Reminds me of one of my earlier childhood memories. I was probably four. It was a clear memory and one of my few of my mom with dark hair (she went grey in her 30s). She was ironing in the living room while watching TV (a tiny screen in a really nice wooden cabinet my dad had made). I remember the cafe curtains with the bobble fringe trim. It was overcast and grey (not too common in SoCal). I even remember what I was wearing – a pair of dungarees, a t-shirt and a cardigan with a grosgrain ribbon trim).
I remember the image on the TV screen (and much later I realized it had been the UN Security Council), and I asked my mom what was going on, and she said they were talking about whether we were going to have a war.
Well, to me in 1955-56, that meant atomic bombs. That meant annihilation (if I’d known that word). She told me to go outside and play, and I spent the rest of the morning expecting to be bombed to smithereens.
It was traumatic enough to remember in such detail, but did I spend the rest of my childhood in constant terror and dread? Well, there were moments, of course, but mostly no.
Because this kind of belief, no matter how intensely it is held, remains a temporarily embraced belief resulting mostly from frustration and disappointment, such as the belief that there is no real friendship out there in the aftermath of a fall-out with a friend, or the belief that you will never be good with women in the aftermath of a lousy divorce. These are emotionally motivated beliefs that change, because no one who says fuck women after a divorce will actually go and get a penectomy.
The other kind of beliefs, which compels us to move to other cities and governs our behavior, is the visceral belief. This is not based on emotion, but knowledge. You believe you are good at baking, so you pursue vocational training in baking. You believe this neighborhood is infested with crime, so you move closer to the beach.
This is why I think no one who believes the world is over will really act on it or sell everything to travel the world, because you do not walk around thinking about that, otherwise this will be followed by rational questions: how exactly will the world end? And when? And how much time does this give me? Even if you do not act on any of this - the mere belief that the world will end exists only a singular thought and not a complete, coherent, and connected idea.
I don’t know if I am articulating this correctly, but here it is.
This description is one that modern societies cleave to as a kind of self-congratulatory origin myth about themselves, but much of it is not attested in what anthropological data we have. It would be an enormous thread hijack to go on, but I will say that I agree that human beings are provably capable of envisioning and enacting societies that do not poison the very earth they need to survive. They just won’t. Not can’t. Won’t.
I do very much believe in a bleak unavoidable future. Not just for me, or for human beings, but for almost all things now living, and it won’t be the far future either. Indeed, this terrible future is already here, for those with eyes to see. Because of this belief, I live exactly how I’ve always lived, which is as sustainably as possible, as connected to the living world as possible, and as ethically as possible. I’m also as kind and generous as possible. The ‘as possible’ part could also be written ‘not very’. Because I am a very limited person.
Sorry for the short temporary hijack, but this is the second time in this thread that someone has used “temporal” to mean “persisting for a finite length of time”. Is this another case of people abusing the English language so often is becomes acceptable (like “begs the question”) or are these just typos?
I don’t think they meant temporary. Temporal means worldly rather than spiritual, and in context, that seems what both were referring to, rather than a length of time.
Interesting. I looked it up because I didn’t believe you, but yes, this is in fact a definition of temporal. I’ve only ever known it to be “related to time”.
Not too long ago I heard what was portrayed to be a sort of classic Russian aphorism. When asked how things are going, the response is something like “On average, not too bad: not as good as last year, but still, much better than next year.”
You just have to face the reality that things are not going to get better. But the apocalypse is not a catharsis, it is a thing that unfolds with excruciating leisure. At some point, people will look back and realize that it has happened and things are much different now than they used to be. We are probably in the midst of it right now.
People, however, are kind of good at dealing with challenges. That is how you have to face it. You will have the opportunity to exercise your ingenuity, get through some difficult times and feel a sense of pride in your ability to have coped.
In other words, it my look like a wasteland to you now, but if you get through it, it will just have been some hard times. I used to view the desert that way, but having spent a little time in it, I see that it really is alive. Perhaps that would be good therapy: go to a bleak-ish natural landscape (not an open pit mine and observe how much you missed.
…provided you spend a lot of time on the Internet and never lived in a third world country or at any other time in human history or as any minority group or without income or were sick or in genuine pain at any time or were any other mammal or vertebrate… anything in that general area..
It still is, in that usage. The physical world is temporal, in that it will persist for a limited time, then end. As opposed to heaven, which is eternal.
Are you saying that temporal implies finite? If so then consider that spacetime consists of 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, which is assumed to be unbounded from above.
While repeating my appreciation of the discussion so far, I’d like to note that in my mind, consequences that are less than apocalyptic are okay to discuss in my mind under this topic. Like I said above, we made fun of the “I’m moving to Canada” crowd. Does their failure to act seriously mean they don’t “really” believe the things they were saying?
No, it means they weren’t aware of how difficult it actually is to do. I’d probably move to Canada just for the weather, but immigration isn’t actually all that easy.
Civilization is pretty resilient. Also every year we gain new tools due to the expansion of science and knowledge in general that allow us to survive bad events. It is my understanding that if we went through the great recession of 2008 with the economic knowledge we had in the 1920s, it would’ve been a depression. But we knew far more about economics in 2008 vs 1930 and as a result we could avoid some of the worst outcomes.
Humanity survived the black plague. Even when we had no idea how diseases spread and cultures were losing 30-50% of their citizens, civilization still survived. Look at what Russia went through from 1900-1945. A civil war, a world war, a second civil war, the spanish flu, a massive famine, a massive authoritarian purge, a second civil war. Tens of millions died and civilization survived.
I think people like your acquaintance are exaggerating how fragile society is. Society as a whole survives plagues, famines, wars, genocides, dictatorships and other terrible things. And they survived them with far less knowledge about how the world works than we have in 2022.
Coincidentally, I’m reading The Anthropocene Reviewed by John Green and he has a chapter called “Humanity’s Temporal Range”. He uses temporal in the sense of the finite amount of time in which something exists.
I found this one:
tem·po·ral1
/ˈtemp(ə)rəl/
adjective
relating to worldly as opposed to spiritual affairs; secular. - “the Church did not imitate the secular rulers who thought only of temporal gain”
relating to time. - “the spatial and temporal dimensions of human interference in complex ecosystems”
I think the first use of the term is implied by the second. A Christian view would be that our existence in this world is finite in time while out existence in a spiritual afterlife will be infinite in time.
Before WWII there were people who emigrated to the USA from Europe because they were Jewish, and it was bad for Jews anywhere near Germany, remember? So their countries were not so good. But they would come here and then join our armed forces to fight against Germany. I don’t know how they all felt about their old countries. But just because they left another country didn’t keep them from contributing elsewhere or as a citizen of the world.
So if someone goes to Canada, they should fully commit, become a citizen of Canada, participate in society there and in the greater world. Like the people coming here before WWII did. What I sometimes see is people becoming ex-pats, living outside of the US and criticizing it, thinking themselves superior and empowered, but not becoming attached to their new country either, just skimming off the cream. They’re not any more loyal to the new country than they are the USA. In that case these people are not showing courage, rather the opposite.
Not trying to pick on you as the only person who expressed your view of the future in this thread, but since you’re “here”: do you still vote? Do you financially plan beyond X number of years? When someone tells you they’re having kids, how do you feel for them? Dread? Pity? Sadness? (I’m assuming you outwardly react in a societally acceptable manner regardless of this answer.) To pick up on an earlier post, under what circumstances would you actively try to convince someone that your view of the world is right? Does someone with your views saying “we’re fucked” in discussions of this have any aspect of trying to convince others, in your mind? Of expressing any feelings towards those who disagree?
If you don’t feel like answering all of these, feel free to pick the ones you want to (including none at all, of course; like I said, I didn’t want to make anyone in particular into a spokesperson for an entire point of view).
Since it is not the future I despair of as much as the human beings who are destroying it, why would I try to convince people that they should change, when I feel certainty that they won’t? If a 70% population loss of other-than-human species since 1970 doesn’t mean anything to you, if climate change statistics don’t mean anything to you, then nothing I could possibly say is going to make the slightest difference. And if you don’t know about such things, it is only because you don’t want to.
I would be ashamed not to vote, and stupid not to plan for future financial security. I reuse plastic bags, grow my own tomatoes, eat tofu, drive a tiny car. What else would I do, besides live the way I feel is right?
Children are the least of it, really. Particularly the children I am most apt to know the parents of. If it was up to white highly educated people of childbearing age, the population would be doing the exact nosedive it needs to. Example, my parents had four children, all married, so that’s eight. Half of us had one child and the other half two. That would make six third generation. All but one of the six married. So that would be eleven, with spouses. At present there are three fifth generation children, and the fourth gen is in their thirties to early forties; I don’t expect many more. That I would say is perfectly typical.
You know that ancient joke, “I love humanity, it’s people I can’t stand”? Well I’ve always been the opposite.
“Step right up to the cave of mysteries and yell your solution at the audio-lock. Somebody is going to yell the right word some day, and when the door swings open and suddenly we all know the answer to that primary question - Why? - we may find it unendurable to live with that answer.”