I have been thinking a lot over the past few days about the new narrative strategies emerging in the digital age- moving on from why and what they are, and what has provoked them (pretty much everything that I put into my two speeches at Notts Trent and Leeds Met in January) and instead considering the implications for us as a society, in their being our main way of consuming stories.
Stories are a massive part of how we learn and grow as a species. They allow us to try out other eventualities, other roles, understand the feelings of others, and our own place in the world. Stories are intricately linked to play, and playing (whether actually, or theatrically) is a recognised learning technique for both adults and children. (See the massive success of TIE in schools, prisons, and deprived areas, as well as the ways that children learn about their world). Likewise play – the ability to try and test for no reason other than the fun of it – is vital to creative thinking, whether in business and tech (where it’s called ‘innovation’) or in the humanities and social sciences, play, and narrative, is at the very basis of our evolutionary and inventive potential.
There is largely considered to be a point when we ‘grow out of’ playing. It is in evidence, in teasing, between friends, but proper immersive narrative experiences are thenceforth ring-fenced. There are areas where they are ‘ok’, and they include theatrical spaces, board games, TV, music, video game, radio, film, books. The arts, in short.
The film/television experience is inarguably passive when compared with the play that we experience as children, and with the ‘old’ narrative strategies of books (and to a certain extent radio – though ‘old’ perhaps not) where we are placed, if not in the position of another, at least in a world-constituting position of one type or another. We build worlds of the books we read with our imaginations, likewise theatre is necessarily world-constituting, the tension of live-ness with narrative, reality with suspension of disbelief, is an inherently world-constituting process – and a collective one at that.
Film and television are passive forms of narrative consumption, they are involving, largely individual, and can pretend to be interactive (the arbitrary decision of whether someone stays or goes is not world constituting) and are no less a form for that, but in terms of play, in terms of one key aspect of play – there’s something missing. Empathy. The process of placing yourself at the centre of creating a narrative – constituting a world – seeing it through anthers’ eyes is largely missing (though of course there are exceptions to this). I’m not arguing that film and television is bad art, but I do believe that to subsist on a diet of only filmic narrative will provoke illness. Continue reading Ourselves, in Other Contexts.
Global warming is not a complicated issue. The science has been done, the outlook only gets worse. The aim has been established: keep global warming under the 2°C ‘tipping point’ –the point at which it is almost universally agreed (I say almost, because there are crazies in all communities, including scientific ones) that the earth’s climate becomes so de-stabilised that there’s no saving us. Here’s a quick 1:21 on that:
If we cut global emissions by 85% we will have a 50/50 chance of keeping global temperature rise under the 2°C tipping point. Because the UK pollutes more than developing countries, our share of that is greater, we will have to cut roughly 93% of our emissions. Source. HOW we cut the emissions is equally important, a paper published earlier this year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has determined that that “wherever temperatures peak, that is more or less where they will stay. There is no going back.” Source and the slower we cut, the more emissions we put out, cumulatively speaking.
To deliver a high chance of preventing two degrees of warming, we would need to cut global emissions by something like 10% by the end of next year and 25% by 2012(7). This is a challenge that no government is yet prepared to accept. Source
Global Warming is not a complicated issue. It’s very simple, either we alter our behaviour, or we die. The sooner and greater we act, the better: 2050, that’s the deadline.
What happens if we don’t meet it?
On a meteorological level it means flash floods, coastal flooding, droughts, tsunamis, tornadoes and hurricanes, on a human level it means destroyed homes, water shortages, disease, ruined harvests, ever depleting world food stocks, looting, violence, and the destabilisation of power. At current rates of sea level rise by 5050 almost all of Cambridgeshire, Norfolk and Lincolnshire will be underwater, as well as a good amount of London.
I sat on a hill, high up in Leicestershire a week ago. I sat there with 3 of my good friends, and we just chatted in the sunshine. It was a warm day, not too hot, but the clouds hung down, grey. One of them asked me about climate change, so I pretty much said all of what I just have. They listened. Then they shrugged. ‘We’re all dead then, aren’t we’.
No, we are not.
This is the attitude that worries me most. That horrible fallacy which has been placed into people’s heads by the ease of modern living, a deadening lazy media, and a carefully cultivated cultural apathy; the idea that we have no power. That we cannot change things. Society is built of single units, working together, it works because we give it credence. They have no real control over us, to really control a society there would need to be 3 police officers to hold down every one person. We only give them power because it benefits us to subscribe the system. But the point at which the system threatens you, the point at which the system offers you more harm than protection, is the point at which you rise up,and you change it.
Governments exist to be re-elected, yes they have other aims, but they rarely, and in real terms, look beyond a 4 or 8 year mark. Government is simply not suited to dealing with long term decisions. Democratically elected governments cannot afford to be progressive, they have to be as conservative as the loudest majority. And in society which has been told there is no such thing, the single unit rules. Enter: the NIMBY. Wheelie bins, incandescent light bulbs, wind farms. People operate on the same lines, ‘this effects me right here, right now, my personal rights are far more important than the greater good, because what do I ever see of the greater good? It’s just good, you don’t notice it, right?’
Enter the ‘save money’ approach, monetising sure does make the ‘greater good’ more attractive, huh? Flourescent bulbs will save your £45 per year! Insulating your house properly can save you up to £300 a year! That’s a family holiday to Majorca if you fly Easyjet and shit in a plastic bag! (rather than use the pay-toilets) Wait… didn’t I hear flying is bad?*
I’ll offset the emissions then! What do you mean offsetting is a ‘dangerous distraction’ actually encouraging greater consumption rather than displacing it?
The greatest battle we face on climate change is lifestyle. We could cover 1/3 of the UK in wind and solar farms, combine that with tidal, hot rock, offshore wind power, and nuclear power plants along the whole of our coastline, we would still fall seriously short of our current energy consumption levels Source. Because we’re not just talking about electricity here, we’re talking about heating, transport, manufacturing, agriculture, how and what we eat, gadgets, where consumables and clothes come from, how we throw them away, how we shop, what we expect from our food, our holidays, how we do our jobs. It all uses energy, it all contributes to the 93% that we, as a nation, have to cut.
And that really is down to us.
You can make changes to your own life. Achievable, small changes, that will add up. YES you will be inconvenienced. But it’s a small price to pay. It’s not the greater good, it’s our greater good, let’s fight for it, OK?
Don’t know where to start? Here’s your chance:
This afternoon the team that made the film The Age of Stupid is launching the 10:10 campaign: which aims for a 10% cut in the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions during 2010. This seems to be roughly the trajectory needed to deliver a good chance of averting two degrees of warming. By encouraging people and businesses and institutions to sign up, the campaign hopes to shame the UK government into adopting this as its national target. This would give the government the moral leverage to demand immediate sharp cuts from other nations, based on current science rather than political convenience. Source
See http://www.1010uk.org/ or @tentenuk on Twitter. Today, Tuesday the 1st of September 4-7pm at the Tate Modern, there is live music, free champagne and a token, a recycled piece of 747 of your very own, available to the first 1,000 people to sign up to cut their emissions by 10% in a year. Get involved, speak up, because we haven’t got long. Join the rest of the country in shouting out as the world works towards the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Join the Wave, participate.
My current CO2 emissions are roughly 3.53 tonnes per year (I used this calculator) 3.177 is my target. I intend to stick to it.
*RE air travel: Taking one intercontinental trip per year uses about 30 kWh† per day. To put that in perspective, using a car to travel 50km every day for a year produces 40kWhpd
To put that further in perspective, 40kWhpd is twice the amount that would be generated by, for example, covering the windiest 10% of the UK with wind turbines (delivering 2 W/m2)
ALSO ” Flying creates other greenhouse gases in addition to CO2, such as water and ozone, and indirect greenhouse gases, such as nitrous oxides. If you want to estimate your carbon footprint in tons of CO2– equivalent, then you should take the actual CO2 emissions of your flights and bump them up two- or three-fold.” Source
Yes flying is bad. I’m sorry.
†Kilowatt hours are “one unit” on electricity bills, about 10p in the UK in 2008 – one 40 W (incandescent) lightbulb, kept switched on all the time, uses one kilowatt-hour per day. Source
Global warming is not a complicated issue. The science has been done, the outlook only gets worse. The aim has been established: keep global warming under the 2°C ‘tipping point’ –the point at which it is almost universally agreed (I say almost, because there are crazies in all communities, including scientific ones) that the earth’s climate becomes so de-stabilised that there’s no saving us. Here’s a quick 1:21 on that:
