I heard about The Great Turning, a social transformation predicted by eco-activists, back in the 1990s. Great Turning advocates believe that it's time to move the world from a civilization focused on industrial growth to a more life-sustaining one. "Sounds great" I thought, "but I won't see it in my lifetime."
Since then, several things have changed. First, we've realized that the global climate models of the 1990s were too conservative. Many of the changes they predicted are happening more quickly we thought. Second, we now have a U.S. president who cares about global climate change.
Third, the global financial crisis has shown us first-hand how unregulated markets tend to make a few rich while they shred the livelihood (and lives) of others. And then there's that pesky problem of an economy structured on continuous growth while our planet contains limited resources. How, exactly, is that supposed to work?
We humans are wired to deal with emergencies close at hand, but we don't do well with future crises until we can see the effects for ourselves. However, I sense that the global mood has shifted. At long last we can see and feel the damage we've done to our planet and to each other.
Watching the worldwide enthusiasm over Obama's election, the green-clad protesters in Iran, and the giddily anticipatory Nobel Peace Prize awarded to our green-thinking president, I've begun to suspect that The Great Turning is upon us.
In his 2006 book The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community, David Korten warned that we face a perfect storm of converging crises including climate change, energy supply, and financial upheaval. This will cause major changes to our economic and social structure.
These crises present an opportunity for change, says Korten. His vision of "Earth Community" is based on sustainable, caring scoieties incorporating mutual responsibility and accountability.
A following for the ideas of The Great Turning has developed in some religious communities. The movement has been 
active in American Buddhist groups for over a decade, and Unitarian Universalists recently adopted The Great Turning as a focus. In addition, an organization of evangelical preachers dedicated to "saving God's green earth" was recently formed.
Joanna Macy, who travels the world doing workshops on The Great Turning, says that the change is already upon us. In a nod to the power of religion and myth, she refers to The Great Turning as "the es
sential adventure of our time."
Says Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hahn:
"If we continue abusing the earth this way, there is no doubt that our civilization will be destroyed... we need a collective enlightenment to stop this course of destruction. Civilization is going to end if we continue to drown in the competition for power, fame, sex, and profit."
Do you think that The Great Turning is upon us? If so, how are you seeing it manifested? How do you plan to participate?
For more information: David Korten's Great Turning Web Site, Joanna Macy's Great Turning Web Site.
This is a moderated forum. The rules are simple-- listen to each others' points of view and try to understand them, no matter how different from your own. Avoid ad hominem attacks. Share your beliefs but don't preach or attempt to convert another to your religious or spiritual viewpoint. Click here for more details on the rules of engagement.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 378
In the way that I do denigrate people who seem recalcitrant students who seem lazy and not accepting the responsibility of becoming educated, I believe sheeple are those who relegate the important job of the advancing of their spirituality to others. For believers who accept dogma and doctrine unquestioningly, I feel uneasy about their critical perspicacity.
Jerry: I don't feel I seek confirmation though affirmation always is welcome
in seeing others seem to agree with something I've come to believe.
In your comments re: Enlightened Beings, even in what I understand the Dalai Lama is reported to have said, I feel my contention still remains--that there are no extant Enlightened Beings but only people who experience the Awakening Moment which brings them to the realization of the truth of the Perennial Wisdom and proceed in a transformed way the rest of their days.
I did hear Matti Stepanek, a child speaking on NPR yesterday on the Humankind program talking about his book and if there are Enlightened Beings, I'd say he is one judging from the impressive way he spoke and how he comes across. Though he appears a convincingly Enlightened Being, he is still only a child and has a lifetime yet to live. Until a life is ended, I believe there is still a possibilty of there arising doubt about the trueness of a being's Enlightenment, which would require perfection, no?
Comments?
Point being ... look it up please ... "perfect" can be as one is who is whole and performing withIn the design intended ... man who has become truly "Enlightened" is as perfect as needs be for this earth time and place ... then he becomes a teacher attempting to help others break out of the box of orthodoxy acribed to by the sheeple and their leaders, to be as Jesus was, as the Bhudda was, and so many others REALLY WERE other than centuries of fabricated stories making them out to be something more special than they were ... and making the relative few of us that may be getting close to such a condition seem like false impostors based upon the un-realistic view of what most want to think "perfection" means.
When Enlightenment is being considered, I wonder if they allow wiggle-room? It seems to me that the Buddhist concept is more rigourous or less making allowances, the person would be a Buddha. I contend that on earth there probably aren't these totally evolved beings, ony those who've been Awakened and advancing toward perhaps a full-blown Enlightenment, maybe after much homework done through many reincarnations, but what do I know?
THE FUTURE AND BEYOND
By Jacque Fresco
Wish me victory in these endeavors, for they are close to my heart!
I wish all of you every victory in matters of the heart and mind!
What you and your husband do, may certainly help your quality of life locally, but the world at large has other priorities. While you are "saving" your portion of the planet, other people are fighting for their very existence, for example.
Until we fix human relations, saving the planet may have to be on the back burner for awhile.
Any crisis will certainly help motivate us, but in what direction without true Wisdom?
This will be in the spiritual sense, no particular religious denomination.
What affect upon the human environment do you think such qualities as contentment, faith, patience, sincerity, kindness, and , forgiveness, would have? Would a new human environment solve the crisis we now have?
Would not the earth itself benefit if we had these qualities?
All that remains to be done, is for individuals to discover how to attain for themselves, to the benefit of all, these qualities...
However, I disagree with this: "Until we fix human relations, saving the planet may have to be on the back burner for awhile."
I believe we've reached a tipping point of climate change, as evidenced by the fact that changes are happening more rapidly than the older climate models predicted. If we put the planet on "the back burner" (which Bush did for 8 years), it may well become uninhabitable.
If most of us lack the will-power to change our own interpersonal behavior, how can anyone believe we can really stop "harming" the earth?
I tell you, both are mirror images of one another!
Oh, for the good old recent past when there didn't seem there was the Damocles sword that seems to be hanging over us all these days. On bad news days, I can get to feeling less able to muster hopefulness that I try to maintain. On one hand I believe humankind as a collective has the collective smarts to find a way out of the mess we've wrought. Am I too-frequent a listener of that hopeful source of suggestions for all our problems, NPR? But I do most strongly affirm what you say that we each and all must chip in, those who are inclined toward more than bitching and worrying and put our spirituality to work in whatever way(s) we can manifest.
When I've heard one of the inspiring and eminently applicable solutions, really great ideas they continuously report on, I send emails to all the movers and shakers and anyone I can think of who might be able to run with the ideas and act upon them. I hope some of my efforts will find receptive ground but I realize most are so preoccupied and pre-empted and can easily not heed email. But I persist in my believing that hope is preferable to gloom and that enlightened self-interest will bring more and more people to put their spirituality into positive action to help shape a better world.
Bless you, dear Liz. I know you are doing your part in helping to better what's happening. Aloha,
I hope this is not a rhetorical question and that you personally are involved in positive actions that are addressing the crisis that we have created re: the environment for one and the economic downturn for another. Being as conscious of our own consuming and spending habits, leaving as light a carbon footprint as possible, cutting back on the kind of consumption of oil and electrical energy as possible, bringing your spirituality to bear on these very mundane and practical concerns as much as possible is something we must all take to heart and pitch in to the effort to save our planet and ourselves.
Best regards, Aloha,
I live in a simplicity which would boggle most minds on this thread.
But I live heaven. If that is not "green" enough for anyone here, so be it.
Prophecy and other warnings are just that, warnings from higher realms to get our attention how ever it takes to change our ways before it is too late for us ... change is upon us and the rate of change is becoming exponential ... if we do not arrest it soon and turn it around, it may soon be way to late.
But GOD (yes there is that concept at least) helps those who help themselves ... I suggest that all seek that GOD INternally ... external seeking will never give you the best for you, only your own Soul knows what you need in relationship to all else.
BTW ... about the "Great Turning", Marilyn Ferguson wrote abook many years ago when it was first becoming noticed, it is called the "Aquarian Conspiriacy" ... I highly recommend it to all who are not yet aware of what is really taking place.
Having "nothing" is not how I would describe myself. Indeed, I have everything I truly need...
For many, it is just a matter of changing the way we treat ourselves and others.
A true sacrifice is done through love, not fear nor guilt.
Yes, the Life within is the only thing that really counts and lasts, my friend!
And it certainly improves the outer one!
Frank … thanks ever so much. I hope that you are right. This has been a tough day what with news like …. 4 of Mexico’s major drug cartels [organized crime] have set their headquarters in Atlanta and are responsible for 70% of drugs sold in the USA …………… then more news that my dearest friend here woke to the news that her 28 year old son had committed suicide have truly worn upon me today. Actually … I anticipate that each person here more than likely does his/her part to live more “greenly.” You are right my friend, indeed I do. Again thank you.
Ben you are a wonder and an inspiration. If we each do our part … we cannot compare one to another for we are each vastly different with different gifts to give. I also think that as one grows older one wishes to divest themselves of "stuff." I surely did not feel that way when youthful.
Jerry ... I have always been relatively materialistic. But! Everything has always passed through my hands to others. Although I have always liked things ... I have eqally enjoyed giving them away. ;)
My personal existence takes my present form, but my spiritual existense takes many forms, not just this one on earth.
One day, the earth (body) shall be gone. And it will not be the doing of any human being. Then where will we go?
May your heart be filled with joy!
Subsequent to that report comes the news of a whole bunch of arrests of people in the US involved in trafficking so keep the faith, baby. What's so disheartening is that there's the ongoing US addiction and demand for the drugs and Mexicans, et al, are supplying that demand. What can we expect from an impoverished population that seems to find it easy to thumb their collective noses at the law? It really makes me feel legalization with strict demand for rehab or jail as part of the deal. Kid violators will be commanded to do heavy duty community service. What do you think?
Have a peaceful Sunday. I send you rays of Hawaiian sunshine to light up the landscape and your soul. Aloha,
I do believe that we (especially in America, but also in other First World nations) have taken a wrong turn, pursuing growth literally at any cost. This view is definitely consonant with Buddhism, which views the pursuit of more than we need with great suspicion. But also, as a Buddhist, I believe it is possible at every moment to see our errors and begin to correct them.
I hope that we will learn the lesson that more is no longer necessarily better. I hope we will learn it soon, because each delay adds not only to our suffering, but to that of our children and of the non-human world as well.
Or maybe that's not the reason. But to give you an idea of the difference, consider two poems about what it is to be an ideal man (yeah, man. These aren't new poems.) For the Western version, I offer Rudyard Kipling's If. For the Japanese, I offer Kenji Miyazawa's Ame ni mo makazu, which you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ame_ni_mo_Makezu
What is need is a compromise, a middle way, the way of divine spirit interconnecting all ... not some lessor views making certain groups have specialness at the expense of others ... as in religion against religion and or sect against sect ... etc.
A One World view is one that would be wonderful providing the leaders and the peoples were all on the same spiritual page ... otherwise it will be just more of the same ... or worse. We do not need any more of the Blind leading the blind ... If the Leaders can "See", then no problem, if the people can "See" they need not leaders ... or at least they will be wise enough to trust only the "good" ones.
The English poem is from a more straightforward, more pragmatic, and perhaps more cynical age/world.
Both manage to forge a personal ethic, but I find more specific advice, and more to think about, in Kipling's poem than in Miyazawa's, which gives me an orientation more than details.
That said, if we want to know things about the cultures themselves, we should probably take a wider view. (For example, while I like both of those cultures a great deal, if I had to choose between being a prisoner of war during WWII of the Japanese vs. the British, I know which one I would choose...)
This is a wonderful opening to an exciting topic.
Something I came across the other day in the Huffington Post, which they are participating in, the No Impact Project is designed to encourage others as a medium of participatory education for the general public; a hands on experience of consciously minimizing personal environmental impact for one week.
I think changing habits takes doing it, incrementally a step at a time. This will be an interesting bit to follow and an indicator of momentum gaining.
I shared a little of our lifestyle choices and hope to see others experiences.
I think it is great what the Huffington Post has attempted to do for all of humanity on an ongoing basis ... the problem is that many who need the messages the most, have been brainwashed by FOX type sources that it should be ignored at best because it is "of the enemy" (as in all at all to the Left of Right)
"Establishing the parameters of this new civilization will require transcending many of the traditions, values, and methods of the past... Throughout the history of civilization [a] few national leaders or politicians have... proposed a comprehensive plan to improve the lives of all people under their jurisdiction...
Arrayed against these social pioneers was a formidable status quo composed of vested interests that were comfortable with the way things were, and a populace at large that, out of years of indoctrination and conditioning, wanted no radical changes."
The only thing that's different now is that we have to change if we want to avoid destroying our planet.
Our Earth being in danger is not some esoteric or poetical/theoretical - metaphorical notion. It's real.
We can't get at the enemy; for she/he - is us.
Forgive my theatrics, I'm on a roll.
prologue
Hindu religion has a god on a horseback and with a flaming sword. Anyway, there is the concept of a great flood too.
ruby love and red pearls
The Western church authorities wanted to "speed things up", so they invented a "once around" concept where you followed them into heaven or went to hell ... those being the ONLY choices proposed ... naturally that message, not registering in the subconscious of most as a "resonating truth" did not have enough admirers or followers to allow it to work ... had we all believed, it's hard to say what things would have turned out like ... somehow I'm glad not more believed.
Just wanted to let you know, there's an e-book preview of the book at THIS LINK...
And when the covers of the book are closed or the conversation ends...? Or becomes passe...? In the forty years of intent ecological exploration, the 'modernized' nations of the world have made tiny incremental gains on awareness and active participation; moving repair and preservation of the environment forward.
But that has to remain a deeply entrenched social value, world wide. That the good health of our environment has to surpass popularity and the timed test of social awareness.
That can't happen, Ade. We'll render the earth uninhabitable, at least for humans.
There's truth to that, Georgiana. Natural selection has designed us so that we tend to not face danger until it's upon us. And danger is undeniably here, for all of us to face.
They will not heed warnings for themselves nor thair planet and shall fade away. not getting vaccinations or heeding food warnings, their lot will fail while the enlightened will thrive.
Cultural evolution offers some hope for our survival, but I gotta say, maybe not enough. I also doubt that, if natural selection "decides" to prune us without killing us, the enlightened will end up out-reproducing the brutish. Generally speaking, enlightened behavior is a lot more common under conditions of plenty than of want.
1. Isn't it likely that physical selection pressure is bled off by cultural evolution, which gives us various adaptive tools? If so, that mechanism may be breaking down somewhat under its own selection pressure. I'd point to the acceleration of language extinction as a good indicator of selection pressure on the cultural level.
2. Is it possible that physical selection pressure is less apparent from our viewpoint in a society with good medical care, the means to clean up the air and water, and a relatively slow rate of growth? (This is in line with Larry's point as well.) Most of the damage from pollution seems to fall on the poorest people and regions of the world -- which are precisely where you see the highest birth rates and the highest infant / child mortality rates as well. So, to condense this question, is it possible we are essentially exporting selection pressure?
I agree that most humans are under more cultural selection pressure than natural selection pressure, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say that cultural selection is "breaking down somewhat under its own selection pressure."
As far as cultural variation decreasing-- I think that question is better answered by Bent, who's studied anthropology.
I should probably add that the genetic variation of other species is important to preserve, if for nothing else as a future source of food and medicine. Would you consider the genetic variation of endemic animals and plants part of the cultural variation/heritage of indigenous human societies?
I am ambivalent (you might even say conflicted) about the cultures and languages that are being lost. While I hate to see the rich heritage of a culture—the music and the stories, the dances and the dresses, and certainly the unique features of the languages—disappear (or become nothing but lifeless academic descriptions), such traditional cultures unfortunately tend to exhibit many of the same features we have struggled with in our own, now somewhat “globalized” western cultures (sexism, ethnocentrism, tribalism, nepotism, fossilized social hierarchy, etc), and in many cases they have transcended them to a lesser extent than we have. The ideal situation is when people preserve the valuable aspects of their traditional culture while they enter "modernity" on such ethical issues, but it doesn't seem to be easy for very small cultures to do this.
A positive aspect of our “globalizing” culture is that we increasingly consider all other humans in the “we” category, while traditional cultures are heavy on the “we and them” distinction; and, arguably, the exuberant uniqueness of local cultures helps to keep that distinction sharp and harder to cross. It's a great irony of history that the expansion of a culture’s “territory of interest”—whether by conquest and empire building or by travel and trade—invariably makes that culture more open and tolerant with time. We need that sense of connectedness if we are to solve our global problems, but one of the things that the solution seems to call for is a reduction in long-range travel and trade. We’re in a bit of a Catch-22 in that respect.
(I’m spiraling into “no solution” pessimism again, so I’ll stop here…)
Lovelock's Gaia Theory has gained increased support as the conditional boundaries of man's relationship with his planet have been tested. We must, in my opinion, cooperate with Gaia...rather than try to control her. In order to cooperate with Gaia...we must understand her. This is the challenge.
I have offered Dorion Sagan's book "Notes from the Holocene" before...this book is "a heterogeneous hymn in the key of Gaia". (Bruce Clarke)
But for an abbreviated description of the Gaia Hypothesis...Wikipedia does a very good job. HERE
Frank: ..." the earth's heating up again....."
"Since life started on Earth, the energy provided by the Sun has increased by 25% to 30%; however the surface temperature of the planet has remained remarkably constant when measured on a global scale." HERE
Our sun is expanding...the energy sent to Earth is increasing and yet, we have had remarkably stable temperatures...stable enough to sustain life on Earth. If we were "heating up" in proportion to the increased energy output of the sun...we would no longer exist.
Many other factors were not considered in the videos which dealt almost exclusively on the greenhouse gas effects of temperature fluctuations.
My position is that we don't understand enough about the thousands of contributing factors that affect our Earth's temperatures to make accurate predictions about future temperatures. I'm curious about the effect of warmer waters and ice build up in Antarctica.
"When surface temperature increases, the upper ocean warms and ice growth decreases. This leads to a decrease in salt rejection from new ice. The salinity of the upper ocean falls. Lower salinity and warmer water results in lower water density in the upper ocean. With fresher, less dense upper water, there is now increased stratification of ocean layers which weakens convective overturning. Less ocean heat is transported upwards. This leads to a decrease in ice melting from ocean heat. Hence we observe an increase in net ice production - sea ice increases."
I guess I'm just short on the facts...and I think that the scientists are also. The Earth has experienced similar warming trends and has reached temperatures that are equal to present temperatures and those predicted for us in the next 20 to 50 years...and these fluctuations happened well before man began his contributions to increased CO2 levels.
Revising 1,000 Years of Climate History
"The scientific evidence, including the two most recent studies of the climate for the past 1,000 years, strongly indicates that Northern Hemisphere temperatures have been both as warm as and substantially cooler than the present, absent any possible human influence. Such evidence should not be dismissed or manipulated to support predetermined conclusions, as the IPCC's Third Assessment Report does."
I am trying to be a better steward of the planet...independent of the question of global warming or climate change and I think this is the best policy for all of us. It has been suggested that the inertia of climate warming HAS now reached the point of no return...at least in the near future and the best we can do is to cope with the changes...not all of them will be bad.
But what is undeniably bad is the continued pollution of Earth...the poisoning of her waters and her atmosphere, the raping of the land and the destruction of her infrastructure of synergistic self regulation.
Equally as important as the atmosphere to our future well being is the condition of our oceans. If we concentrate on one segment of our pollution problems at the expense of the others...we have accomplished very little. All of our planet's systems are interconnected and interdependent.
The thing to remember is that the Earth and the other life on this planet are not dependent on us...we are the dependent ones, but we also hold the power to destroy life as we know it here.
So I agree with you Bent and I hope the economic forces that are necessary to move or drive the changes we know we must make are powerful enough enable those changes.
Re: "The thing to remember is that the Earth and the other life on this planet are not dependent on us...we are the dependent ones, but we also hold the power to destroy life as we know it here."
In the past human adverse affect on the planet was not as meaningful with smaller human populations. Current conditions of burgeoning exponential population growth and the depleting and despoiling of the planet's natural resources cause real growing concern for humanity's future, as we all should recognize by now.
"Slim: Isn't it true that our planet seems to have gone through periods where the climate was icy and then obviously warmed up again? It seems to hint that this process is a dynamic and may be repeated. It apparently depends on the planet's relation to our heater, the sun. ??"
Of course that is true and the process IS dynamic. But the relationship of the earth's position to the sun is only a part of the process of of climate change. It is way more complicated that sun spots and the angle of the earth's axis. It is so complicated that we still do not understand all the variables that contribute to the earth's climate patterns....we don't even know what all the variables are.
HERE are a few that are being studied....and these are just a small portion of the staggeringly huge number of variables.
Here's an op-ed piece from the New York Times discussing the potential impact of 'eco-angst" on marketing.
We should not allow the marketeers to lead us...we should lead them....as Ron points out, by only supporting the companies that give us what we demand...not the other way around....(the personal responsibility issue that Ron describes).
The challenge is to weed out the facts from the apparent facts. The bottled water industry serves as an example of people doing what they think is best, drinking bottled water, but without investigating the true cost to the environment and the accuracy of "pure water" claims.
Did you know:
* 60 Million plastic bottles a day are disposed of in America alone!
* Massive amounts of greenhouse gases are produced from manufacturing the plastic bottles.
* Millions of gallons of fuel are wasted daily transporting filtered tap water across America and around the world.
* It requires 3 times as much water to make the bottle as it does to fill it... it is an exceptionally wasteful industry.
Doesn't it work both ways?
Needless to say, we are looking into other methods of purification. Do you guys know anything about charcoal filtration (on a household level) or electrolytic systems?
You said.."LOL, whoever made that loaded claim has very little understanding if any about the plastics industry and is assuming the same ignorance of every listener, too. Plastic manufacturers do indeed use water to cool the molds that make plastic products, however, they use a water recycling system that takes the hot water coming out of the molds, shoots it up the roof where the water cooling system is often located, and then shoots it back down to cool off another mold."
The total mass of the empty 1 liter bottle is probably around 0.025kg (25g) and it is made from PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) Plastics of this type use around 6.45kg of oil per kg, 294.2kg of water per kg, and result in 3.723kg of greenhouse gas emissions per kg. So, with a quick check (200kg/kg x 0.025kg = 5kg of water) we find that Butterfly is indeed correct. Based on my calculations a bottle that holds 1 liter requires 5 liters of water in its manufacturing process (this includes power plant cooling water). HERE
This includes the cooling water of the power plant and the plastic production but is not limited to those two uses.
Also...Your Water Bottle is One-Quarter Oil
First, it appears there is now a slow money movement, modelled after the slow food movement, intended to focus investment on companies that are local, ethical and sustainable. It seems like a good idea to me, and I'm looking into that.
Second, I heard oceanographer Sylvia Earle discussing her book, The World is Blue, about the problems with our relationship to the oceans. Among the points she made is that when we eat a tuna, that tuna might be ten years old. An orange roughy might be 30. It's possible that it took 200 years for a fish that we eat to mature. We think the ocean will regenerate immediately because we think in terms of farmed animals (on land), that generally are table-ready in a few months.
This kind of misalignment of time scales is one of the great problems we have in making wise use of the world's gifts of resources. (It is also the root of our problem with oil, of course.) Human brains do this sort of related rate calculation rather poorly, which is why school children tend to hate those kinds of problems in math class. We do have the tools to begin to take account of different timescales, but it will be awhile, I think, before average people think in those terms.
The problem is, most of these tools are methods of thought that are not being taught. Why does math aim at knowledge of calculus instead of statistics? Why don't biology classes focus on the way living things interrelate? (At least they didn't when I was in school. I home-schooled my daughter, and that's what we tried to do. But because we home-schooled, I didn't get a chance to see what the high school was doing.) Why don't we teach geography? Well... I am going off-topic, I think.
But I think that if something will stop the progress of "The Great Turning", it will be ignorance of the thought-tools we already possess.
For more info, see her book Coming Back to Life. It's is full of group exercises that might interest the teachers here.
What are you willing to sacrifice?
But I repeat, are you willing to lower your over-all standard of living.
That means doing without some things you may currently want in your life.
Or, even our precious television sets? (laughter)
For all: What would you truly be willing to give up to save this planet?
We already get our electricity from a green supplier, which costs more. We plan to replace our water conditioner due to environmental concerns. We are also looking in to buying "offsets" to compensate for our greenhouse gas consumption. But I admit that there's much more we could do.
Some of the things we can give up: leisure time, aka convenience. Example: I do most tasks related to food for our family. It takes time (and in some cases, extra money) to look for locally grown food, to do prep from scratch rather than buy packaged, and to make some of my own staple items. The thing is, I make each decision based on cost and benefit, so when you say, how much are you willing to give up, it varies.
And that is perhaps the answer I would like to suggest. We will decide how much we are willing to give up based on innumerable individual decisions. I doubt we can look ahead at this point and say, ok, we have to give up computers and Starbucks coffee and so on and so on.
Instead, what we need to do is try not to make decisions on auto-pilot.
What we have to give up is the sort of mindless complacency that allows us to reach out for what we want at the moment without any thought of whether it is worth the cost.
But it is always avoided if we do not truly love a cause which is greater in value than the value of what we let go of.