Letting down Humanity...: global warming

Posts mit dem Label global warming werden angezeigt. Alle Posts anzeigen

Mittwoch, 21. August 2019

Call a spade a spade: It's Holocaust 2 (*)

(Translation of "Redet endlich Klartext: Holocaust 2.0", in Bieler Tagblatt vom 17.8.2019, updated 31.7.2021)

Everyone is talking about climate change, a term without direction or threat. This is linguistic nebulisation which is part of our everyday life: the accident, which the insurance does not want to pay, becomes an "event", the genocide of the Armenians becomes a "temporary relocation", money printing becomes "Quantitative Easing". And this nebulization can have deadly consequences: the cause of the Challenger disaster of 1987 was a blown-off O-ring, which had already burned out on previous flights up to a third. One knew that, but by twisting the language up the hierarchy, this defect became a "safety factor of 3" and nothing was done (1). In fact a "safety factor of 3" would mean that nothing happens with a triple overload, but by no means a breakdown by a third under normal load, which signifies a safety factor of zero. Seven astronauts lost their lives.

Fossil by Heartless Machine (10)

And what is nebulised by the word climate change? First, it does not say what's up. “Global warming” would show the direction, but it’s also too pleasant. “Global heating" may be better - after all, heat can already affect. But does that nail the facts?

Every second global heating adds to the earth the energy of three to six Hiroshima bombs (2). It was fantasized that the Paris Climate Agreement of 2015 would limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees by 2100. But even if the agreement were met, the temperature would rise 2,4 degrees. But anyway nobody sticks to it which leads us to 3,2 degrees global warming until 2100 according to official prognoses. That's why in 2017 the 1.5 degrees were moved to the middle of our century and in 2018, the IPCC brought the 1.5 degrees forward to 2040 (3). But even this dramatic report disregards that the greenhouse gases are rising further, bringing the 1.5 degrees forward to 2030, as the respected journal Nature wrote (4), a forwarding by seven decades within about seven years! And all this will be aggravated further by 20 or more percent because of disappearing snow and ice which reduces reflection, a fact also insufficiently considered in the IPCC-reports.

With one and a half degrees of warming 70-90 percent of all coral reefs will perish. The two degrees will destroy 99 percent of coral reefs. In southern Europe, the cultivation of citrus fruit, olives and wine will be impossible. Parts of the Middle East and North Africa (5) as well as Southeast Asia will become uninhabitable. Even with stabilized greenhouse gases any heating achieved would continue for decades. The fatal release of Methane from permafrost and sea has already begun and other self-reinforcing mechanisms can be added at any time. Just as threatening is the galloping species extinction through habitat destruction, poisoning and heat as well as the increasing water scarcity, everything aggravated by an expanding population. The German Federal Intelligence Service estimates that over one billion of people will flee, and that is only the beginning, after which, together with civilization and human rights, a large part of the biosphere will go down.

Climatologist Prof. Joachim Schellnhuber named his book "Self-Combustion" (6) and David Wallace-Wells his "The uninhabitable Earth" (7). That’s what it is: By greed, stupidity and herd instinct we are destroying everything, man and nature through heat, poison and drought. Therefore, the English Guardian does not talk about "global warming" any more, but takes up Greta Thunberg's proposals such as "climate collapse", "climate crisis", "climate emergency", "ecological crisis" etc (8). The famous biologist E.O. Wilson speaks of the "collapse of the ecosystem" (10). But all these expressions are abstract, out-of-the-way, they evoke a disaster that you can face like a flood or an avalanche. They do not imply that everything will end.

For decades, my newspaper the Neue Zürcher Zeitung publishes every few months very vivid and concise articles about the Holocaust. The villains are pointed at with fingers, and shudderingly one reads how human values and victims were exterminated by hunger, weapons, poison and crematoria, and - oh, say the citizens in their slippers and armchairs, - how are we so good... But I am somewhat astonished that the same vividness and precision do not apply to the upcoming elimination of human values, civilization and humanity from hunger, flight, war, environmental poisoning and global burning. What in fact lies ahead of us is the Holocaust 2, this time with gruesome consequences not only for Jews and Gipsies, but for all of us and for a big part of the biosphere. All just as deliberate as the first Holocaust, because causes, actors and consequences are known and visible for all to see. But all bigger by orders of magnitude. This has already started, and meanwhile we are still fighting over cannabis, COVID, genderism, health insurance and retirement age, as if this would have any importance in comparison.

No, it's not climate change, it’s not global warming, it's Holocaust 2. And yes, we can silence, imprison and expel whoever protests. But this will not solve the problem any more than cowardly closing the eyes before reality.

______________________________________________________________________

(*) It was doubted as to whether the expression "Holocaust 2" (from Greek, literally “Burning of everything”) was admissible. I have therefore submitted this text to a half-Jew and a Gypsy, both of whom had lost relatives in Auschwitz and are thus entitled to judge. Both affirmed that the expression was to the point and could be used.

The term holocaust was used from about 1600, long before the Nazis. Of those who rejected the expression, various claims were made: it was claimed that the first Holocaust was an industrial annihilation, the second was not. Yes, but is the second not industrial par excellence, namely a consequence of industrialization? It was also claimed that the first was deliberate and the second was not. Yes, but did not Exxon decades before the Greens know that the greenhouse effect would lead to catastrophe and still fund disinformation campaigns with hundreds of millions of dollars? And the Koch Brothers and all the bribed "experts", and the editors who do not listen to science or denigrate it (it's curious: If engineers and physicists calculate bridges, railways, airplanes, power plants, we entrust them our life without discussion. Only if they speak about the climate, everything must be lies, isn’t this queer?). It was objected that the first Holocaust had been deliberately run, and the second was "unconscious", but the differences seem small to me: Of course after the Second World War, all Germans said "we all knew nothing about all that," albeit many had benefited from expulsions and expropriations, as Götz Aly has demonstrated. And hundredthousands of soldiers at least knew of mass exterminations in the East, if they did not even witness or participate. Likewise with climate: Most "know nothing about all that", although the information is freely available, and many young people know it very well. It was also objected that the special thing about the first Holocaust was racial paranoia - but the second Holocaust, is it not also caused by a paranoia? This time a paranoia of growth and consumerism, the consequences being even more appalling. It was said that the first Holocaust was so special because of its unique enormity. Such a view forgets that this enormity will be dwarfed by this new iteration. It was also said, that Holocaust means a specific direction against Jews and Gypsies. So far so good, but the second Holocaust concerns Jews and Gypsies as well, and this time in in their totality, with the sole difference that this time it affects everyone else too, including the entire biosphere. Logically the first Holocaust is therefore a mere subset of Holocaust 2. Sometimes the argumentation also turned into irrational polemic, e.g. the use of the term Holocaust was qualified as racist, or the author was mobbed just as the bearer of bad news.

This is all mere shadowboxing: The question is whether you allow yourself to name the upcoming horror in an understandable and graphic way. In this case all the other words seem too clean, too objectifying, in short insufficient to grasp the impending state failure and the certain downfall of humanity and civilization. For the most part, in these discussions, I had the impression that one is resisting the expression in order to hide the reality under a cloak of squeamish political correctness, and - suddenly everything is no longer urgent, we can move on to business as usual, by going to school, shopping, and going to work, expand highways and airports as before. We prefer to leave everything in the nebulization, right? ... That's exactly what brought upon us this predicament.

References

Some other posts in English:

Donnerstag, 15. August 2019

Letting down Humanity

(Translation of "Und was, wenn wir uns nicht retten können?" in this Blog, which first appeared in Journal 21, 15.8.2019. Updated 7.2.2022)

What is new is that everything accelerates: the ice melts faster than predicted. Its lack of reflection increases CO2-related warming by 20 or more percent (1). The sea warms up faster and rises faster (2) than predicted. Greenhouse gases continue to rise, global warming accelerates and the fatal self-boosting feedbacks by methane release and large-scale forest fires have only begun. Since spring 2019 hundreds of temperature records have been broken and we had the warmest months of January, Mai, June and July ever. We notice it ourselves: The summers get mercilessly warmer and warmer.

July temperatures (global) 1880-2019

The four apocalyptic horsemen are: Global Warming (3), which is occurring up to a hundred times faster than earlier warmings. The lack of water (4), which threatens one fourth of humanity. Species extinction (5) due to wasting and poisoning of habitats. And last but not least overpopulation (6), the root cause, which continues to increase. Each of these factors can be fatal on its own and they reinforce each other. E.g. the co-director of the Potsdam Institute of Climate Research Johan Rockström, an expert on the limits of the planet said that with global warming of 4 degrees (which is possible by 2100) he has difficulty to see how the earth could nourish eight billion of people or even half of that (7). And what will happen to the rest?

Viktor Vasnetsov (1887): The four apocalyptic horsemen

Many call for action, and many clash with those who deny the problems. But does that make sense? Is there any escape from this fourfold overkill?

For example, the American Roy Scranton experienced terror and state collapse as a soldier in the Iraq war. Back in the US, it dawned upon him that the same fate awaited the developed nations. He concluded that, just as the soldier must learn to die, in the Anthropocene we also have to learn to die, not just as individuals, but as a collective (8).

Independently of him, the French Pablo Servigne and Raphaël Stevens in their book "Comment tout peut s'éffondrer- Petit manuel de collapsologie à l'usage des générations présentes" (9) predict the collapse of civilization. Here is a summary interview in French (10).

Three personal experiences reinforce my concern: Prof. John Schellnhuber, the most prominent German climatologist omnipresent in the media who in public exudes a mild, solution-oriented optimism told us already 2017 in private that he no longer sees any way out of this trap for humanity.

And about 1973, that is shortly after the first report of the Club of Rome, I had a vivid dream. I stood on the edge of a medium-sized gravel pit, which was partially restored, that is, renatured. Down there among bushes, maybe a hundred yards away, was a small group of nude, quite green people, about three in number, mostly grownups, but not old. They did not notice me and said to each other "We are the last human beings". I felt that this was a meaningful, a so-called "big" dream, but rationally could not do much with it, and at best hypothetically linked it to the environmental situation. But after all, C.G. Jung used to quote a rabbi who had written: "The dream is its interpretation"...

My father, Markus Eduard Fierz (1912-2006), was a theoretical physicist "of the first hour", who knew Pauli, Bohr, Heisenberg, Einstein, and worked and taught in Basel, Princeton, CERN and ETH. He had great intuition and was a virtuoso at so-called Fermi estimates, the estimation of sizes from inadequate information (The famous Fermi question was: "How many piano tuners are there in Chicago?"). Later in life he became very concerned about the environment and from 1990 on predicted a general ecological collapse starting around 2020 saying that of course it was not possible to predict the year exactly, but once it started it would go downhill very quickly for mathematical-physical reasons. After failing to understand both dream and father for decades and years, I now realize both could end up being right.

I found the content and fate of an article (11) by Prof.Jem Bendell, the English university teacher of sustainability revealing: Based on a large literature review he argues that the environmental situation is out of control and irreversible. Already in the next decade, one would have to reckon with great crises, even with the beginning of the dissolution of civilization. This article was not accepted by a journal because it does not cite enough scholarly literature on collapse of civilisation (there is almost none) and because it could scare the readership.

Bendell, fed up with this academic correctness, published the article on the web, where it has been downloaded half a million times and translated into several languages. There, and in an interview with climatologist Wolfgang Knorr (12), he comes to the conclusion that even the scientists do not truthfully inform the public: All the reports of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) up to 2020, written under the pressure of oil-producing nations, neglected the acceleration of global warming caused by multiple positive feedbacks. Therefore they are consistently too optimistic. To quote Bendell and Knorr: “Science is letting down humanity”.

In fact, the disaster perspective is concealed by everybody: Although scientists and some media have been warning us for fifty years, this happens regularly only in a piecemeal way, carefully and objectively weighed. Somebody is talking about dwindling glaciers, somebody else about the future of winter sports, someone dwells on insect extinction, another one is studying bees, there is talk about poison in rivers, or warnings about the temperatures in the cities, others are considering crop failures or exploring reasons for migration. They have the pieces in their hand, but, alas, lack the mental bond for the realization that it all comes down to a self-reinforcing global catastrophe. And therefore there is no urgent reference to our own destiny and the necessary alarm is not sounded. The only point the scientific community always agrees upon is the demand for further research and more money, which the politicians are only too happy to grant if only they can remain inactive.

Are the scientists afraid of their own courage? Are they afraid of loss of public esteem and public money, do they fear loss of media coverage, loss of reputation among colleagues when they talk the plain talk that would be appropriate, although it would hurt?

Incidentally, if refusing to call a spade a spade avoids arousing fright and depression in the addressees, this has the fatal consequence that they can continue to cling to their false hopes and pursue business as usual. Only fright and depression would pave the way for radical rethinking.

For a long time it was a mystery to me how even some of the most clever and highly educated politicians could claim that climate science is wrong. While writing this text I've come up with something: In my practical work as a doctor, I learned that one is almost always believed if one speaks up clearly, bluntly and directly. Could it be that such sceptics feel indistinctly but rightly that something is wrong with the scientific information and the IPCC reports, and that is why they do not believe them? To me this does not seem impossible.

We find this fragmented approach not only among scientists, but also among the worried and the Greens. These preach well-meant individual measures such as vegetarianism and renouncing plastic bags, but often fail to mention that this is never enough – they do not want to scare the voters after all. Only children and fools tell the truth and lead desperate crusades...

All of them are ignoring the population issue, but they are anyway overruled by the dull majorities that vote Trump, Bolsonaro, and Morrison into office, those politicians who basically already announce the end of civilization. Between these political poles lie the "healthy" middle of mindless consumer citizens, and the media, which question facts as opinions, as well as the jellyfish-like politicians who navigate according to the latest surveys. The result is an immobile crowd waiting in anesthetized wellness for disaster, like Christmas turkeys on their turkey farm. A physician managing a critical situation with such indifference would end up in court and jail for malpractice.

What is coming can already be seen in the Middle East with heat, drought, hunger, state disintegration, tyranny, epidemics, war and mass migration. This will gradually spread to other regions and to us. Particularly susceptible are complex systems such as large cities, major distributors, high culture, monetary value, banks, the financial casino, long-distance transport, old-age provision or legal security. The talk of human rights and climate justice will be left behind as mockery. We are caught in a suicidal culture and will perish with it.

Meanwhile, even the Secretary-General of the UN warns that we have only until 2020 to avoid the tipping point of the situation (13). And yet there is hardly any reaction. Protesters are imprisoned or expelled from the country. Therefore the next question arises: If we do not want to or cannot save ourselves, what then?

It means then the end of many nations, of many cultures, of human values (Menschlichkeit) in many places, of very many human beings and large parts of the living world, perhaps of humanity as a whole. Many old people are concerned with their individual end. In the Middle Ages, there was even the art of dying (Ars Moriendi), which prepared adepts for a good death and for the four last things - Death, Judgment, Heaven or Hell. But after all, mortals could console themselves with descendants, who continued their ideals, their skills, their culture and their genes. The death of civilization lacks this comfort. But somehow we have to translate the knowledge about the death of the individual into one about our collective dying.

Robert Bringhurst and his partner Jan Zwicky, two Canadian scientists, philosophers and poets, in their booklet "Learning to die - Wisdom in the Age of Climate Crisis" (14), believe that, even if a few people should survive the sixth mass extinction, our civilisation will not. And then nobody will know anymore about Plato, Bach or Rembrandt.

Bringhurst writes knowledgeable books about the myths and cultures of Native Americans (15). He describes how these natives understood themselves as part of a nature that cannot be dominated. This in contrast to the Western attitude that nature should be dominated as expressed in Genesis 1:28 "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth...", the attitude that is actually the cause of our predicament.

Zwicky asks what moral qualities we need at the end of our civilization. These are the qualities that have always been needed in life: knowledge and the awareness that our knowledge is limited, modesty, courage, self-control, justice, patience and mercy. Only with modesty can we get rid of the ego, which gives us the courage to look the facts into the eye. And compassion is needed for those who cannot face the facts. In any case, our own actions and those of others are but gestures in the air that disappear like music. Like the previous mass extinctions, the present one will leave some life behind which will give rise to other forms of life.

These highlights must suffice, but this booklet shows that you can view the whole problem quite otherwise than with rejection, panic, schedules for action or a raised index finger, namely with philosophical composure.

If the end of life of an individual is inevitable and consists only of suffering, whose meaning is difficult to see, then the question of euthanasia arises, and indeed it is sometimes practiced today. This question will also arise when societies perish in hunger, disease, plunder and mutual manslaughter. The idea is not new. In the end-time novel "On the Beach" (1957, 16), Nevil Shute lets the last survivors of nuclear war kill themselves with cyanide to escape these final stages.

It's also about how to shape the last hours: When the children of the orphanage run by Janusz Korczak (17) had to leave the Warsaw Ghetto, he tricked them into believing they were going on a countryside trip and dressed them as nicely as possible. Korczak went along and preceding the procession of twohundred children a boy played the violin - the Germans love music. Holding their little hands, adorned and singing, they moved to the cattle cars, which were to unload them in Treblinka for immediate gassing. Le style c'est l'homme.

References and Links:

Posts in English:

Dienstag, 6. August 2019

Wassermangel droht einem Viertel der Weltbevölkerung

Der weltberühmte Biologe E.O.Wilson nennt drei existentielle Gefährdungen für die Biosphäre: Erwärmung, Artensterben und Trinkwassermangel, wobei der Grundtreiber für alle drei die Überbevölkerung sei.

Über den Trinkwassermangel hat das World Resources Institute soeben einen Bericht veröffentlicht, den der Englische Guardian in untenstehender Karte zusammenfasst: Länder mit unmittelbar drohendem Trinkwassermangel sind violett (in absteigender Dringlichkeit, eingeklammert Bevölkerung in Mio): Quatar (3), Israel (9), Libanon (6), Palaestina (5), Iran (80), Jordanien (10), Libyen (7), Kuwait (5), Saudiarabien (34), Eritrea (5), Vereinigte Arabische Emirate (9), San Marino (0), (Bahrain 2), Indien (1400), Pakistan (200), Turkmenistan (6), Oman (14), Botswana (2).

Rot eingezeichnete Länder haben ebenfalls ein hohes Risiko von Wassermangel, u.a.: Chile (17), Zypern (1), Yemen (27), Belgien (11), Mexiko (125), Afghanistan (35), übriges Nordafrika (ca. 200), ganz Südeuropa (130), Türkei (82), Syrien (ca.15), Irak (39), Usbekistan (33), Kirgisistan (6), Nepal (29), Südwesten der USA (57).

Der hochgradige Wassermangel konzentriert sich besonders auf den Mittleren Osten und Nordafrika, die sog. MENA-Region. Global bedroht er akut 1,8 Milliarden Menschen, d.h. einen Viertel der Weltbevölkerung und subakut weitere 0,7 Milliarden, zusammen bis einen Drittel der Weltbevölkerung, die irgendwann einmal auf die Wanderschaft gehen müssen. Und dazu werden noch andere kommen, z.B. werden Teile Südasiens wegen Hitze und hoher Luftfeuchtigkeit unbewohnbar werden, obschon es dort genug Trinkwasser gibt. Entsprechend schätzte der Chef des Deutschen Bundesnachrichtendienstes in einem Vortrag das weltweite Migrationspotential auf weit über eine Milliarde.

Trinkwassermangel hängt mit den übrigen Kalamitäten und Ursachen eng zusammen. Teils ist er Folge der Klimaerwärmung, teils direkte Folge der in vielen kritischen Regionen nach wie vor zunehmenden Übervölkerung, die zu Übernutzung der Trink- und Grundwasserquellen führt, wie z.B. im Iran. Die weltweite Nachfrage nach Frischwasser hat sich seit 1960 verdoppelt.

Mit Abstand grösster Süsswasserverbraucher ist die Landwirtschaft. Pro Kilo Weizen braucht es um die 2000 Liter Wasser. Pro Kilo Fleisch aus der Tiermast ist der Wasserverbrauch fünf bis zehnmal mal höher. Man stelle sich vor, was dies für das wasserarme Indien bedeutet, das gerade zum Fleischkonsum übergeht.

Die Folgen sind vielfältig: Wassermangel trägt zum Artensterben bei. Im Mittelmeerraum soll bei Erreichen der zwei Grad Erwärmung der Anbau von Wein, Zitrusfrüchten und Oliven unmöglich werden. Die arabische Halbinsel wird durch Wassermangel und Erhitzung weitgehend unbewohnbar werden. Wassermangel kann zu Revolutionen und Kriegen führen: In Syrien z.B. führte zunehmende Dürre zu Landflucht in die Städte, wo deswegen Unruhen ausbrachen. Das Regime reagierte mit untauglichen Gegenmassnahmen, was zum Ausbruch des Bürgerkrieges und zur Flüchtlingskrise führte. Ähnliche Unruhen können jederzeit anderswo ausbrechen, z.B. in Ägypten. Überhaupt ist abzusehen, dass sich in Zukunft Nationen gegenseitig das Wasser abgraben werden, z.B. im Himalayagebiet oder im Quellgebiet des Nils, was auch zu Konflikten führen wird.

Nicht allen Ländern macht der Wassermangel etwas aus: Wenn ein steigender Meeresspiegel Pakistan unter Wasser setzt, spielt Trinkwassermangel keine Rolle mehr.

Samstag, 27. Juli 2019

Redet endlich Klartext: Holocaust 2 (*)

(Erschienen in Bieler Tagblatt vom 17.8.2019, aktualisiert 31.7.2021)

Alle reden von Klimawandel, ein Begriff ohne Richtung oder Bedrohlichkeit, der eigentlich vernebelt, was Sache ist. Besser wäre "Klimaerwärmung", aber auch das ist noch zu angenehm. Treffender vielleicht "Klimaerhitzung". Immerhin kann Hitze schon beeinträchtigen. Aber trifft das den Sachverhalt?

Fossil by Heartless Machine (9)

Jede Sekunde wird die Erde mit der Energie von drei bis sechs Hiroshimabomben aufgeheizt (3). Vor dem Pariser Klimaabkommen von 2015 wurde davon gefaselt, den Temperaturanstieg bis ins Jahr 2100 auf 1,5 Grad zu begrenzen, aber selbst bei dessen Erfüllung würde die Temperatur um 2,4 Grad steigen. Weil sich niemand daran hält gehen die offiziellen Prognosen von 3,2 Grad Globalerwärmung bis 2100 aus. Deshalb musste man schon 2017 die 1,5 Grad auf Mitte unseres Jahrhunderts vorverschieben und 2018 hat das IPCC die 1,5 Grad offiziell auf 2040 vorverlegt (4).

Aber selbst dieser dramatische Bericht blendet aus, dass der Temperaturanstieg durch die weiter steigenden Treibhausgase weiter beschleunigt wird: Die 1,5 Grad sind schon 2030 oder vorher zu erwarten, wie die angesehene Zeitschrift Nature schreibt (5), eine Vorverlegung um sieben Jahrzehnte innert ca. sieben Jahren! Und das abschmelzende Poleis wird diese Effekte wegen verminderter Reflexion um 20 oder mehr Prozent verstärken, auch das nicht im IPCC-Bericht.

Mit anderthalb Grad Erwärmung gehen 70-90 Prozent aller Korallenriffe zugrunde. Der nächste Schritt, die zwei Grad zerstören 99 Prozent der Korallenriffe, in Südeuropa wird der Anbau von Zitrusfrüchten, Oliven und Wein unmöglich. Teile des Mittleren Ostens und Nordafrikas (6) sowie Südostasiens werden hitzebedingt unbewohnbar. Jede erreichte Erhitzung ginge sogar bei stabilisierten Treibhausgasen während Jahrzehnten weiter. Fatale Selbstverstärkungs- und Kippmechanismen können jederzeit dazukommen, soweit sie nicht schon jetzt ablaufen. Teils unabhängig und ebenso bedrohlich ist das galoppierende Artensterben durch Lebensraumzerstörung, Chemie und Hitze sowie der zunehmende Trinkwassermangel, alles verschärft durch unkontrolliert steigende Bevölkerung. Der Deutsche Bundesnachrichtendienst rechnet mit einer Milliarde Menschen, die flüchten und sich bekriegen werden, und das ist ja nur der Anfang, danach wird zusammen mit Zivilisation und Menschenrechten auch ein Grossteil der Biosphäre untergehen.

Der Klimaforscher Prof. Joachim Schellnhuber benannte sein Buch "Selbstverbrennung" (7), David Wallace-Wells das seinige "Die unbewohnbare Erde" (8,9). Darum geht es doch, dass wir durch Gier, Dummheit und Herdentrieb alles zerstören, Mensch und Natur durch Hitze, Gift und Dürre. Der englische Guardian will deshalb nicht mehr von "global warming" reden, sondern nimmt Greta Thunbergs Vorschläge auf wie "Klimazusammenbruch", "Klimakrise", "Klimanotstand", "ökologische Krise" etc (10). E.O.Wilson redet vom "Zusammenbruch des Ökosystems" (11). Nur bezeichnen alle diese Ausdrücke etwas abstraktes, etwas ausserhalb liegendes, etwas wie eine Überschwemmung oder eine Lawinenkatastrophe, dem man sich stellen kann. Sie machen nicht bewusst, dass damit alles endet.

Seit Jahren bringt die Neue Zürcher Zeitung mit schöner Regelmässigkeit alle paar Monate sehr anschauliche und präzise Artikel zum Holocaust. Wohlig gruselnd wird mit Fingern auf die Bösewichte gezeigt, auf die Ausschaltung der Menschlichkeit durch Hunger, Waffen, Gift und Krematorien, und - ach, sagen sich die Bürger in ihren Pantoffeln, wie sind wir doch so gut... Aber ich wundere mich, wieso gilt die gleiche Anschaulichkeit und Präzision nicht für die kommende Ausschaltung von Menschlichkeit und Zivilisation durch Hunger, Flucht, Krieg, Umweltvergiftung und globale Verbrennung? Was vor uns liegt ist der Holocaust 2, diesmal mit grauenhaften Folgen nicht nur für Mensch und Menschlichkeit, sondern für die ganze Biosphäre. Genauso vorsätzlich wie der erste Holocaust, denn Ursachen und Folgen sind bekannt und sichtbar. Aber in Ausmass und Vollständigkeit der Auslöschung um Grössenordnungen schlimmer. All das hat schon begonnen, und derweil streiten wir uns um Cannabisfreigabe, COVID, Gendersprache, Krankenkassenbeiträge und Pensionsalter, wie wenn das daneben noch irgendeine Rolle spielte.

Nein, es ist nicht eine Klimaveränderung, es ist der Holocaust 2. Und ja, wir können totschweigen, einsperren und des Landes verweisen, wer dagegen protestiert. Aber das löst das Problem genau so wenig, wie das feige Augenverschliessen vor der Realität.
___________________________________________________

(*) Es wurde verschiedentlich bezweifelt, ob der Ausdruck "Holocaust 2" (aus dem Griechischen, eigtl. Totalverbrennung) zulässig sei. Ich habe diesen Text deshalb einem Halbjuden und einem Zigeuner vorgelegt, welche beide in Auschwitz Angehörige verloren hatten und somit befugt sind, zu urteilen. Beide bejahten, dass der Ausdruck treffe und gebraucht werden dürfe.

Vorauszuschicken ist, dass der Begriff Holocaust schon lange vor den Nazis, d.h. seit 1600 gebraucht wurde. Von solchen, die den Ausdruck ablehnten wurde verschiedenes vorgebracht: Es wurde behauptet, der erste Holocaust sei eine industrielle Vernichtung gewesen, der zweite nicht. Ja, aber ist der zweite nicht industriell par excellence, nämlich überhaupt eine Folge der Industrialisierung? Es wurde auch behauptet, der erste sei absichtlich gewesen, der zweite nicht. Ja, aber wusste nicht Exxon Jahrzehnte vor den Grünen, dass der Treibhauseffekt in die Katastrophe führe und finanzierte trotzdem Desinformationskampagnen mit Hunderten von Millionen Dollars? Und die Koch Brothers und alle die bestochenen "Experten", und die Redaktionen, die nicht auf die Wissenschaft hören oder sie verunglimpfen (es ist doch schon kurios: Wenn die Ingenieure und Physiker Brücken, Eisenbahnen, Flugzeuge, Kraftwerke berechnen, anvertrauen wir ihnen diskussionslos unser Leben, nur wenn sie vom Klima sprechen soll alles gelogen sein, da stimmt doch etwas nicht)? Es wurde eingewendet, der erste Holocaust sei bewusst betrieben worden, und der zweite sei ja "unbewusst": Mir scheinen die Unterschiede klein, auch nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg hiess es bekanntlich überall in selbstbemitleidendem Ton "davon haben wir ja alle nichts gewusst", obschon sehr viele von den öffentlich sichtbaren Enteignungen und Vertreibungen profitiert hatten, wie der Historiker Götz Aly nachgewiesen hat, und obschon mindestens Hunderttausende wennnicht Millionen von Soldaten von den Massenerschiessungen im Osten wussten, soweit sie nicht überhaupt Zeugen oder Täter waren. Genauso jetzt: Die meisten "wissen von dem ja überhaupt nichts", obschon die Informationen frei zugänglich sind, und viele Jugendliche es auch ganz genau wissen. Es wurde auch eingewendet, das besondere am ersten Holocaust sei der Rassenwahn gewesen, - aber der zweite, wird der nicht auch wegen einem Wahn geführt? Diesmal Wachstumswahn oder Konsumwahn, dafür sind die Konsequenzen noch entsetzlicher. Es wurde gesagt, der erste sei so besonders, weil er spezifisch gegen Juden und Zigeuner geführt worden sei. Soweit so gut, aber auch der zweite betrifft genauso Juden und Zigeuner, und das noch totaler als der erste, darin sind sie deckungsgleich, nur betrifft der Holocaust 2 jetzt alle anderen auch, incl. der ganzen Biosphäre. Der erste ist in diesem Sinne lediglich eine Teilmenge des zweiten. Manchmal ging die Argumentation auch in irrationale Polemik über, z.B. sei die Verwendung des Ausdrucks Holocaust rassistisch, oder man pöbelte gegen den Autor als Überbringer einer schlechten Nachricht.

Das ist alles Spiegelfechterei,man streitet um Worte, um sich der Sache nicht stellen zu müssen. Die Frage ist doch, ob man das uns bevorstehende Grauen überhaupt adaequat benennen darf und kann. Und da scheinen alle anderen Worte zu sauber, zu objektivierend, - kurz ungenügend, um das bevorstehende Staatsversagen und den sicheren Untergang von Menschlichkeit und Zivilisation zu fassen. Überwiegend hatte ich in diesen Diskussionen den Eindruck, dass man sich gegen den Ausdruck wehrt, um sich unter einem zimperlich-schöngeistig-ethischen Mäntelchen vor der Realität zu drücken - und lalala, schon hat alles keine Dringlichkeit mehr, wir können zur Tagesordnung übergehen: Schule halten wie bisher, einkaufen wie bisher, arbeiten wie bisher, die Autobahnen und Flughäfen weiter ausbauen und müssen uns der Situation nicht stellen. Lieber lassen wir doch alles in der Vernebelung, oder?... Genau diese Haltung hat uns in diese Situation gebracht.
____________________________________________________________________

(1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7bs7ShEVHM&t=35

(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_Commission_Report

(3) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/07/global-warming-of-oceans-equivalent-to-an-atomic-bomb-per-second

(4) https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2018/12/SR15_FAQ_Low_Res.pdf

(5) https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07586-5

(6) https://www.scinexx.de/news/geowissen/droht-dem-orient-ein-klima-exodus/

(7) https://www.exlibris.ch/de/buecher-buch/deutschsprachige-buecher/hans-joachim-schellnhuber/selbstverbrennung/id/9783570102626
(8) https://www.exlibris.ch/de/buecher-buch/deutschsprachige-buecher/david-wallace-wells/die-unbewohnbare-erde/id/9783453281189
(9) http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html
(10) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-guardian-is-changing-the-language-it-uses-about-the-environment
(11) https://lukasfierz.blogspot.com/2019/07/klimaerwarmung-wassermangel.html

Mittwoch, 17. April 2019

White Man doomed

(English translation of "Der Untergang des Weissen Mannes" which originally appeared in my Book "Begegnungen mit dem Leibhaftigen", Tredition, 2016)

I was a boy of fifteen years then in 1956 when I had my first and only encounter with Carl Gustav Jung, the famous Swiss psychiatrist. He was over eighty years old and it happened on the shores of the lake of Zürich.

Original tower left, buildings were added during Jungs lifetime

There Jung had built with his own hands the well-known tower where he spent every summer without phone or electricity. My grandparents being his close friends he had let them have a stretch of his land to build a summer house too. When my grandparents died it was our privilege to spend holidays there.

Jung preparing firewood in Bollingen
(from a youtube video)

Passing by with the rowing boat one could often see Jung at the waterfront, splitting wood with the axe or playing with pebbles near the water, always wearing his tattered straw hat and a green gardeners apron.

One afternoon the big, slightly bent man with his straw hat appeared near our boat house and said that it was time for a neighbourly visit. We took him inside and served some tea. He was in good mood and very affable. When asked how he was doing he answered – looking ironically over his small glasses - that it was very interesting to observe the phenomena of senility once upon oneself.

Jung looking over his glasses

He then lit a pipe and told us some stories, speaking mostly to the young generation, to my brother and me. First, he mentioned experiments with hypnosis done in Paris: A married lady was hypnotized back in time and, when asked about her husband, she only blushed and said coyly that she did not know such a person.

Then he told us about his expedition to the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico after the first world war. Jung had treated a family member of John D. Rockefeller, who out of gratitude financed him some ethnological expeditions to Africa and the Americas. Jung told us about his encounter with a Pueblo chief whose name was “mountain lake”. This chief told him, that the white man was doomed. When asked why the chief took both hands before his eyes and – Jung imitating the gesture – moved the outstretched index fingers convergingly towards one point before him, saying because the white man looks at only one point, excluding all other aspects.

Taos, New Mexico, where Jung encountered "Mountain Lake"

Jung has written about this same encounter several times: E.g. the chief having said that the white man was mad, because the only thought with his head and not with the heart as one should. But Jung’s writings never mentioned this pueblo chiefs prediction of white man’s doom. Probably at the time this was too farfetched to be taken seriously, seeming just an example of primitive man’s thinking unconnected with reality.

1972 the Club of Rome in his report “Limits to growth” startled the world with conclusions never thought of before. In Europe and elsewhere trying to apply these to politics proved unsuccessful in the framework of the established political parties. Thinking individuals therefore began to found small green movements and parties everywhere. We did this also in Switzerland and in the eighties I became a green member of the Swiss parliament.

Christoph Blocher (R) speaking to a member of government (ca. 1990)

Our main adversary in environmental questions was the Swiss Peoples Party, whose dominant figure was the successful industrialist and self-made billionaire Christoph Blocher, a really enthralling public speaker, and so to say a prototype of the white man. We both once allied in sinking a useless subsidy and therefore had some private discussions. Once I asked him what in his view was the reason for his incredible entrepreneurial and political success. He took both hands before his eyes and moved the outstretched index fingers convergingly towards one point before him, saying because I am able to concentrate on only one point, excluding all other aspects. I remember that I had to swallow empty two or three times not saying anything further…

This was some thirty years ago. And today the prediction of the Pueblo chief is not any more an example of primitive thinking unconnected with reality. Because if the white man will be doomed its exactly because he can look and concentrate at just one point, excluding all other aspects. His focus of interest is growth - growth of greatness, growth of population, growth of production and economy. And he excludes everything else, may it be bees, bombs, the shrinking fertile soils, the depletion of species and oceans and especially the relentlessly warming atmosphere, which will burn us all to death unless we take most drastic actions ourselves now…

And why did Carl Gustav Jung tell us young people about this encounter with the Pueblo chief which he could not have understood and never had put into writing? Of course Jung was a born entertainer and storyteller, but he also had an irrationally visionary side to him. Probably he felt that it was important to transmit this warning to a younger generation, even if its significance was not clear in 1956. And now I have transmitted it again.
__________________________________

In the meantime I have tried to find out what the chiefs sayings might mean today and I came up with the following points:

_________________________________________________________________

Letting down Humanity...

Über mich