An excellent challenge, David, and thank you for stating it so clearly and honestly. I hope the following flows coherently enough. I started jotting down some ideas as I read through your message, more thoughts occurred as I read a few messages from other participants, then I fleshed them out and added more. If this were to be a stand-alone article, there are a few paragraphs that I would reorder and reorganize. Anyway...

I too have been proven wrong more than once, and am quite willing to change my mind. Not only based on rational input, but on sensual and spiritual information as well -- both directly experienced and by proxy. I see the human species and society, as well as the rest of the universe, as a dynamic unfolding process. Whenever anything quits changing -- becomes static or reaches equilibrium -- that means it is dead. But even then it actually continues changing as it transforms into new and different life. From the perspective I hold based on natural systems principles, death is an entirely human invented concept; it doesn't exist in the natural world. All life contributes to more life in an expanding network of complex relationships.

So, let's further this inquiry by seeing if we have some fundamental agreement on some core principles and concepts. We come from the Earth, we're part of nature, and healthy climax ecosystems exhibit the core aspects of what we mean by sustainability over a time-frame measured in centuries. And, that this time-frame is meaningful in the human context, even if we don't currently don't seem to have a lot of experience in using it for planning.

If we can agree on these fundamental concepts, let's both see where they lead, and analyze what we have now that diverges from these core agreements. Because my goal really isn't to convince you, but to lay a rational and sensual framework where you come to this conclusion on your own. My core belief is that if we're brutally honest about what we're actually facing, from whence it springs, and what we actually have to work with then we can create effective responses. I believe humans have an innate ability to do this. Yes, there are roadblocks, and the current system has quite a bit of inertia. But let's be honest about what we could do in order to focus our energies on creating the sustainable future that appears to be a common goal while being smart enough to have fallback plans.

I also have to ask if you're really taking the stance that people _can't_ change through rational, conscious choice? This seems quite silly, as all we have to do is notice that collapse has yet to occur, yet thousands of people are joining the voluntary simplicity movement -- to point out only one of dozens of examples from the alternative lifestyle movement. Many of these people were pulling in six figure salaries and had their "dream" house on the hill.

The tentacles of modern culture are deep, tenacious, and myriad. What I see in many of the assumptions of the changes that will result as this system collapses is at their foundation lies an acceptance of the correctness and immutability of the dominator control hierarchies of the current system that created all the problems; that the fear based exploitive story that has created the problems will continue to hold sway even after no one can continue to deny it is nonfunctional from a sustainability perspective. Social chaos and anarchy assume that this violent, individualistic root is both normal and without alternative. If we're to truly do things differently, then this root must be replaced in order to have a foundation that will support the systemic changes necessary.

Planning for the end result of Peak oil and the collapse of the doomsday economy, which will be a sustainable society, will entail a fundamental shift in our relationship with the "other" to one that both accepts and enhances an interconnected and interdependent unity.

One of the things I'm trying to do is get people to examine their assumptions, and open up to possibilities they may not have imagined possible due to the cultural stories we've all been bombarded with all our lives. These stories say in different ways that there is no alternative; alternatives are not possible; alternatives would make things even worse. The way of the world is to be competitive and aggressive.

It's a view that ignores the manner in which living systems have evolved to create mutually supportive relationships; that is not willing to admit or even consider that a healthy, vibrant, resilient ecosystem is sustainable; that refuses to admit that humans embody those same principles since we are a part of nature; that we emerge from a living world; that we could look to sustainable ecosystems for the models and metaphors necessary for humans to create social systems and institutions that exhibit the same degree of sustainability.

I hope I haven't been mistaken as saying I think we can prevent the changes that are occurring in the biosphere due to anthropogenic catastrophic climate destabilization, or that we can (or even should) find some miracle replacement energy source that will allow the Industrial Growth Society to continue basically unabated. This is all that the call to "green" consumption is, as well as all other attempts to mitigate catastrophe through techno-fixes while protecting economic growth without admitting that economic growth is a fundamental aspect of the current global crises. In looking to sustainable ecosystems for examples, I have to ask where the central bank of the worms is where they charge usury rates to the oak trees for their ecological services.

I mean, humans are naturally inquisitive and inventive. They don't require financial incentives to remain this way. In fact, I would argue that financial incentives more often than not get in the way and derail many worthwhile attempts at improving the human condition and preserving natural resources.

What I do think we can plan for is a transition that doesn't bring the uglier aspects of humanity to the fore, while remaining diligent to those possibilities. But staying on guard to those possibilities isn't the same as planning for them. It's much like the whole growth debate in urban development -- growth is what you get when that's what you plan for.

And, of course, if we just give up and don't even try, then chaos, deprivation, and mass suffering will most likely be our fate.

One thing I think is idealistic is thinking that we can continue as we are (an aspect of which assumes we are immune to the consequences of carrying capacity), or not make the necessary changes to become truly sustainable, and still avoid extinction as we continue destroying the ability of the food chain to support life. I see this in the calls for building little enclaves of eco-villages away from civilization. Now, in theory, these could provide wonderful examples people can draw from as we fundamentally recast our social infrastructure to be in harmony with the natural world. However, one of the things missing today are healthy relationships between cultures. An interdependent world can't exist in separation or isolation. We also must realize that we can't continue breaking new ground. We've already broken too much ground. What we must do is mitigate the destruction we tend to thoughtlessly inflict as we rebuild.

It seems as if we all agree that things are changing, will change even more, and that there are some things that are going to occur that we can't plan for because they simply can't be foreseen. We seem to agree that a sustainable future is going to be necessary that doesn't use up the Earth's resources faster than they can be replenished, regenerated, and recharged. This requires being honest about population overshoot

In my critique of Pinker, I put him in the category of thinkers whose philosophy springs from the well of Cartesian dualism, Newtonian mechanics, and Enlightenment reductionism. These are all incomplete at best because they are divorced from the system they necessarily exist within. Not only do these schools of thought not adhere to the principles of natural systems, they dismiss them as irrelevant and immaterial.

This has fundamental ramifications for our on-the-ground responses and actions in creating a system that doesn't repeat the problems that emerge from a fundamentally disconnected world view.

One of the reasons I point out the research studies that I draw from is to counter the arguments that we couldn't do things differently even if we wanted to because it's not in our nature to do so. These studies point out that not only is it in our nature to do so, but it would require less energy expenditure because it is in keeping with the actual direction of the creative life force that is an intimate aspect of who we really are.

I'm not trying to convince you that you're incorrect, but that there may be possibilities that you haven't considered, or have discounted due to incomplete analysis, or based on a story whose own assumptions are based on ideas that run counter to living in harmony with the natural world. I'm saying that there may be a more productive, and less time consuming, way of reaching our common goal of a sustainable future, that moves more directly toward that future and is more in keeping with what we're coming to understand is the creative force of life itself, and has a greater possibility of delivering those benefits people say they want from life.

The idea that we have to take baby steps, settle for compromise, and can't expect people to change too drastically or quickly is all nonsense. It is a story that has been promulgated by the powers that be in order to ensure that nothing really changes that negatively impacts existing control structures. This has been the mantra of the progressive movement in American since the late 1800s. This is why power has become more entrenched and the overall situation of the planet and the vast majority of people has deteriorated. It is part and parcel of the regulatory environment set up by banking and industry to ensure they didn't get regulated, but that people did. As has been pointed out by many people in many contexts, in the global growth economy we don't regulate pollution, we license it. This is the core philosophy behind all the carbon trading and offset scams, which all do somewhere between little and nothing to actually decrease overall global greenhouse gas emissions. But they do make certain financial sectors more money.

And so, here is the core crux of my argument: One of the things I've learned from the ecopsychology process of reconnecting with nature, is that when people do more than rationally understand their connection and place in the web of life, but sensuously experience it is well, and then begin the process to integrate these two ways of knowing, they consciously desire to begin making new choices without having a brick fall on their head. It is often said that people won't fight to save what they don't love.

I fully agree with you that Gore, Suzuki, Lovins, Hawken, et. al. are merely advocating reform and not the fundamental change necessary. This will be too little too late.

Yes, we may fail in this endeavor. But I believe that assuming the worst, or that we're incapable of better, does little more than ensure that despair and loss of hope is part of our planning process and thus increases the likelihood of failure.