“It
is not wise to piss off mother nature”
----from “The Quotations of Chairman
Joe”
Nearly a half-century ago I read the report of the Club
of Rome published in book form under the title World Dynamics.
It was the first attempt by a group of world-renowned scientists
at creating computer models that would predict—as best we could at
the time—the impact of world population on resource depletion,
energy use and heat generation, food and water supply, and pollution.
All the indicators pointed to disaster by the end of this century
unless draconian measures were undertaken. This was before the
discovery of the effect of greenhouse gasses and measurable global
warming. The models have since been refined to include numerous
so-called 'negative feed-back loops'. For instance, decline in the
growth of populations has heretofore been the result of rising
standards of living because one does not need children for support in
old age, and children have been supplanted as needed labor by
machines. This has resulted in a trade-off of lower population
projections at a cost of higher energy consumption and pollution.
Similarly, the melting of the polar ice caps means not only that less
sunlight is reflected back into space and that the poles are warming
at a faster rate than the rest of the planet, but that the melting of
the permafrost releases trapped methane into the air—a greenhouse
gas more toxic than carbon dioxide. The same is true as warming
oceans release more trapped methane.
The problem facing humanity isn't simply global warming.
If one could solve that problem with a wave of one's hand, we would
still be in dire straits. We would still be faced with the daunting
challenges of population explosion, resource depletion, pollution,
food and water shortage and all their various ramifications.
The response, it occurred to me, given the unholy
alliance with the Liberal Democratic order and Capitalism, as well as
the uncritical adoption by the Marxists and the left of the
industrial revolution, will be wholly inadequate. Indeed, given that
the entire political spectrum rests upon the assumption that the
exploitation of nature is a positive good, civilization as we know it
is poised to be blind-sided by a revolt that we are—institutionally
and politically, unprepared.
It isn't simply that governance is reactive or
reactionary, it's that politically, one cannot disprove a
negative. It isn't simply that by the time a palpable majority
recognizes that the problems are serious if not dire, it may well
prove too late; it is that even if we assume the best case scenario
and we move to quickly address these problems, as the crisis is
avoided we will constantly find ourselves wrestling with the
reactionary forces saying—as the Rescumlickan Party says today—that
the problem doesn't exist. Indeed, it never existed and was all the
time simply a 'hoax' perpetrated by some international conspiracy
designed to oppress. What crisis? It never happened. That it didn't
happen because we had taken these draconian steps would be lost on
the billions who were asked to sacrifice and the resentments would
become manifest.
A milder version of this scenario occurred in the wake
of the Dust Bowl. Modern farming techniques had stripped the prairie
of its cover exposing the land. The drought of the 1930's created
huge dust storms laying waste much of the bread-basket of America
making farmers destitute as mother nature laid waste the land. The
federal government stepped in, planting trees, creating wind breaks,
buying up bankrupt farms and turning the land into federal reserves,
taking millions of acres out of production, holding classes to teach
farmers more intelligent use of the land. So desperate were the
farmers that they, albeit grudgingly, submitted to instruction.
These actions took hold and the crisis passed—the first large-scale
man-made ecological disaster in the history of the country.
Then, when prosperity changed, farmers went back to
their old ways. Larger tractors, for instance, made contour farming
impossible. Soon, by the early 50's the dust returned—not quite
the disaster of two decades earlier because some of the practices
were still in use and much of the federal lands were still managed by
the government. But this experience is instructive because it
informs us of what will happen even under the best of circumstance.
This struggle will be a hard one. It will also be a long one for it
demands a new revolution.
A revolution in our politics. Political institutions
must somehow have to become pro-active rather than re-active.
It also means that much of what needs to be done must be top-down
because it involves not only the redirection of major industry
but multinational organization. These are problems that transcend
the ability of one nation to solve, much the same as pollution of
Lake Michigan involves the cooperation of several municipalities and
states as well as the federal government. Chicago alone, cannot
insure the drinking water.
A revolution in economics. Marx is wrong: the internal
contradiction of industrial and post-industrial society is not
between capital and labor; it is between the industrial order and the
environment. Mother nature is the antithesis to the industrial
thesis be it communist, socialist or capitalist industrial
production. A new economics based not upon growth but upon
homeostasis is imperative. This demands, politically, a more
equitable distribution of intentionally—that is, politically
determined-- limited resources. It demands a rationing of
resources. Here, adopting Marx's categories of “market value”
vs. “use value” in determining production would be helpful.
Simply because something has 'market value', would not be enough to
warrant production. It would also have to have beneficial 'use
value'. Under this criteria, a regime would need to be established
to pass judgment on a product to license its production. Under this
criteria, for instance, the snowmobile for large scale, and guns for
universal use would be banned.
A revolution in our religion. We need a new religion.
And the sooner the better. A religion that adopts the universal
observation that we as a species are a subset of the natural order.
We do not control mother nature, she controls us. A religion that
does not stand on its head but instead puts its feet firmly back upon
the ground. A religion that does not give humanity dominion; a
religion in which there is no sky-god and does not confuse god with
man. A religion that instead teaches that we have arisen and are one
with the earth.
Only then will we have made the first step toward
honesty with ourselves; and only by being honest with ourselves can
we develop a true respect for—based upon a true understanding
of—our place we call home.
It's a tall order and its going to be a rough ride.
No comments:
Post a Comment