Navigating Climate Tragedy

Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy

by Dr. Jem Bendell

PUBLISHED July 27, 2018

Abstract
The purpose of this conceptual paper is to provide readers with an opportunity to reassess their work and life in the face of an inevitable near term social collapse due to climate change.
The approach of the paper is to analyse recent studies on climate change and its implications for our ecosystems, economies and societies, as provided by academic journals and publications direct from research institutes.
That synthesis leads to a conclusion there will be a near term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers. The paper reviews some of the reasons why collapse denial may exist, in particular, in the professions of sustainability research and practice, therefore leading to these arguments having been absent from these fields until now.
The paper offers a new meta-framing of the implications for research, organisational practice, personal development and public policy, called the Deep Adaptation Agenda. Its key aspects of resilience, relinquishment and restorations are explained. This agenda does not seek to build on existing scholarship on “climate adaptation” as it is premised on the view that social collapse is now inevitable.
The author believes this is one of the first papers in the sustainability management field to conclude that climate-induced societal collapse is now inevitable in the near term and therefore to invite scholars to explore the implications.

READ MORE: HERE

8 responses to “Navigating Climate Tragedy

  1. Now That is amazing. I just responded to you on the other post/comment (didn’t I?) aboout denial.

    And then your paper here (which is really not a ‘then’, but probably more ‘at the same time):


    Can professionals in sustainability management, policy and research – myself included – continue to work with the assumption or hope that we can slow down climate change, or respond to it sufficiently to sustain our civilization”

    The climate.
    Civilization.

    One can not dissolve or argue the correlation of term-scaffolded meaning. It is self-evident.
    It would be the same as arguing against climate change of our ecosystem of the planet, to attempt to argue against the discursive correlation that is happening between this essay in between our discussion even on the other post.

    And yet there will be an automatic argument that arises to cognition which denies that there is a correlation. What we found in the 20th century was an over determination of what this correlation means: there was a reaction to the correlation is if it meant that something was wrong and had to be corrected for through reason.

    But what was wrong was not admitting it as a plain fact; which is to say, like your essay addresses here, the plain flat fact of climate change.

    There is no discussion about the good or bad the right or wrong about whether admitting to such climate change is true or false or immoral or incorrect or whatever implications of ethics that the idea of climate change, may the reality of climate change is indeed a fact.

    Does that make sense do you?

      • Lol

        That’s ok. It just goes to my point.

        In a manner of speaking, though,
        In short: the climate is changing. That’s a fact. Argument against it does nothing to the fact. But it does give context for activity. The fact of the matter has little to do with the actual discussion about it; it arises outside and yet within. For if the fact was a part of the discussion, then why could we not discuss it away?

      • Let’s see if I can be more clear:

        “…That synthesis leads to a conclusion there will be a near term collapse in society with serious ramifications for the lives of readers. The paper reviews some of the reasons why collapse- denial may exist, in particular, in the professions of sustainability research and practice, therefore leading to these arguments having been absent from these fields until now.”

        Denial of the collapse due to climate change.

        I know you do not claim to be a philosopher. So I bare that in mind.

        We have to ask what terms refer to. Say, for example ‘society’. Just as a thought experiment, what is that term referring to. Put it in you mind.

        Can you tell me or refer me to what society is without using discourse?

        Ok. Hold that feeling, that answer.

        Now, what is ‘climate’? Again, apply the same questions.

        In the philosophical discourse of climate change we have to consider all the possible meanings of climate which still refer back to this term/idea and recognize what occurs as I attempt to tell you or refer you to the climate aside from discourse. Which is to say, the assumption that is at root in the use of discourse to answer those above questions. Can you be explicit as to what such terms refer to without the assumption?

        I ponder if at some point of noticing this phenomenon of communication one must admit that given a particular clause or phase or organization of phrases if it can be referring to more than one instance of an object, which is to say the referent? That is, and mean exactly the ‘same thing’ using the same Clausal structures and subsequent avenues of explanation?

        So again: what climate is changing? Is it an ‘out there’ object to which the discourse refers, or is it the ‘climate’ of the discourse itself which is changing?

        In mind of this thought experiment, the question Becomes a logistical question: How do you know?

        Is it ‘obvious’? Is it because others are confirming to you what you understand ? Are you seeing what you want to see?

        Again: How do you know?

        If we understand 20th century Western philosophy, The question must to be: to what universe are we referring to when we say that the climate is changing?

        As I think you yourself have referenced,
        How am I distinguishing what, say, a “philosophical world” is compared to an ‘actual world”?

        All of these questions inform the situation at hand.

        So it is interesting to me that you are referring to an essay that is talking about people that are trying to conserve the climate, to perhaps somehow allow the climate to not change so drastically because this can change in climate has been reported by people to mean that society is going to be disrupted or somehow damaged. And the abstract even references how are we to deal with people that are in denial of this climate change.

        So it is interesting to me that it appears that you are referencing the fact that you call climate change, and you are asking or you are referring to that particular essay that is addressing people that are in denial of this climate that is changing.

        And, what I thought was interesting, that in response to your comment on the other blog, I spoke about the situation of denial so far as the difference between language and discourse.

        So this juxtaposition of apparently two different discourses within the same instance of use of language brings me to ponder what is being conserved and what society is at risk?

        Of course these terms most often referred to something that is obvious, not something that appears to obviously extended throughout human condition that every individual human being should be able to conceive of course these terms most often referred to something that is obvious, not something that appears to obviously extended throughout human condition that every individual human being should be able to conceive and Know of.

        .And I say yes, language is able to refer to these various types of specific situations that are assumed for the common humanity as a common object that we call the universe and its various manifestations, that we affect by doing various things in good and bad ways. I am not argue against that in fact agree with that very conception and organization of thinking.

        But at the same time, I understand that discourse itself organizes peoples ontological existence to refer to specific understandings of these concepts. These understandings are assumed to spill over into other human beings and reflect upon themselves for that particular being in existence automatically and cannot be ‘proven wrong’. This is to say that there is a massive coincidence of climate, and so it is possible that when people talk of climate change, they are referring to this kind of climate automatically and inherently, But then due to the denial involved with the phenomenological intentional being, many people attempt to control or otherwise prevent this type of climate change through effective denial of the relationship of them self, discourse and the world.

        It is that’s possible that the discrepancy involved in the human being being valve it is that possible that the discrepancy involved in the human being involved with the universe in this manner, which is to say in denial of such climate changing, is in fact what contributes to the climate that changes.

        Does that help?

        • a postnihilist tilt:
          “I would like to approach philosophers with that broadminded lightness that I learned from rhizomatic style – as a tool box, as Deleuze and Guattari said about philosophical concepts. Open the box, rummage around nervously, put aside the pieces that are not useful, take what might be useful to complete a passage, to make fear pass by, to open a window, and then move along with the disjointed step of a schizo craftsman.” ~BIFO in “Félix Guattari: Thought, Friendship and Visionary Cartography“, p.39.

  2. Pingback: Patchworking the Future (3): Deeply Adaptive Patchworking vs. Fully Automated Fantasy | synthetic zerø·

  3. CNN just reported what you said in this post. We have 12 years and it’s all going to Hell!

    It goes to me point: the discursive instance does not map on the what is ‘actuAl’ in an effective sense, only in an interpretive sense, in a phenomenological sense. Becuase, do you really think we are going to implement vast deep and drastic changes in 12 years to sufficiently ward of this disaster ? I don’t think so. I think what ever will happen and we will respond to it

  4. Pingback: CNN announces that we’re all going to hell in 12 years! – The Philosophical Hack·

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s