "The answers are right in front of us, but the masses - and their leaders - aren't using them yet. Stop being so stupid!" it yells at us.
Well, protest marches - in whatever form they take - have their place. But what these filmmakers don't realize is that global warming isn't going to be prevented by some higher form of protest march. It's not going to be prevented by one side of the issue doing a better job of brow-beating the other side into seeing things their way.
Global warming is going to be ended by something that's never been part of the mainstream stop global warming movement's strategy for change.
It's going to be ended when the focus becomes not What do we want to stop? but What do we want to start? instead.
And what do we want to start?
A Cultural Transformation.
The crisis that awaits us will only be averted when we realize that the Root Cause of the challenge we face is one of human beings relating to human beings, not of human beings relating to mother nature, and that a Transformation in that relationship is what will make solving our global warming crisis possible.
The story The Age of Stupid could have told is how - because the efforts to create a culture of peace between all the peoples on Earth failed - all the energies humanity spends fighting with itself were never applied to the challenge of preventing global warming.
You see, for the cost of one Iraq War (including caring for all the wounded for the rest of their lives), the US could finance the construction of a solar energy installation in the sub-Sahara desert that could provide electricity (with zero-cost fuel from the Sun) to a large portion of the planet. See preliminary reports here and here.
For the cost of one bailout of the global economic system, the world's economies could finance the complete transition to a sustainable developmental model of the kind developed and championed by people like Amory Lovins and William McDonough.
Unfortunately, humanity is currently locked in a many ages-old mindset that says:
The First Law Is Survival. And since there isn't enough for all of us, that law means survival of just me and those people I like to spend time with: family, friends, and neighbors. If the differences between me and 'the others' are too great... too uncomfortable to deal with... then I'll make sure those people don't get what they need. That's because we live in a world of 'winners and losers'.
This us-against-them mindset underpins every social structure on Earth, including our global economic system. The only exceptions are those communities that consciously practice a "we're all in this together" philosophy. (Examples here.)
And the funny/sad thing is that living in an us-against-them world is not even necessary any more. Because - as people like visionary Buckminster Fuller and Scientific American founder Gerard Piel first lectured in the 1960's - we have the capability to feed, clothe, house, and educate every man, woman, and child on Earth. We still do, despite all this "We need more than one Earth" limited capacity talk. Such nonsense - or, more properly, "non-science"!
Because - if you're a scientist who thinks systemically - you know that humanity does not just live on Earth. Humanity lives in the Earth-Sun system, in which the Sun sends more energy here every day than we humans could ever need. All we need to do is capture it, like the plants already know how to do. In fact, there are scientists right now who are developing the technology of artificial photosynthesis.
While watching The Age of Stupid, I hoped that the man from the future would show all the attempts to heal the divide between the peoples of Earth that had failed. I had hoped the videos he watched would have included Eleanor Roosevelt delivering the Declaration of Human Rights to the delegates at the UN... the efforts of Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to create social change through non-violent measures... the call for all nations to develop strategies to transform their societies from unsustainable to sustainable ones at the UN's 1992 conference on the environment (which led President Clinton to launch the President's Council on Sustainable Development in 1993)... and the speech by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan at the World Economic Forum in 1999 that led to the launch of The UN Global Compact (the corporate social responsibility initiative that has the power to transform the values underlying the world's business community, including Wall Street).
If the man from the future in The Age of Stupid had talked about all of these global missed opportunities from the past, then this film would have been as innovative in the story it told as it was in how it was financed and how it was premiered.
But I can't blame the filmmakers for not doing this. They made this error because they don't see that world peace and global warming are connected. Like most people, I suspect they see the world as having many, separate problems, each one having its own, separate answer.
They don't think systemically, which would enable them to see how all the world's problems are interrelated... and how humanity's inability to live in peace with itself is the macro problem to end all macro problems... because, if this macro problem were to solved, then the solutions to all our other problems would fall into place.
There are a great many things the man from the future could have said humanity failed at doing. But he never spoke about the failure to heal what prevents the human family from working as one.
He never spoke about all the wasted time, energy, resources, and money spent on pushing us apart... and how much good all of that could do if applied to - not just stopping a catastrophe from happening - but to creating a peaceful world.
He never spoke about the failure of our world's leaders to offer a vision of all cultures being free to develop their diverse and creative talents in the arts and sciences... a vision of humanity being able to exercise its innate desire to explore new worlds.
This demonstrably provable opportunity - to live in a world free of both the fear of the catastrophe that is global warming and the fear of the catastrophe that is war - is the opportunity I wish The Age of Stupid had shown humanity as being too stupid to make happen.
He could have pointed out that this capability - while off the radar screen of the majority of people - did exists in the past... in our time... today!
---------------------------------------
Postscript
If you think my talk of a missed opportunity for peace is naive and ignores the "facts" of human nature, then I request you do two things:
Read the speech Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave on July 15th in which she laid out the principles for designing an "Architecture of Global Cooperation".
And read Dr. Stephen R. Covey's classic work on human development, The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, which focused specifically on the "maturity continuum" from dependent to independent to interdependent thinking.
It's possible for humanity to get out of the Global School Yard that is where so much of our political activities exist. We have learned how to get along with our selves and our families, through individual and family counseling. (Not everyone may be using what counseling has to teach, but those principles exist.) And we have learned the principles for cooperation in the workplace, thanks to management gurus such as W. Edwards Deming. (Every workplace may not be using these principles, but they exist as well.)
Some of us know that these same principles and processes can be applied at the community, national, and international level as well. It's just a matter of scaling them up.
We can do this. Especially now that you know the information is out there... and how important it is not just to the cause of preventing a global warming catastrophe... but to the cause of building a world of peaceful cooperation between all the peoples on Earth.
We can do this. We can be wise not stupid, learn what it takes to grow up and work together as one human family, and have the world of our dreams!
Follow Steven G. Brant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SteveBrant
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Dear Mr. Brant,
You are very articulate, and I agree with your article almost 100%. Which is why I have very little hope for the future of our civilization. We're going to get something along the lines of RMankovitz's post from 9/23.
As I've often stated, "the only way the world will survive is if we all survive together"...but there is very little possibility of that happening. I therefore only disagree with one (key) part of your article:
"It's possible for humanity........activities exist. We have learned how to get along with our selves and our families..." You sure about that?? I am....in the other direction.
Therefore, even if one COULD design a "sustainable" culture/planet/civilization, etc. (which I don't believe is possible, based simply on science), do you REALLY think there's a way for all of humankind - with all their own agendas, levels of education, priorities, religious beliefs, etc. - to join hands, sing "Kumbaya", and march off happily into a common future? Sadly, the answer is no. What we've got - all of it - is a direct result of millions of years of evolution of our humanity, emotions, and instincts...and good luck "changing" that.
This is why when I hear any talking head say something like "What needs to happen is for people to realize that....(whatever)", I just shake my head and turn away. Sue, we all know what HAS to happen....but it can't, which is why it HASN'T.
Sad...but real.
Religion is just another corporate entity trying to pry money out of their membership. They only pay lip service to helping those in need. The christian ethic vanished a long time ago. Do you ever wonder why the televangilist always run charities in distant countries? Because nobody ever checks up on where the money really goes. Why aren't they doing more for US citizens who are in need?
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
You write as if all religion is some sort of monolithic, uniform entity. No more Christian ethic? Really?
I never understand why people think that - just because the negative side of something is what they see first - that that's the only aspect of what they are looking at that exists.
The world has many more shades of color than that. It is not the "black and white" / "all good or all bad" place you make it out to be.
This is standard human / organizational theory I'm using here. Because to think that things such as religion can never be any good is similar to saying "Once someone has committed a crime, there's no way they can ever be a good person again. Rehabilitation is a joke. They should just stay in prison for ever."
That's an incredibly dark view of the human spirit to have. And it's not a view I share. Not about people and not about organizations.
If you want the world to become a healthier place for everyone, then I believe practicing the art of forgiveness is key. Only by forgiving people and organizations for their past mistakes, can we open the door to a future of true collaboration between us all. This is what Pres. Obama spoke about at the UN General Assembly this week.
There still is a Jesus ethic not to be confused with a so called Christian ethic of established religious structures most of which (I did not say all) lost sight of Jesus hundreds of years ago during the age of Constantine. In a new book by Harvey Cox (the Future of Faith) it is pointed out that there is a trend away from hierarchical, patriarchal and dogmatic religion and towards a more spiritual way of life ethic. A recent Newsweek article pointed out that Americans are becoming more like Hindus in their religious outlook. Sojourners also does some interesting work. Meanwhile Fr. Richard Rohr is preaching about the Cosmic Christ that goes a long way towards resacralizing nature. I think these are encouraging trends but perhaps too little and too late. In the meantime there is still an astonishing inability in most structural religion to be self critical.
I know I will get blasted for this, but at its heart the global warming crisis and the other environmental problems we face at their root are a religious problem. Despite being ubiquitous in our world religion has been slow to recognize the moral implications of these problems and their root cause in our misplaced values. I still don't see religion getting out in front on a leadership basis like they should.
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
I'm not going to "blast" you. I'm going to correct your use of a "broad brush" statement. There is a Good Earth Stewardship movement within the Catholic Church. You can read all about it here...
http://thesop.org/education/2008/04/14/good-earth-stewardship-christian-calling
See... every time we think "Such and such a group is part of the problem", it turns out (after additional research) that there's a positive side to that group we just didn't know about.
This is why "getting to know 'the others' of the world" is so critically important. Doing so clears up a lot of misconceptions we have... misconceptions frequently based on not doing enough research / not thinking for ourselves / letting others do our thinking for us.
Buckminster Fuller lectured widely (in 1983) on the power of Personal Integrity to save humanity. By "integrity" he meant Thinking For Yourself... finding out the true nature of reality by direct observation (direct research).
The internet makes this more and more possible. All you have to do is be willing to ask questions, rather than take what you're told as true without checking on it yourself.
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
Here's a book on the subject: "An Earth-Careful Way of Life"
http://books.google.com/books?id=915S7i2187EC&lpg=PP1&dq=religion%20earth%20stewardship&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Sorry but you didn't convince me. When I went to mass the Priest invariably talked about abortion. I never heard a word about climate change. There are of course some Catholics who take care of the earth seriously. But I switched over to a liberal protestant church. At one of the board meetings I asked what the church was going to do about global warming. After a deadening silence the social concerns lady said that the church was too busy with the annual yard sale to deal with it. Don't tell me I haven't done some first hand research.
I think it is difficult for religion to have much of a positive impact since Christianity has desacralized nature since at least the time of Constantine. I am not suggesting nature worship per se but it is difficult to arrive at an effective philosophy of earth care when the deity is out there and often anthropomorphic. Of course the secular atheists often make the same mistake of desacralizing nature. There are a few bright spots like Fr. Richard Rohr and his concept of the Cosmic Christ.
SEDUCE THE OPPONENTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE!
Radically new technologies let the love affair with cars change what is currently believed about energy.
Revolutionary new technology makes possible electric cars that need no recharge - and hybrid engines that might need to be fueled with only one gallon of water for each thousand miles of driving.
See the article: 4 Steps to Revive the Auto Industry and the Economy on the website: http://www.aesopinstitute.org
These breakthroughs lead to cars and trucks that need no fossil fuel or recharge. Later, more advanced versions will become power plants when parked, wirelessly selling electricity to the local utility.
The science is not in the textbooks and will understandably be greeted with widespread skepticism.
However, independent laboratory validation of one remarkable breakthrough has taken place at Rowan University. It produced far more heat than can readily be explained by existing science, clearly suggesting a new source of energy is involved. These experiments can readily be repeated at other laboratories.
The Rowan validation accelerates the process of proving that new technology can allow a barrel of water to replace 200 barrels of oil!
This path does not depend on the difficult actions of governments. It is a direct way to deal with the most difficult issues, by allowing consumers to make the changes as rapidly as vehicle manufacturers adopt these revolutionary breakthroughs.
Who won't buy an electric car that needs no recharge, or a hybrid running on a gallon of water each thousand miles?
You can always turn off your computer to save energy. Yes, it really works.
Ethics (teaching tools) via ORGANIZED CRIME and The coordination of all University Environmental Studies programs?
This post was cut down by the word limit on the huffington post comment site... Please look at my NON MONITIZED blog and quickfind (F3) down to NEW FLYER on the top post.
http://TradeSkilsLLC.blogspot.com
Social Multimedia Research aid Environmentalist Movie ALERT: The Age of Stupid Monday, Sept. 21st 7:30PM http://youtube.com/homeproject
a service I would like to provide for students of the environmental studies program at Wofford and any other local college programs for sociology students which are focusing on sociology for environment such as Corporate Social Responsibility or Fair Trade.
The idea here is to support the environmental studies students so that they are enabled to make the strongest transition to the global sustainability and fair trade.
Student Social Media Research Assistant: Three cents per minute. Ecology/Sociology students only..
Professional Discipline trends on Twitter, Facebook, and Professional media sites or databases/journals/blogs. Call: M.att
Developing list’s of people / org’s to follow + be followed by on Twitter and Facebook, etc.
There is not enough time while studying; to sort through thousands of tweets which refer to further information... (and I can find context associations with your curriculum); also; which could require immediate scheduling updates for webcasts or events in the community.
Teaching elderly and disabled to provide education support online after the national broadband plan is released.
Bill Clinton was on Letterman last night and also talked about the winner loser mentality and the need to feel superior to others and that people need to get past that type of thinking. He compared it to sports where there must be a winner and loser. It was interesting.
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
Thanks for this very helpful information. I'll watch the clip, so I can use what Bill Clinton said in my work.
president clinton really nailed it. i saw it, too. i couldn't believe a public figure was speaking like someon from my tribe. about consciousness and letting go of ego, etc. he is awesome.
Rather than "The Age of Stupid", I view our present condition as "The Age of Arrogance." We have an anthropocentric view of the world (we rule over all other living things, we are free to multiply without limit, and technology will fix everything). I believe nature has a very different view of our place among living things, and it is not at the top. Actually, there is no top.
The very idea that the fate of our species is also the fate of the planet is clearly anthropocentric. In our absence, Nature has billions of years to cleanse herself of our legacy, regenerate, create millions of new species, and perhaps evolve an improved human model.
I subscribe to the hypothesis that the current human population far exceeds the planet’s carrying capacity, perhaps by double. Feeding and powering the population are only part of the problem. We seem to be running out of safe places to dump the toxic wastes we generate, and we may well drown in our own effluent.
When other species (plant or animal) have exceeded their sustainable level, they begin to die off until they either reach sustainability or become extinct. Nature is already hinting at how this will play out for us: forced population reduction as a result of mass starvation, wars, untreatable illnesses, and an environment so toxic it will no longer support the reproduction of our species.
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
I disagree with a number of your points.
Is it really an us-against-them world? You cite a mindset that "there isn't enough for all of us." I think there is PLENTY for all of us. I'm a middle-classer by today's US standards, but I live much better than the richest European monarch did 100 years ago. Wealth is constantly growing - it is decidedly NOT zero-sum. I can and will get richer as my life goes on, without having to extort it from anyone.
No one likes war. I would argue, however, that global free trade would do much more for promoting world peace than any climate treaty. Protectionist policies are the ones that promote an "us-against-them" mindset. Free trade creates interdependence between nations, as trade partners each have an interest in the other's prosperity. No two democratic nations have ever declared war on each other.
The stated barrier to YOUR vision of a perfect world is that people just aren't cooperating. It's awfully easy to blame others for not cooperating and adhering to YOUR vision. No matter how right you think you are, it's still just your opinion.
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
Thanks for your comment. I first have to point out that just because YOU have more than you might have thought you'd have at this stage of your life does NOT refute the fact that the mental model for global development (as a whole) is a scarcity-based, us-against-them one. Statistically speaking, you are just one "data point". I'm talking about all the world's people.
As for global free trade promoting world peace better than any climate treaty, I didn't say a climate treaty would promote world peace. I said world peace was necessary to solve the global warming crisis. Solving this crisis will require more than a treaty. It will require a cultural evolutionary leap, which is a systemic (not linear) process. That's why I referred to so many non-climate treaty oriented steps I hope we are smart enough to take (like mainstreaming the corporate social responsibility movement in such a way that it gets covered on the news on a daily basis, just like what happened on Wall Street does.
Lastly, this is no "my" vision. It's the vision of every member of the Systems Thinking community that things about international development. And - as of today (9/23) - it's President Obama's vision too. (Did you hear the speech he made at the UN? It was all about global cooperation!)
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
Sorry about the two typos. That should have been "not *my* vision", not "no *my* vision" and "thing about" not "thing about".
i do believe mr. 'topgunna' is part of the problem.
I've seen this argument for years by people who are (mostly inadvertently) acting as shills for the oil and gas industries and other corporations with a vested interest in the status quo. The problem is THEY have an "us against them" mentality. They are going to keep polluting the world so long as they can make a few more dollars of profit and using their politicians to use our tax dollars to help them do it. Its the kind of liberal guilt mentality that wrings their hands and say "oh we americans just love our cars too much" when in reality we have to keep to our cars because the government will fund wars and oil subsidies but not decent mass transit as exists in Europe. You can sing kumbaya and pray for us all to transform our inner consumer and the oil companies will encourage you and will even meet with you and maybe give you a few $ because the more you do that and don't get mad and start demanding real political change the more chance they have to keep screwing everyone.
I hope this film convinces more people, but I don't see that happening.
The deniers are living in a non-fact based reality, so any appeal to reason and logic is quite useless.
The only thing we can do is ignore them and make the changes that are required over their objections.
It is a scientific fact that if BOTH ice caps melted completely, the ocean levels would actually decrease. A simple experiment you can do at home to prove this fact. Fill a glass of water half way, then fill the rest of it with ice. Measure the water level in the glass then allow all the ice to melt. The water level goes down. The reason? The amount of water displaced by the ice is actually greater than the amount of water after the ice melts. The amount of ice at both poles is enormous, displacing ocean water. Even if all the land ice melted as well, the runoff would return the ocean to the same level it was before BOTH ice caps melted. Simple logic, simply proven, but you won't find these facts anywhere because the Libs want your money.
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
I didn't write this review to get into a debate with people about global warming. It is "settled science", not a "liberal-led conspiracy" of some sort (to do what? "Trick" the world into living healthier lives?).
I often wonder what it is about some people that they so completely mistrust what the world's scientific community say... yet they continue to accept the benefits of living in a world where science is responsible for everything from the computer they use to the transportation that gets them to/from work.
If the world's scientists can't be trusted, they how can you stand to use all the other things in your life that they are responsible for?
Leading Global Warming Scientist Goes "Oops, Sorry."
http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Scientists+pull+about+face+global+warming/2010571/story.html
as liberal, you are supposed to be open minded.
Man-made carbon dioxide is only 0.117 percent of total carbon dioxide in the air and contributes only 0.0047 percent carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.
The average person has been misled and is confused about what the current Global Warming debate is about, greenhouse gases. None of which has anything to do
with air pollution. People are confusing Smog, Carbon Monoxide (CO) and the pollutants in
car exhaust with the life supporting, essential trace gas in our atmosphere, Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Climate Bill funded by Exxon,Goldman,Monsanto - according to this site
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/20/the-top-10-lobbyists-on-t_n_205868.html
Well stated Steven G Brant. Arguing with righties who don't accept the scientific method is an R-E-publican(?) meaningless endeavor.
Wow, that was a monumentally stupid comment.
The ice in Antarctica is not resting on water, it's on land. Same with the ice in Greenland.
Try filling a glass halfway with water, representing the ocean. Then fill a bowl with ice, representing the ice located on land. Wait for the larger bowl to melt, then pour it all into the glass. The water level in the glass goes up.
Reality has a liberal bias, but that doesn't entitle you to have your own separate reality.
Thank you!!! You said that better than I could have.
way to go blackbirdhighway!
I saw the premier of this movie (via satellite link) in Austin, Texas. Aside from speeches and interviews, there were some extras after the film, including a great short film featuring children in the space where the coming meeting in Copenhagen will be held, and a great (and haunting) live performance by Thom Yorke of Radiohead. It was all quite interesting.
My reaction to the movie was different than Mr. Brant's. Maybe my expectations weren't quite as high, although I doubt a coherent movie could be made using just half of the references listed in Mr. Brant's article, and certainly not on the budget available for any movie about global warming. A movie is art, and in art, one must constantly work to constrain oneself to the minimum means necessary to convey the intended meaning. A documentary such as this is burdened with a subject with complicated meaning, which makes the art even harder to achieve. I thought this was all handled quite well considering the constraints involved. The movie is definitely worth seeing.
The real question is, will this movie encourage one to go out and DO MORE to limit global warming? I believe the answer to that is yes. Will it be enough? Who knows? But the only way we will ever know is if we make the attempt. SEE THE MOVIE!
See Steven G. Brant's Profile
Thanks for your comment and for making the point about films being made under various constraints (time, money, etc). The point of my review is to point out another "constraint": how we see the global warming crisis. It is not a "humanity against nature" crisis at its core. It is a "humanity against humanity" crisis, as well as a crisis of knowledge (thinking we live in a limited resource system.. forgetting that the unlimited energy source of our Sun is part of the system in which we live).
Had the filmmakers planned their film based on this expanded viewpoint of the crisis we face, I am confident they would have figured out a way to make a film based on that point of view. Artists are pretty creative people. If they know a particular message needs to be said, they figure out how to say it. The makers of this film (technically half documentary and half science-fiction) got the message out they wanted to. All I'm suggesting is that it's an incomplete message regarding the ultimate solution that needs to be implemented.
If we don't solve this "humanity waging war against itself" crisis, we could wind up stopping global warming only to then blow ourselves up in a future WW III.
i really like your article steven, however.... i do believe that 'humanity against nature' is as important as 'humanity against humanity'.
just look at the destruction of species around the globe. bashing baby seals in the head, killing wolves, raping our rain forests, etc.
look at how we treat the earth (nature). i can't tell you how many times i have to restrain myself from knocking someone's block off when i am driving behind a litterbug. cigarrette butts, cups, wrappers, gum.. you name it, i have seen it come flying out of somebody's damn car window (car's that run on gas, still....!!).
i just want people to know that we must get back to nature, to our mother earth; and in doing so i believe the domino affect of treating each other better will come. for we all came from this earth.
we have to stop killing the main organism, which is our wonderous Mother Earth Gaia!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
