Here is a short explanation of the title. It breaks down the metaphor used in the text to clarify that “Initiation” refers to a rite of passage rather than a beginning.
The title reframes the collapse of industrial civilization not as a meaningless end, but as a necessary rite of passage for humanity. It argues that humans are behaving as adolescents: obsessed with immediate gratification, a false sense of invincibility, and growth, the accumulation of material wealth.
Therefore, the “Initiation” refers to the painful evolutionary bottleneck we have entered. Just as a tribal initiation forces a child to endure an ordeal to become an adult, the climate and biosphere crises are the “initiatory ordeals” required to strip humanity of its illusions.
The goal of our initiation is a shift in consciousness: moving us from the role of planetary conqueror to that of a mature, responsible member of the biosphere. We are not dying; we are being forced to grow up.
In short: The biosphere collapse is the harsh lesson (the Initiation) required to transform humanity from reckless adolescence into mature sapience.
We stand at the terminal edge of the Holocene. By now, those of us paying attention to the data know that the era of “green growth” and technological salvation is a delusion. We are beginning to understand what systems theorist Nate Hagens calls “The Great Simplification”—the inevitable thermodynamic correction that occurs as our civilization’s energy subsidy, the “Carbon Pulse,” begins to fade.
Hagens has done the essential work of diagnosing the physics of our predicament. He has shown us the economic machinery of the descent. But as I walked the transects of the Sonoran Desert, watching the Saguaro forests vanish not into “nothing,” but into “weeds,” I realized that physics is only half the story.
The Great Simplification explains what is happening to us. It does not explain who we must become to survive it.
From Mechanics to Maturity
I have released a new document, “The Manifesto of the Initiation,” to bridge this gap. If Hagens provides the anatomy of the collapse, this Manifesto provides the soul of the descent.
The central premise is that the collapse of industrial civilization is not merely a failure to be avoided; it is a necessary evolutionary bottleneck—an Initiation.
Drawing on fifty years of ecological field data from the Arizona desert, the Manifesto argues that humanity is currently trapped in a state of “Industrial Adolescence.” We have exhibited all the classic pathologies of youth: omnipotence fantasies, immediate gratification, and a rebellion against limits. We believed we could bargain with biology.
The ecological data I present in the Manifesto—the “Sonoran Fractal”—proves that nature does not bargain. Just as the complex Saguaro ecosystem is being replaced by hardy, generalist weeds to survive the new climate, our civilization is being forced to shed its “Cathedrals” of complexity.
Why You Should Read It
While “The Great Simplification” asks how we might bend rather than break, “The Manifesto of the Initiation” asks a different question: How do we die well as a civilization so that we may be reborn as a mature species?
It is a guide for moving from:
Despair to Resoluteness.
Planetary Disruptor to Earth System Steward.
Sentience (feeling) to Sapience (wisdom).
We cannot save the world we knew. That world was built on a debt to nature that is now being called in. But we can curate the seeds for the world that is coming. We can stop being the “Black Knight” of the galaxy, denying our wounds, and finally grow up.
I invite you to read the full text. It is not a comforting document, but I believe it is an honest one.
The public appetite for climate policy is bigger now than when Julia Gillard’s government passed the carbon tax in 2011. AAP Image/Lukas CochIn
GR.–The Australian public is well informed about the danger of climate change. Politicians are avoiding the issue just as most are in the U. S. One of the reasons for U. S. presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ popularity is his acknowledged concern for climate change.
Deborah Cotton.–“. . . not long after Julia Gillard was returned to power in the 2010 federal election, I asked a representative sample of Australians about their attitudes to climate policy.
“Climate was a water-cooler issue at the time. The carbon tax legislation had been introduced into Parliament in March, paving the way for a subsequent emissions trading scheme.
“That scheme bit the dust in 2014 after becoming a hotly debated issue during the rancorous 2013 election campaign, but carbon policy has not had the same high profile during the current campaign. My colleagues and I decided to repeat our survey and see whether attitudes really have cooled on global warming.
“Despite climate policy being something of a sleeper issue in this election, our results suggest that concern about the climate is more widespread now than it was five years ago.
It is ridiculous to pretend that Australia As World’s Nuclear Waste Dump is “just a State issue” for South Australia.
What about the port for receiving the radioactive trash? – in what State? What about the rail and road transport of radioactive trash? Across which States?
What about Australia as the world’s laughing stock? No other country wants to be the global toxic trash can.
And of those countries that have nuclear power, not one of them has a completed and successfully operating nuclear waste facility for their own radioactive trash, let alone everybody else’s.
GR: Here’s an opportunity to add your voice to the conversation on climate, nuclear power, and nature conservation.
Christina Macpherson: With 3 weeks to go until the federal election, watching the performance of our major parties is a pretty unedifying sight. If I hear the words “Jobs and Growth” one more time, I will do an Elvis Presley, and throw a tomahawk at the TV set. (Did Elvis really do that? But I digress) Today PM Turnbull mouthed a few motherhood statements about climate, but no policy there. Labor is better, with a promising renewable energy policy. (Of course, neither are breathing a word about Australia importing nuclear waste. Nor is Nick Xenophon, the rising star who might hold the balance of power after the election) ) The Greens have an economically sound renewable energy plan.
I have emailed all Labor MPs, Senators and Candidates, asking each if they want to hold to Labor’s strong anti-nuclear policy, which bars importing nuclear waste, or if they would agree to change it. Few replies, so far, and most replies simply dodge the question Australians! You could send your own or use the sample at the end of this email. Contact details for Australian politicians and candidates are here.
On the State scene, South Australian Labor Premier Weatherill and Liberal Opposition Leader Steven Marshall are off together for a little nuclear lovefest in Finland, to look at Finland’s (not yet operative) nuclear waste repository.
The planned South Australian high level nuclear waste one will need to be up to 28 times the size of Finland’s. That’s around 112 square kms or 5,500 Adelaide ovals, 400 metres underground – and that’s not taking into consideration the 470,000 m3 of low and intermediate level nuclear waste. Source:The past week in nuclear news « Antinuclear
Lisa Blanck–These are some of the animals who will be affected – you can help stop this!Courtesy: Mark Kolbe, John Moore, Bill Pugliano/Getty ImagesEarlier this year the Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act (H.R. 2406) passed the US House of Representatives. The sponsor of this bill is Senator Lisa Murkowski, (R-AK), who first introduced it in September, 2015. The SHARE Act is an outright assault on animal welfare and conservation. Having passed the House, it now has reached the floor of the Senate, and, knowing it is extremely controversial, some of members of Congress are trying to bury it within another seemingly harmless Bill. They have attached this extreme anti-wildlife bill as an amendment to the Energy Policy Modernization Act (S.2012). If this bill is passed, the damage to wildlife and conservation will be dramatic and far-reaching.
The Animal Welfare Institute is fighting the passing of this bill, which would be a clear assault on wildlife worldwide. On May 20 they contacted members and humanitarians to ask for their help. Now you can make your voice heard and help stop it by simply clicking on this link and navigating to the “Contact Your Legislators” box to send an email to your State Senator. By simply typing in your address, the name of your senator will pop up. You can even personalize your letters in a box provided by AWI, who will then forward your email for you.
GR: This is the best discussion of the cause of coral death in Australia’s Great Barrier Reef I’ve seen–it’s people.
Coral bleaching at Loomis Reef, off Lizard Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Photograph: Essential Median
Graham Readfearn: In late November 2015, as corals across the northern section of the Great Barrier Reef started to bleach white, the game was finally up.
For years, Australians had been told the country’s jewel in the ocean’s crown was on the mend. Only months earlier the Coalition government had won a two-year fight to keep the reef off a United Nations list of world heritage sites in danger.
The stakes were high. International reputations and tourist dollars were at stake. The foreign minister, Julie Bishop, and the trade minister, Andrew Robb, had even attacked Barack Obama, who feared for the reef’s future.
The reef was not in danger, Bishop insisted. The president was misinformed, claimed Robb.
Conservative commentators hanging around News Corp media have said the dangers to the reef were overblown.
The mining industry cast the views of environmentalists as green propaganda, ignoring how for the most part, conservationists were echoing the findings of the government’s own scientists.
Unaware of the consequences of its behavior, the growing human population is erasing sixty-five million of years of biodiversity recovery since the massive extinction that eliminated dinosaurs and most other species. This is without doubt the greatest issue of our time, perhaps of all time. In the article below, Quentin Wheeler points out that biodiversity is not even being mentioned by our current presidential candidates.
Saguaro, the iconic species of the Sonoran Desert, blooming in April, two months earlier than usual (Rogers, 2016).
Global warming, deforestation, desertification, environmental pollution, and ocean acidification are familiar labels for human-caused destruction of biodiversity and stability of Earth ecosystems. They are all connected to the attempt by our billions of people to satisfy their desires for food, reproduction, safety, and convenience. Allowed uncontrolled expansion, any one of them can achieve planet-wide destruction of biodiversity. Consider that even if this year’s great climate-change treaty achieves a sudden shift to safe energy and stops global warming, it will not save life on Earth. No single-issue approach can.
“It’s unlikely that presidential candidates will ever utter the word “biodiversity” while campaigning this year.
“Yet among emerging environmental challenges, none has fewer facts or more enduring threats than the large-scale loss of biodiversity. That’s why we need a visionary investment in fundamental exploration to create knowledge and options.
“And our elected representatives should lead vigorous discussions about what we can and should do about it. From Jefferson to Kennedy, from the Northwest Territory to the depths of space, presidents of vision have opened new frontiers to exploration.
“Serious environmental problems are a bipartisan challenge that deserves to be in every presidential platform. While scientific questions should be firewalled from politics, what we do with scientific knowledge should not. The best solutions should emerge from the rough and tumble of public debate.
“Biodiversity belongs in our public discussion because we have so much to learn from the Earth’s species – both what it means to be human and the knowledge encapsulated in nature – as we plot our future in a time of great change.”
“This is not the first time that earth has weathered such a mass extinction event. There have been five previously, the most recent occurring 65 million years ago, marked by the disappearance of the great dinosaurs.
“In each case, evolutionary processes have restored high levels of species diversity, but this should give us little comfort. Biodiversity recovery takes place over tens of millions of years. And in the meanwhile, there can be enormously chaotic consequences for ecosystems.
“It’s estimated that 10 million more species could be described or redescribed in greater detail.andreaskay/flickr, CC BY-NC-SA”
“Our knowledge of the species with which we share planet Earth is dangerously limited, meaning that we make decisions and policies in near complete ignorance of basic facts. Our best guess is that there are 10 million living species, more or less, excluding the single-celled bacteria and Archaea.
“Of these, fewer than two million are known to science. And of documented species, most are known by little more than a few diagnostic features and a name. While the rate of species extinction has greatly increased, the pace at which we are exploring species has not.
“In one of the original “big science” ideas, the Swedish naturalist Linnaeus set out in the mid-18th century to complete a global inventory of all the kinds of animals and plants. That inventory continues today, but at an unacceptably slow pace. We discover about 18,000 species each year, a rate unchanged since the 1940s in spite of technological advances.
“This need not be so. Given appropriate technical support and coordinated teamwork, it has been estimated that 10 million species could be described or redescribed in greater detail in no more than 50 years.
“As global environments are stressed, we need reliable knowledge of species diversity upon which to detect and measure changes. Ironically, we have mapped the rocky surface of Mars in greater detail than the living biosphere of our own planet.
“Unless we know what species exist and where, how are we to recognize invasive species, measure rates of extinction or even know whether our conservation strategies are working or not? How are we to understand or restore complex ecosystems when we are ignorant of the majority of their functioning parts? And how much are we willing to risk losing by not undertaking a comprehensive biodiversity moon shot?”
Half the Earth?
“Three major benefits would accrue from a NASA-scale mission to explore the biosphere.
“First would be baseline documentation of the species that exist early in the 21st century, including how they assemble into complex networks in ecosystems. Such baseline data would be transformative for ecology, conservation biology, and resource management, and establish a detailed point of comparison for whatever changes come in the future.
“Second is unleashing the full potential of biomimicry. For 3.8 billion years natural selection has maintained favorable adaptations and weeded out unworkable ones. Among the millions of such adaptations, engineers and innovators can find inspiration for entirely new designs, materials, products and processes.
“The extent to which we succeed creating a truly sustainable future – from renewable energy to degradable materials to cities that function like efficient ecosystems – may well depend on how much knowledge we gather from other species, including those about to go extinct.
“Last, but not least, is knowledge of our origins. Anthropologists continue to fill gaps in our knowledge of the emergence of modern humans, but that is only the most recent chapter in our story. Every attribute that we think of as uniquely human was modified from characteristics of earlier mammals. And features supposedly unique to mammals were similarly modified from even earlier ancestors and so forth, all the way back to the first single-celled species from which the diversity of life around us evolved.
“We can no more understand what it is to be human without exploring this whole history than we could account for why Earth is as it is in the absence of knowledge of the universe.
“We stand a much better chance of slowing the rate of extinction and reducing the percentage of species ultimately lost if we complete a planetary species inventory. And by preserving evidence and knowledge of those species that are lost, we can continue to learn from them.
“New tools, such as those from information science and molecular genetics, can help speed species exploration, but are most powerful when used in combination with detailed descriptive studies of species that reveal their evolutionary novelties.
“E.O. Wilson’s new book, “Half Earth,” proposes that half our planet be reserved for all the other species. His suggestion has unassailable common sense and is perhaps the most workable solution holding promise for millions of other species.
“If we accelerate species exploration, we can add value to “their” half of the world by better understanding and appreciating its residents while finding nature-inspired solutions to sustainably meet our needs in the confines of our half.
“The sooner we act, the greater our chances to avoid a sixth extinction event and preserve nature’s vast library of clues to better ways to meet human needs in an era of rapid global environmental change.”
GarryRogers Nature Conservation 