The Earth Blog is a collection of personal thoughts, ideas and solutions in search of a future for this planet.
It only contains original work. These essays provide many of the tools needed to allow people to make a better world for the future - a world worth living in. Please take some time to read them.
It takes guts to do something that could change things forever. I’m not the obvious candidate to be a hero, that’s a fact; I have children and a wife, and an extended family that mean the world to me. Heroes, for the most part, are seen as those people who, at great risk to themselves, carry out noteworthy acts – but why does heroism have to go hand-in-hand with great risk?
There is no greater thing that can be done than securing the future of humanity, and in this truly momentous task I believe that everyone has the potential to be a hero. There are many actions available to people of all different abilities, social positions, locations and ages that, together can help free humanity from the terrible yoke of hierarchical, industrial, consumerist living; many actions that entail a wide range of risk and effectiveness, but all of which are important.
At this point it’s necessary for me to lose the majority of my readers, for the things I am about to share with you are likely to contribute to the downfall of Industrial Civilization – the “machine” of the title. If this idea scares you then you will not be alone, for the thought of losing something you feel is integral to what you are (in effect, being a citizen) is not something that most of us have ever seriously considered. But lose it we must: read this article to find out why.
To get the full picture you’ll really need to go to my book, “A Matter of Scale” (also published as “Time’s Up! An Uncivilized Solution To A Global Crisis”), and read Chapter 13. If you need further convincing, have a look at Derrick Jensen’s “Endgame” books or, for a more concise read, try “A Short History of Progress” by Ronald Wright. Come back when you are happy to help with the removal of the Machine. For those who are still reading: welcome, let’s do some Undermining.
What Is Undermining?
Undermining is the term for any form of Sabotage that damages the foundations of a system, structure or process. The target, as we know, is Industrial Civilization – the most destructive human system ever created.
Specifically, the act of Undermining Industrial Civilization seeks to provide ordinary people with the ability to think and act in an unconstrained environment, free of the Tools of Disconnection that civilization has put in place to keep us physically and psychologically dependent upon it. By Undermining Industrial Civilization, you are not aiming to directly damage its physical structure – although that may be a side-effect – instead you are impairing its ability to control people. People who are no longer controlled can decide for themselves how they want to live.
The aim is not so much destroying as dismantling the Machine, starving it of energy and making it unable to keep us living the destructive way of life we have come to think is the only way to live.
Undermining has rules attached to it; rules that help ensure that the perpetrator is kept relatively safe, and their (your) actions are as effective as possible. It is vital that you follow these rules for your safety, and that of other people:
1. Make the Tools of Disconnection (see Chapter 13, as above) your priority; anything else is a waste of time and effort.
2. Carefully weigh up all the pros and cons, and then ask yourself, “Do the benefits far outweigh the costs?” Only act if the answer is “Yes”.
3. Plan ahead, and plan well, accounting for every possible eventuality.
4. Even if you value the worth of your actions, don’t get caught.
There is a primer to the types of actions this entails in my article “Sabotage Is Not An Option, It Is A Necessity” which you might like to read before going onto the list below. Observant readers will notice that (at the time of writing) there are not one hundred items listed – this is an ongoing project, and I will add to it as I think of new ones, or I receive suggestions for possible Undermining actions. If you have any ideas, please write to me at keith@theearthblog.org or make a comment below.
The list below does not imply unqualified approval of your carrying out the action: that is why there is a disclaimer. When going through the list, I would also encourage you to think about what each action means in your local context, and how it might need to be adapted to be relevant, or even possible. In all cases, you must apply the above four rules before embarking on any Undermining activity, even if it is in the list: you might be out of your depth without realising it, and you might also be wasting your time, effort and even liberty. Nothing is without risk, but some things are really worth it.
Disclaimer: Publication of the following list does not imply any responsibility on the author’s part – the person carrying out the listed actions takes full responsibility for the outcome of these actions. The author only condones activities that are permitted under local jurisdiction; all other activities are the personal choice of the actor.
The List (in no particular order)
· Change the press releases of the company you work for to tell the truth about the product or service they are offering. If releases are sent out by post, it is a lot easier to be anonymous.
· Similarly, alter promotional and advertising materials to show the environmental and social impact of the company sending them out. If you work in a printing or distribution role, this will be far safer.
· Insert contrary materials, such as flyers exposing a company or organisation’s activities, into the pages of reports, magazines and brochures.
· If you are party to confidential information that, if released, could damage the reputation of a company or public body, send it anonymously by post to one or more newspaper editors.
· Remove commercial advertising (billboards, posters, displays) from your local area or, if that’s not possible, alter it to give it a more accurate meaning.
· Switch off televisions or monitors in shops that are running adverts.
· Switch off televisions in public areas, pubs / bars and shop windows. Remote control devices are available for this.
· Subvertise commercial and government messages (adverts, promotions, campaigns) and distribute your work across the internet. Aim to make your version highly memorable.
· Undermine the reputation of politicians and corporate executives by posting mash-ups of their speeches on YouTube. The funnier they are, the more people will want to see them.
· Make up stickers, saying things like “Product of Industrial Agriculture”, “Energy Waster” or “Made in Sweatshops” and stick them on relevant items in supermarkets and large shops.
· Use radio and television blocking devices to disrupt broadcasts during advertising breaks, public “service” announcements and multi-part TV series (to discourage further watching).
· In a similar vein, set up local transmitting devices to broadcast pre-recorded anti-civilization messages on public frequencies.
· Remove commercial promotional and sponsored materials from schools.
· Refuse to vote. Encourage others not to vote either. If voting is compulsory, spoil your paper.
· Don’t do any unpaid work at all for any commercial organisation. Discourage others from doing so too.
· If you work for a school board or educational body, insert anti-civilization messages into materials, curricula and advisory notes. Remove references to things that encourage children to take part in civilized society / commercial activities.
· If you work for a company that sends out commercial materials to schools, accidentally “lose” the materials or alter them to give a contrary message.
· If you are calling a radio station about something, rather than tell them you want to give an anti-system message, start talking about something conventional, then change without warning to saying what you really want to say. Don’t swear, you will be cut off.
· Post articles or make comments on web sites suggesting that “Company X” is in financial trouble. There are all sorts of variations on this to create a lack of public / investor confidence.
· Remove adverts from public transport.
· Pretend you work for a company, and call up radio and TV stations to speak on their behalf. Expose the truth behind the company.
· Call up politicians posing as company representatives, offering them funding in exchange for political favours. Record the conversations and if they suggest impropriety, send them anonymously to media outlets.
· Buy the domain name of a fictional PR company, and send out “fake” press releases (giving real, damaging information) on behalf of companies, politicians etc. from a mail server with that domain name.
· Even easier, send out fake press releases from a webmail account (gmail, yahoo etc) with the account name of your fake PR company. Lots of people will still be taken in.
· Only use words like “consumer”, “civilized”, “progress” and “development” in negative terms, with the appropriate inflection. Make a habit of reminding others how bad these things are.
· If shopping mall, supermarket etc. car parks are locked up overnight, add your own padlocks and chains. Do the same for shopfronts / roller blinds if they are already locked.
· If you are a member of an activist group, discourage members from taking part in symbolic “actions” like marches, petitions, letter-writing and rallies. Keep asking them, “What will this achieve.”
· Stand in elections as an “Anti Civilization” candidate. Talk to potential voters about how meaningless elections are.
· If someone calls you “sir” or “madam”, or any other word of subservience, ask them not to. Talk to them using first names.
· If you are in a hierarchical organisation, encourage everyone to question the authority of the levels “above” them. Explain that it is always the people lower down the chain that suffer most from authority.
The following were added on 2 Nov 2009
· Give produce and other home made foods away that you have a surplus of, rather than throw it away, even to people you barely know.
· Set up a food sharing scheme in your local area to help undermine the large scale distribution networks. Have meetings and discuss self-sufficiency in general.
· Set up or help promote a Freecycle network, or other household item giveaway scheme.
· Get together with other parents and set up a community home school: educate the children in the things they need for the future, not the things the Machine thinks they should know.
· Offer to run nature talks and foraging workshops for schools; tell the children about the real world vs. the commercial world, while you are doing them.
· Seedbomb places, even if they are not derelict or run down - seeds get to all sorts of places.
· It only takes a few seconds to sabotage water sprinkler systems in public areas and especially golf courses. Try doing this at the same time as seeding drought-tolerant indigenous "weeds".
· Relabel museum exhibits to reflect the true history of Empire, Colonialism and Explotation. Also, add "Still to Come" labels to natural history exhibits, with the names of threatened species.
This article was written as a response to the many people who, after reading A Matter Of Scale or Time’s Up! have asked me, “What should I do now?” At the time of writing the book it was not clear to me precisely what activities could make up the Undermining (or Sabotage, in AMOS) Toolkit. A year later, it is now far clearer.
Thanks to the following for tips: Earth First!, Martin Sprouse (ed. "Sabotage in the American Workplace"), AdBusters, Aquila ka Hecate (http://aquilakahecate.blogspot.com), Richard Reynolds (http://www.guerrillagardening.org)
There is a marvellous moment in a speech by Derrick Jensen1, in which he refers to a chapter in his book “A Language Older Than Words” in remarkably scathing terms:
“Anybody here have my book A Language Older Than Words?”
“Ok, those of you who have my book, do you also have a razor blade?”
“Ok, if you do, take the chapter called ‘Violence Revisited’, cut out the pages, crumple them up, throw them away, because I say something in that chapter that is so embarrassing.”
Pride can be a terrible thing sometimes, and I find it very hard to look at something I have written and not at least feel some pride – after all, in almost all cases quite a lot of work went into it; as though I have incorporated a part of myself into the words. Now it’s time to swallow my pride, just like Derrick did in that speech.
I have written some real garbage on The Earth Blog.
There, it’s done. There is a proviso to this statement; for it is made retrospectively – at the time, just like when Derrick was writing the chapter ‘Violence Revisited’, I didn’t think it was garbage at all. There’s no way I would have knowingly submitted something I thought was bad to this website; but things change, and regular readers of this blog will understand that the nature of the articles and the feelings behind them have, and I can’t put this any other way, radicalised.
When I started, I really thought that things would get better within the confines of the system of corporations and government; that is was possible to create great and meaningful change simply by adjusting policies, implementing new ways of doing the same things, and that everyone was in a position to be a part of that change. I even thought that the mainstream environmental movement – the WWFs, Sierra Clubs and Greenpeaces of this world – would be instrumental in creating this change.
How deluded is that?
On reflection, not only was I deluded, it would also be morally wrong of me to leave anything that I now profoundly disagree with on The Earth Blog. It’s going, and you’re going to be witness to it. We are going to walk through every single article I wrote in the period before I realised Industrial Civilization was a hopeless case, take a look at it, and if it doesn’t make the grade I’m going to take the metaphorical razor blade and slice the article out of existence.
Hmm, I see a little problem: by the time you read this, if the article is not there then you can’t see how deluded I was. What I will do, therefore, is still delete the article, but provide a link to the Google cache if it exists, so you can see what the article looked like, but it won’t really be there.
Let’s do it!
The Consuming Monster - Wednesday, March 1st 2006
Just a few words on consumption, nothing wrong with that, it can stay.
Why The Public Won't Change - Saturday, March 11th 2006
Actually, that’s quite ahead of it’s time (for me) and reflects the later article with a very similar name. Keep.
For Those Who Still Deny It's Happening - Read This Please - Tuesday, March 21st 2006
This is a straight to the point look at global warming and its causes, but is pretty naïve, and doesn’t reflect many of the (albeit spurious) arguments deniers make. I can do a lot better. DELETED.
Oh, I can’t find a Google cache for this, c’est la vie.
Carbon Storage : An Easy Solution...For Idiots - Saturday, April 1st 2006 [Google cache]
This is just all wrong! It talks of possibly using CCS as a stop-gap while renewable energy takes over, but it smacks of technology being a way forwards, and also alludes to global agreements over emissions being achievable. It must go. DELETED.
Make (Energy) Poverty History - Thursday, April 6th 2006 [Google cache]
Yuk, this is really horrible! My ideas of “poverty” are really screwed, and completely ignore the existence of non-civilised societies. And with the phrase, “Technology is certainly one way around it, and a solution in itself,” the article seals its own fate. DELETED.
Not On My Planet - Sunday, April 16th 2006
Wow! I was writing an article a week, that must have been when I had no other blogs or books to write (or bread to bake). Anyway, this was written in response to a public meeting I spoke at which was full of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard-ers). It’s well meaning, but far too mainstream to keep. DELETED.
Again, no Google cache for some reason.
A Special Offer To All Consumers - Monday, April 24th 2006
Quite funny, but also a bit trite – I’ll keep the phrase “For an extra fee, users can enjoy the extra benefits of our Carbon Filters, which will expertly screen out any information related to climate change, sea level rise and global warming.” Because my mate Tony thought that idea up. No cache again, but nevertheless DELETED.
Something, Something and Recycle - Wednesday, May 3rd 2006 [Google cache]
I have some affection for this article, and often mention the title to people, but unfortunately it contains the phrase “In our version of a civilised, free society, people will almost always take the least cost, least effort option.” At the time I had no concept of what “civilised” actually meant, and assumed it was possible to have a free, civilised society. It’s got to go. DELETED.
That’s the first of the articles that I still linked to on the main page gone. Ouch!
Why David Blaine Matters - Wednesday, May 10th 2006
Sounds like a trivial article, but it’s the first appearance of the phrase “what really matters” which is significant here. A bit muddled, but worth keeping as it seems to suggest a change in direction.
Let The Children Talk - Friday, May 19th 2006
My 7 year old daughter write this; there’s no way I’m deleting it.
4 Essential Ways To Save The Earth - Wednesday, July 5th 2006
This took me weeks to write, was spread over five separate articles and at the time I considered it to be my magnum opus. How proud I was. Tricky decision: if one part is bad then I have to delete the whole lot.
Part 1 [Google cache]: Ok, up to the description of the four “legs” of a solution, it’s not bad, and we do need research to find out what is going on, but what’s this? Political Action? “Ultimately we need global agreements to ensure...” Oh dear, it’s gone all Kyoto and Copenhagen already. Let’s see what Part 2 is like.
Part 2 – Research [Google cache]: Just the one phrase required to consign this to the razor blade treatment: “Research seems to have become poor cousin of the great actions that we can take as a civilisation”. Uurgh, great actions as a civilisation, I feel all dirty reading that.
Well, that’s it, it all has to go. DELETED-1-2-3-4-5. Sorry about all the lost comments, people.
For completion, here are the caches of the other parts: Part 3 – Political Action [Google cache], Part 4 – Legal Action[Google cache] and Part 5 – Individual and Community Action [Google cache]. Please don’t read the last one, it’s really horrible!
In This Climate Of Fear The Energy Giants Must Not Win - Thursday, July 13th 2006
Again, this is something I have referred to in the past – let’s see if it stands up...
Well, that was ok. Quite a few logical traps, and surprisingly radical thinking considering I hadn’t yet become uncivilised.
What If...We All Became Vegan? - Tuesday, July 25th 2006
This is still my most referenced article by far, and from what I can make out, still the only dietary article around that focuses on the gross area of land use. In the light of Lierre Keith’s justified attacks on industrial activity but, I think, unjustified attacks on vegan ethics this needs to remain.
A Call For Action : Please Read This - Thursday, July 27th 2006
This is a tricky one. There are lots of comments, and it’s not a bad little vignette, but near the end it suggests that governments and businesses could be part of the solution, which is clearly not the case given that they have no intention of taking us out of Industrial Civilization. So a compromise, I won’t delete it, but I’ll take it off the links list.
What If...The Population Stopped Growing? - Monday, August 7th 2006
Given the current surge in writing about the “population problem”, and the attempt by various parties, especially in the USA to take the emphasis off lifestyle and place it on absolute population, it’s good to have an article like this to use. I hadn’t read this for ages, and am rather pleased that it seems to stand up well.
The Problem With...Tourism - Thursday, August 24th 2006
It was around this time that I started increasing the time between articles to, frankly, make them better; and also started to focus on many more specific topics rather than making general comment, using a new thread called “The Problem With...” This first one is nicely focussed, and I can’t see anything wrong with it.
What Is The Point Of Investing In The Future If There Is No Future To Invest In? - Thursday, September 7th 2006 [Google cache]
I sense this might be a problem: “Making The Market Economy Stable”! And then realised the article actually showed it to be impossible. But there are problems: first, I talk about coveting as a natural desire, whereas it is almost absent from stable tribal societies; second, I fall into the trap of proposing a model of sustainability without any suggestion of how to get there – that’s not a good way to work. Despite the obvious effort put into it, it has to go. DELETED.
The Problem With...Plastic - Friday, September 22nd 2006
Nothing wrong with this one: quite hard-hitting as it goes, and a nice little conundrum that doesn’t resolve (obviously, if you think about it) until the end.
Never Trust A Celebrity Philanthropist - Tuesday, October 10th 2006
Can’t really delete this one even if it was rubbish (which, fortunately it just avoids being) because it was quoted in The New Yorker, and also led to a lot of other things beside. In a way this article, topical as it was, made The Earth Blog just a little bit famous.
What If...There Were No Countries? - Friday, October 27th 2006 [Google cache]
I’m not sure how I came to believe that a single world government would save the human race; possibly because I had recently lost faith with national governments and was just looking for an alternative. Nevertheless, despite a hell of a lot of work going into it, it is hopelessly naïve and also just plain wrong to suggest we should encourage political homogenisation (see the article later on). I feel a bit nauseous reading it. DELETED.
I might use the phrase, “Pride in your country be damned! What about pride in your planet?” somewhere else, though.
The Problem With...Christmas - Thursday, December 7th 2006
It’s the end of September, and the shops are already filling up with tinsel and holly tinged goods: no effort will be spared to try and prop up the faltering global economy with a monumental pile of seasonal tat! For that, and also because it still takes me back, this one can stay.
In January 2007, I started work on A Matter Of Scale, and everything began to slip into place, but out of the 25 articles I wrote in 2006, only 12 remain. A massacre perhaps, but a necessary one. Now it’s time to move on.
Is that really such a big deal? The thing is, I didn’t realise I was missing one. There are so many things I could call myself: a human, male, a father, a husband, a writer, a thinker, a gardener, a campaigner...so many things that I feel pretty comfortable with, yet until a couple of weeks ago I didn’t realise there was something missing; something that yawned inside me, empty and lacking substance.
As consumers we feel so fulfilled; everything is within arms reach, or just a short drive down the road in the shopping mall, or on the internet by next day delivery. Everything we could possibly need. Consumers are the lifeblood of the industrial economy: it is the confidence of the mass of consumers that characterises the health of the economy, for without an optimistic buying public there is recession, slump, depression and, finally, collapse. A perfect symbiotic relationship: the consumer has everything she wants, and the economy rises on the continued satisfaction of the consumer.
It’s not quite that simple, though, because without one critical hook, the consumer will quickly start to question the nature of the relationship – maybe it’s not so fulfilling after all, given that all that hard-earned money has to keep being pumped into the rumbling belly of the infinite beast. Unless there is something more, then the consumer might understand the absurdity of this endlessly cyclical, destructive, mind-hollowing culture: we all feel that emptiness and sense of pointlessness from time to time, don’t we? It doesn’t last long, though, because to question the consumer culture is to question ourselves: more than anything, the consumer identifies with the culture; the consumer is part of that culture.
Consumer is more than just a word – it is an identity.
The Consumer Identity
When I hear humans being referred to as Consumers, I get angry. Not only is it because of the obviously abhorrent nature of consumerism that I get angry, but because the word “Consumer” is such a blatantly imposed label – it stinks of domination, of the entrapment of human beings into a single archetype; state-sponsored and corporate approved. The template for the modern human.
What kind of bloody identity is “Consumer”?
We are raised, as civilians within the industrial world, to believe there is a single mode of fulfilment that will hold us in good stead from birth to death. We must never question it; we must never challenge it; we must only identify with it. Carolyn Baker describes this crisis of identity in her book Sacred Demise, in the following way:
Civilization’s toxicity has fostered the illusion that one is, for example, a professional person with money in the bank, a secure mortgage, a good credit rating, a healthy body and mind, raising healthy children who will grow up to become successful like oneself, and that when one retires one will be well taken care of. If that has become our identity, and if we don’t look deeper, we won’t discover who we really are.1
If we identify ourselves as “Consumers” then that leaves little space for anything else because, as Baker makes clear, the illusion that the civilized world creates is a lifelong one, and if we are to remain in its grip we must reject anything else that might conflict with that illusion.
There is no room for connection with the real world, the world in which we are part of the cycles of nature and the webs of life – connection to the telephone network or the internet is the consumer way; there is no room for the breathtaking joy that comes from watching the sun rise across a beach, accompanied only by the cries of the gulls and the wash of the sea – you have to buy the experience from a travel agency; there is no room for the exquisite tastes and smells of your own grown or gathered food made into healthy meals for everyone to share – you can share a large bag of nachos with dip, while watching a movie on your plasma screen.
I gave up being a consumer long ago: before, I had no idea that’s what I was; none of us have any idea how much of us is composed of this forcibly imposed identity...until we decide to stop being what the system makes us.
But the void is large, and the consumer identity keeps threatening to fill it with each advertisement, news broadcast, political entreaty and subconscious signal: we have to resist; we have to find something else to take its place.
Who Am I?
Not only must we find something so we are able to resist the often delicious attraction of the consumer culture, but we need something else because without identity we are less human. The evidence for this is compelling: identity from the dawn of humanity is written across the ground, the walls and the artefacts of everyone who has ever been part of a tribe or close community. The tongues of countless people have spoken, and still try to speak in myriad different languages, dialects and accents. The way we have dressed; the way we have expressed ourselves; the way we have made our lives different in so many subtle and deliberate ways shouts of the need for an identity, a commonality in our local culture that ensures the survival and enhances the success of each group that shares that identity.
I willingly retain the labels “human”, “male”, “father”, “husband”, “writer”, “thinker”, “gardener”, “campaigner”: they say what I do and, in part, what is important to me. They also help me to start constructing a new identity for myself, for in the absence of a tribe, or even a close community that I can become part of – being a non-consumer in the middle of a consumer world – finding true identity will always be a struggle. The pieces are coming together, though. I have discovered my Englishness, possibly the nearest I can currently get to a physical, tribal identity. I have the writer Paul Kingsnorth to thank for that:
Many of the people I met during my travels exhibited a solid, quiet Englishness that had nothing to do with pained intellectual definitions and everything to do with belonging to the historical landscape they were part of. This, it seems to me, is crucial. Landscape and belonging are tied inextricably together. Englishness, as an identity comes not from institutions or vague ideas about ‘values’ but from place.2
I was born in England and I have lived here all my life. I love this country as a place, and I am content to root myself in the soil from which its life emerges. I have, very recently, also realised that a large part of what I write and speak about is rooted in Anarchy; the simple and natural concept that there is no place for arbitrary authority nor a self-selected hierarchy – the kind that the political and corporate milieu utilise to ensure we remain good Consumers. In that sense, Anarchist is the antithesis of Consumer, and I know which identity I am more comfortable with.
There are many other pieces for me to find; some of them may shuffle around and some may come and go over time, but at least I am now able to choose my identity for myself. That is a wonderful thing, one that we owe it to ourselves to fight for.
References:
1. Carolyn Baker, "Sacred Demise: Walking The Spiritual Path of Industrial Civilization's Collapse", iUniverse, 2009.
2. Paul Kingsnorth, "Real England: The Battle Against The Bland", Portobello Books, 2008.
I am about to make you feel uncomfortable. Sorry, but there’s no way of avoiding it if I’m going to tell this story as it should be told.
You are a human being; a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens, although the second “sapiens” was only put there because we like to feel we are important. Remember that. There used to be other species within the genus “Homo” but they died out, or were possibly killed off, most recently a few thousand years ago when Homo neanderthalensis finally succumbed to the insurgent sapiens somewhere on the Iberian Peninsula.
On a smaller scale, you are a collection of major and minor organs, bony structures, muscles, ligaments, tubular networks, soft tissues and various other organic materials; all structured in such a way that you are capable of living in a vast range of habitats and climatic zones, under tremendous pressure from all sorts of predators and invaders, from large animals to minute single-celled organisms. Through an extraordinary evolutionary process, your constituent parts have developed to fill an optimally agile and self-regulating body such that they are able to function in tune with each other, symbiotically and independently as required, while you get on with the business of being a conscious and self-aware individual.
Each of these constituent parts are constructed from billions of cellular structures of various types which, if not part of your body, would be considered organisms in their own right: fragile, yes, but only because they have evolved to become at least partially dependent upon the whole of which they are a tiny part. Within each of your cells are components called mitochondria, which convert the raw materials of proteins – amino acids –into energy, which the cell uses to fulfil whatever function it is required to as part of the multi-cellular thing that is your body. This may involve fighting off viral invaders, absorbing nutrients from food, expelling waste from blood, moving in time with muscular activity or firing off a message to a neighbouring cell to recall an image of something that happened in your past.
Each of these mitochondria are specially adapted bacteria, that once independently existed, but at some point were “hijacked” by or may have taken up residence in, an animal cell that would, from then on, benefit from the energy produced by the mitochondria – the same cells that constitute an infinitesimally small part of a component of an individual human being, among something like 6.8 billion other human beings on Earth. 6.8 billion human beings that are utterly dependent upon the rest of the massive food web of which they (we) are just a tiny part.
You eat fish? The chances are that if you live in the Industrial West, your fish was a carnivore that ate other fish. If you live in China or Indonesia, it is more likely that your dinner was vegetarian, missing out a few links in the chain, and retaining a lot more of the food energy that came from the algae, or phytoplankton, that ultimately derived its energy from sun by virtue of the photosynthetic process that uses solar energy to split carbon molecules off from oxygen molecules, and create carbon structures that constitute the building blocks of life.
But, of course, it’s not only the animals or plants you eat (and that they may eat or utilise in the form of soil and “waste” products) that you are dependent upon, but the crucial role each of these organisms plays in the various natural processes that take place on Earth: regulation of the climatic-oceanic system; soil formation; water purification and enrichment; nutrient distribution…in the world we live in today we would not survive without all of these processes operating at a high level of efficiency. Interfere with these processes at a local level, and ecosystems can collapse; damage these processes at a global scale, and the entire biosphere is forced to readjust. With humans at the very top of the food chain, and so dependent upon everything else, we will be some of the first casualties of any global extinction.
Try and balance a pencil on its tip.
The Psychosis Of Civilization
This beautiful continuum, of which we are such a physically insignificant part, takes some imagining. The numbers are mind-numbing – individual nematodes alone stretch into the quintillions, and bacteria are many orders more numerous – as is the complexity of the ecological nets that link together different animals, plants, fungi and the countless other organisms that actually constitute the great majority of all life on Earth. We sit as a delicate flower waiting to be blown away in the next breeze of extinction; yet what do we see as the most important factor in our role as human beings?
Money.
As I have discussed on The Earth Blog previously, our values have become outrageously skewed in favour of whatever benefits the onward march of the global economy. We do not see the rise and fall of habitat viability on the television news, instead we see the rise and fall of the markets in the capital economy; we do not count specie extinctions in newspaper bar charts, but we urgently count companies going bust; we do not map the catastrophic breaks in the energy flows between different parts of an ecosystem, but we do acknowledge every time a budget airline discontinues a route, or whenever a main road has “severe” delays. As if it matters.
The psychosis of Industrial Civilization is endemic: every person that places his or her trust in the system of hierarchies, politics, markets and mass consumption, undergoes a fundamental readjustment in priorities. No longer does the fate of our species rest upon our increasingly precipitous position within the global ecology; we can all hold hands, actually or virtually, and celebrate the majesty of the global economic miracle, safe in the knowledge that it will take us forward into a glittering future of jobs, money and all the other civilised things we have been taught to desire.
How we have become so determined to destroy the continuum of life in search of something so utterly trivial, has its roots in the history of civilization. Every civilization has had its own goals, but ultimately they have all come down to one thing: the insatiable desire to progress in whatever way is dictated by the elite members at the very top. Such “progress” takes many forms, but whether it be exploration, scientific discovery, technological prowess, imperial power or simply the idea of being “the best”, civilizations have to feel they are progressing in some way; and so its subjects – the civilians – become part of that collective desire. For what are we if we don’t keep progressing? Failures. From our fear of failure, others above us draw their strength – just at the moment we seem to be reaching the end, and as we stretch out our fingertips, another line is drawn even further away. So we note the new goals and conform to the wishes of the system; continuing to do as we are told.
Through this psychotic behaviour, civilizations thrive…until they fail.
What Is Really Important
When I wrote the chapter called “Why Does It Matter?” in my book, Time’s Up! I felt rather uneasy; as though I hadn’t managed to explain myself properly. The problem was that, beyond the physical argument for the continuation of our DNA that I offered, there was also a complex and deeply-philosophical explanation that I also had which didn’t translate well into words. It was like a version of the argument that Descartes gave for the existence of God; to paraphrase: “I have within me a perfect and unequivocal representation of God; how could that be so if there were no God.” It’s a terrible argument, but it demonstrates well how a very good idea – which Descartes no doubt thought was perfect at the time – completely fails to work when written down.
I’m going to have another go.
So, how do you feel about your place in the world? Do you feel small, insignificant, worthless, just a tiny part of something far greater than yourself? This natural feeling of inferiority when you realise you are just a tiny part of a greater whole is the reason why medieval religious leaders were so resolute about our exulted position in the Great Chain of Being, just below the angels, but above all other forms of life – so long as you accepted that monarchs, priests and landowners were considerably more perfect than the rest of us.
It’s the same in the industrial economy: there is this global system that has enormous, if transient, power over the whole of existence; that governs every aspect of the lives of the civilised, but you don’t have to feel small, so long as you are told how important it is to go to school, get a job, go to the shopping mall or buy something online, follow the latest fashions, and cast your vote. You are empowered by your participation in these activities. It’s just that some people are more empowered than others.
But why on Earth do you need to be told how important you are? It speaks volumes about our state of mind when in order to feel worthwhile we have to, for instance, achieve good grades at school. We are all human beings, for goodness sake! Even more than that, we are what we are: our consciousness is bound up in our physical being, and everything we know and feel – everything we will ever be – is determined by our personal interaction with what is around us. We are at the centre of our personal universe; not in any selfish way, but simply because we can never truly perceive anything outside of our point of view.
Thomas Nagel, the American philosopher, summed this up beautifully in his essay, “What Is It Like To Be A Bat?”:
After all, what would be left of what it was like to be a bat if one removed the viewpoint of the bat?
Substitute “human” for “bat” and it is obvious that human experience has to be a unique thing for humans and, by extension, for each individual human. That is why we are important; not because humans are essential to the global ecology or even because we are essential to the absurd construct we call Civilization, but because what matters, is what matters to us.
How could it be any other way?
Think about this for a short while and it becomes clear that the civilised world’s destruction of the natural environment cannot under any circumstances be acceptable, for it will endanger the one thing which matters above all else: ourselves.
Decision Time
You have to make a choice. Are you going to continue supporting and extending the global reign of Industrial Civilization; or are you going to once again learn to value yourself as the centre of your universe, and the thing that matters above all else?
To me that choice is remarkably easy, but you might take some persuading, not only because of the insidious hold that the civilised world has upon everything we do, but because you are possibly thinking that I have left something out – the other things that also matter dearly to you. Fear not; this is what I wrote in Time’s Up!
More than just our natural tendency to survive, though, is the manifestation of that survival instinct in the way we think. Consider the question: What would you risk your life to save? My initial instinct is to say ‘my family’, then ‘me’, then, with a little more thought, ‘the Earth in general’ and ‘my friends’. Remove the Earth from the equation and you have the kind of answer that most people give.
In fact, all three typical responses are directly related to the natural instinct for survival. We instinctively want to protect our families in order to secure the continuation of our DNA through blood relatives and the people they depend upon to survive. We want to protect ourselves in order to protect our own DNA, and the opportunity for that to be further replicated. We want to protect our friends because they too are human beings, but not only that, we have consciously chosen our closest friends because of what they have in common with us – they are almost like family.
I have said that I was not entirely happy with the strength of reasoning I gave in the book, but with the addition of the philosophical argument to the obvious need to replicate our DNA – the survival imperative – then we can all be justified in wanting not only to protect ourselves, but also our families and those other people we really care about and need: the community.
Community is the antithesis of civilization for civilization thrives on the division of humanity into tiny, atomised, competing parts; but community is the form in which humans have always survived best. The choice is simple now: Civilization or Community; Progress or Humanity; Death or Life.
If someone doesn’t want to believe something then what can you do to change their mind? Trust me, it’s more difficult than you think: it isn’t just the simple case of someone not believing something, the key word is “want” – if they don’t want to believe then there is almost nothing you can do about it. Even if all the evidence is against them.
I see this all the time: on the TV news, in the printed media, on blogs and discussion boards, and in the streets; this constant battle between two entrenched positions – be it over religious idealism, abortion, vaccinations or anything else that invokes emotional involvement – is almost unbearable to witness. For the most part, this battle will grind on and on until the various parties give up trying to convince the other side, through lack of energy, lack of time, illness and even death. People have died for their beliefs, in their millions – but there are always others to take their place.
The battle between the two sides over climate change, or anthropogenic global warming (AGW), won’t be ending any time soon; and there will be blood, mark my words. This is more than a battle for intellectual superiority – it is battle over an idealistic principle, and that principle is...actually, let’s come back to that. First of all, given the title of this essay, I think we need to consider the words “denial” and “denier”.
Put simply, denial is an unwillingness to accept a position: I deny that white people are racially superior to black people, which to most of us is a reasonable position to take. The opposing position is less common, but nonetheless can be couched in similar terms; the denial that black people are racially equal to white people. Go back less than 100 years, though, and the second position would stand you in pretty good stead as a European or American citizen wanting to get ahead in the civilized world.
A denier is someone who adopts a denial position. For instance, I deny that economic growth is a necessary characteristic of human society, which places me very much in the minority of people in the civilized world. I’ve discussed the reason for this elsewhere, needless to say the opposing position – that economic growth is a necessity – is far more cultural than based on an absolute body of factual evidence. That is important, because it helps understand why denial positions are so difficult to deal with: if someone is deeply inculcated with a particular belief, such as economic growth being a necessity, then no matter how much contrary physical evidence is presented to them, they are highly unlikely to change their position. If that physical evidence is overwhelmingly contrary to their belief system then we say they are “in denial of the facts”.
That, of course, often only serves to inflame things.
The Danger Of Denial
I make no bones about my belief in anthropogenic global warming, for various reasons, and not just the scientific evidence; so if you are reading this and thinking about clicking somewhere else because you don’t agree with me, then click away – this essay is aimed at those people who more or less have the same mindset as myself, and are in the all-too-common situation of feeling they have to defend that position. To you, dear reader, I offer the following words: you are in danger of losing your sanity.
As we have seen, and probably realised from experience, arguing with a Climate Change Denier is like wrestling in a deep, muddy pit: it can be filthy, exhausting and, worst of all, there seems to be no way out. Personal issues aside, the wider danger is that the other side might get their way – and that person, or group, or business, or government, will then be able to spread their own beliefs in the knowledge that there is no-one willing to take the opposing position. The many people who are wavering, or even understand that AGW is fact, can then be easily tipped into denial. This is what happens in totalitarian states: the ruler’s position becomes the de facto belief.
In ecological terms, this would be disastrous should it happen against AGW, for there would not even be enough dissenters to restart the process of change, let alone carry it through. It’s strange in a way – all the time it has seemed like an endless game of factual table tennis, it has in fact been a battle for the future of humanity, played out in a million places across the globe.
It will come as no surprise that climate science is not completely accurate – it is highly complex, heavily dependent on modelling, and relies on a huge amount of real-time data gathering. If ever a branch of science was a ripe denial opportunity, it is this one. So while the scientists do their job building up the case for action, the deniers continue to hack at the inevitable flaws in the science...two steps forward, one step back, and so on until it is too late to do anything about the environmental changes that the main body of scientists and their proponents had been pretty sure would happen soon. The deniers will have “won” their battle because – and this is where it gets pretty scary – it seems that by the time the changes start to be observed, it is almost impossible to reverse them
On the other hand, the deniers also lose, because we all lose if runaway climate change takes hold.
Now here’s a bit of bad news for an awful lot of people: however complete and convincing the evidence presented, no scientific case will have any effect on a deeply entrenched denier. As I said earlier, the entrenched Climate Change Denier isn’t the slightest bit interested in the main body of evidence. To counter this position, and thus provide the people who are in danger of slipping into the muddy pit with a safety rail, something different is needed: a powerful argument based on a combination of incontrovertible facts, and a heavy dose of good old-fashioned logic or, as Bertrand Russell called it, “the great liberator of the imagination.”
The Logic Bomb
There is an inescapable difference between mathematics and science: in essence, a mathematical proof is an absolute proof, which can never be refuted; a scientific “proof” on the other hand, is transient – it exists until a piece of contrary evidence emerges that is sufficiently powerful to undermine, or at least alter, the “proof”. All science is like this; no matter how credible the evidence, there is always the danger that one day it will be scientifically refuted. This happens quite a lot; not so much in the older branches of science such as classical physics and anatomy, as in far newer areas like quantum physics, microbiology and, as we have seen, climate science.
In mathematics this can never happen if the proof is logically sound. Now, I’m not saying that it is possible to create a perfect analogue of mathematical proof within a scientific context; but it is possible to use a logical argument to create something that is very, very difficult to deny; largely because it doesn’t depend on predictive science, but on things we already know have happened, and are still happening. I want to make this clear, there is no argument, whether scientific, logical or even physical, that will change the mind of a deeply entrenched Climate Change Denier. On the other hand, a logical argument is far more likely to silence them* and, more importantly, help prevent an impartial or mildly sceptical person from slipping into full-blown denial.
For that reason, I will no longer engage myself in a scientific argument with an ingrained CCD -- there really is no point -- instead, I will use this: the logical argument against Climate Change Denial.
Part One
The history of Climate Change Denial (CCD) is essentially a history of corporate lobbying since the early 1980s. It was the oil companies, the coal mining companies, the car manufacturers, the road constructors, the loggers and all the other corporations who would obviously not be able to carry on business as usual if they were found to be changing the climate, that did it first, and did it big time. The history of AGW denial is deep, dark and sophisticated and it involved some of the finest creative and persuasive minds that have ever graced the corporate and political stages. Corporations were responsible for and funded some of the most successful denial lobbies: think of the Global Climate Coalition, The Heritage Foundation, The Oregon Institute and The Cato Institute for starters. This is taken from an excellent primer about their work, in relation to the activities of ExxonMobil:
Some of those on the list have names that make them look like grassroots citizens' organisations or academic bodies: the Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, for example. One or two of them, such as the Congress of Racial Equality, are citizens' organisations or academic bodies, but the line they take on climate change is very much like that of the other sponsored groups. While all these groups are based in America, their publications are read and cited, and their staff are interviewed and quoted, all over the world.
By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.
Corporations were, and still are responsible for some of the most successful advertising and PR campaigns ever created, trying to convince the public that everything is fine and they should carry on doing what they do. A classic example is the “…we call it life” campaign created by the corporate-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute; but there are many other, far more subtle examples which – and this is the idealistic principle I alluded to earlier – attempt to convince people that the infinite growth model of Industrial Civilization are fundamentally a “good thing”, and that AGW is just a distraction. You don’t have to explicitly deny something to be a Denier, you can simply sweep it under the carpet; or, as is becoming more common, bury it or pump it into the ground.
If the denier doesn’t agree with you about the history of corporate denial, then they are clearly deluded, and you are within your rights to say so – again and again and again. The historical facts bear this out and no Climate Change Denier can disagree with this part without making themselves look foolish.
Part Two
As the science has become more certain in favour of AGW, it has become ever more difficult for deniers (by this I mean both individual and collective) to use the scientific argument in their favour. It is, as we have seen, still possible to argue over the fallibility of scientific “proof” and just how large the body of evidence actually is; but with a bit of intelligence, deniers can use a far more subtle tool. This, unfortunately for them, is a big mistake.
As documented in a Newsweek article by Sharon Begley, the style of political lobbying moved, especially in the USA, from blatant stonewalling in the 1980s and 1990s, to an “uncertainty” agenda at the beginning of the 21st century:
"If they presented the science honestly, it would have brought public pressure for action," says Rick Piltz, who joined the federal Climate Science Program in 1995. By appointing former coal and oil lobbyists to key jobs overseeing climate policy, he found, the administration made sure that didn't happen. Following the playbook laid out at the 1998 meeting at the American Petroleum Institute, officials made sure that every report and speech cast climate science as dodgy, uncertain, controversial—and therefore no basis for making policy. Ex-oil lobbyist Philip Cooney, working for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, edited a 2002 report on climate science by sprinkling it with phrases such as "lack of understanding" and "considerable uncertainty." A short section on climate in another report was cut entirely. The White House "directed us to remove all mentions of it," says Piltz, who resigned in protest. An oil lobbyist faxed Cooney, "You are doing a great job."
Given the huge success corporations have had in dictating the political agenda through lobbying, funding, advising and – particularly in the Bush era – staffing the corridors of power, it’s not surprising such a tactic remains extremely effective. But corporations, and politicians, know that what really drives the economy is public opinion: if people do not have confidence in something then they will not adhere to it, which is why Consumer Confidence is such a crucial economic measure. The moment the buying public loses confidence, then they stop being a buying public, and instead turn into a saving, or even reacting public – which is bad news for everyone in a position of power.
To counter this, the corporate world has had to cultivate an air of concern, whilst ensuring this does not impact on their bottom line. The key word here is Greenwash. When you see a claim that a vehicle is “cleaner” or that deforestation is “sustainable” or that you can “offset” a polluting activity or that emissions can be buried, what you are seeing is the business world allaying the concerns of a public increasingly aware that climate change may be a “bad thing”. If we can be made to believe that our concerns are being accounted for, then we are far less likely to stop spending money, and most unlikely to ever rebel against the status quo.
To reach a conclusion about denial, therefore, what we have to focus on here is the net effect of any of these things: a “cleaner” vehicle is still producing carbon dioxide gas; deforestation, however many trees are replanted, still has a negative effect on the overall forest ecosystem; flying or using electricity still emits greenhouse gases, which cannot be offset like-for-like in any meaningful way; capturing carbon and pumping it underground will never account for a majority of coal-fired electricity generation.
The denial here is, as I said, subtle; but it is most definitely present. We are being manipulated by a collective body with a vested interest in not letting us know how bad AGW will become. If the reality wasn’t so bad, and the deniers didn’t believe in this reality, then they wouldn’t be working so hard to prevent us from knowing the truth.
Part Three
Now, here’s the final part of your argument; one that is becoming increasingly important to have in your armoury: Who has the most to gain from a popular belief in anthropogenic global warming?
A lot of denial – now that even the most corporate-minded politicians and dirtiest companies at least say humans are causing the climate to change – is now related to the amount of financial benefit it is claimed politicians, scientists, “green” companies and (get this) those campaigning simply to protect nature, will gain from a populace that believes humans are causing the climate to change. I make no bones about my condemnation of the huge amount of money that is being made off the back of people’s concerns to protect the planet; from the small company selling low(er) energy gadgets, to the professional consultancy advising businesses how to be more environmental friendly (or at least appear to be), right up to the aforementioned corporations that need us to keep spending as usual to keep the economy growing. In fact, I write about this all the time on another web site, such is my anger. However, we need to address the increasingly popular accusation that AGW is an invention solely to make money, or hand power to a believing few.
It is worth pointing out the inescapable irony of such an accusation; given the incontrovertible history of lobbying and subsequent financial and power gain that the CCDs have been a party to. I admit that turning such an accusation on its head may seem to be playing into the hands of the deniers, but the accusation itself seems to assume that it is possible to play the same trick on both sides of the fence. Nothing could be further from the truth. To show this, let’s look at some of the main players, and see what would really happen were AGW to be accepted in all of its scientific legitimacy – how would each player gain, or lose:
Politically, there aren’t any real winners: civilized humanity has screwed up the planet and politicians deservedly look terrible across the board because they have helped bring this upon us. In addition, no politician wishing to profit from greenwashing will be able to pull the wool over the electorate’s eyes for long. Admitting AGW is real and potentially catastrophic makes most of them look stupid and, in the eyes of a free-minded electorate, unelectable. Corporations don’t win at all, unless they are able to greenwash sufficiently to make us buy more stuff, or do more polluting; but in the end, even the most effective greenwashers will have to admit that if we truly want to prevent climate change, their businesses are screwed. Admitting AGW is real and dangerous makes corporations scared.
The Global Elites are comprised of corporate heads and leading politicians: all but the most paranoid conspiracy theorist has to admit that there is no secret cabal formed of all-powerful elites that will benefit from a belief in AGW; we know who the elites are, and as I have already shown you, AGW is bad news for them.
Scientists are a mixed bag, but if you separate those who may be influenced by corporate and political funding – based on what I have said above – and those who are decoupled from any such funding (and there plenty of scientists who are) it is clear where the division lies, and why some scientists are more radical in their views than others. A fully decoupled scientist has no more or less to gain from AGW than any other member of humanity.
Humanity in general has everything to lose from a rapidly changing climate. However, if we truly believe that humans are causing the climate to change, and that we have to fundamentally change our behaviour, without the meddling of corporations and politicians, and if we do manage to avert catastrophic climate change then, yes, humanity as a whole will benefit, as will virtually every ecosystem on Earth. It’s just that this benefit is not financial – it is far more important than money.
It follows that Climate Change Denial, not acceptance, is the result of a desire to ensure the existing powers that be maintain dominion over ordinary human beings. The denial position is the position of the elite minority that run Industrial Civilization, and that of anyone who knowingly accepts this as a good thing. The terminally flawed principle of economic growth being a necessary part of human society is holding the entire CCD industry together.
Reject this principle, and the entire monolithic Culture of Maximum Harm, along with the denial that humans are on the path towards irreversibly changing the entire global ecosystem, falls apart. Reject this principle and we stand a far better chance of surviving the future.
*Since publishing this article, both here and at The Sietch Blog, I have received a large number of responses from Deniers, both as comments and personal messages. None of these comments address the logical argument presented, merely wishing to reopen the scientific "debate" (a.k.a. sophism). I think this is very telling.
The wind is blowing hard, and the trees are bending down low, the air rushing across their branches, dragging leaves and blossom into the sky. The early summer grass, being soaked in the thick drizzle that falls in an urgent slant, ripples and chases with the gusts. A blackbird announces its territory, darting across the patch of green before being pulled askew by a fresh blast of air, still vocalising urgently. A family of humans are scattered throughout their house: one on a laptop, another immersed in a Nintendo game, the third goggling at the television that finds its market, and homes in on the hypnotised viewer. The humans barely hear the wind, let alone feel its embrace, as it batters the side of the house and cuts around leaving eddies of detritus dancing at the foot of the solid walls.
The trees and the grass and the blackbird feel the warmth of the sun as the wind drops and the clouds fracture like an ancient lace shawl. The atmosphere is thick with post-rain smells that rise from the soil, and the music of nature fills the sky in a celebration of continued life. The humans feel nothing different: they carry on living their civilized, disconnected lives.
Disconnected
Life exists in a complex embrace, the threads of each species’ existence intertwining in such a way that balance is the normal state of things. If one part of the energy web overreaches itself, like a fecund herd of reindeer overgrazing the winter lichen, the system tips into a localised collapse, until balance is restored and the lichen has time to regrow among the now sparse reindeer population. This connection is absolute: no food, no life.
Connections go far deeper than this, though; for it is our innate understanding of the patterns of nature, as the species Homo sapiens, that makes us survivors in so many ways. Humans are superbly adaptable: able to find water, bring about fire, craft shelters and tools, follow scents and tracks to find food – all of this utterly dependent on the connections we make and refine from the moment we emerge into the sensory storm that is the real world.
And then we shut the door; shut the windows; shut the blinds; shut our minds...it’s still going on out there, but we would rather let the caustic rain of civilization wash it away and supplant it with connections that have been manufactured to keep us in our place. We feel safe, even though we are on the edge of catastrophe; we enjoy what we do, even though we have forgotten what joy feels like; we experience self-worth, even though we have become worthless; we feel in control, even though we have no control at all...the system has us where it wants us. And now it can use us like the metaphorical batteries and cogs that signify our labour and our spending, and our naïve compliance in which we live our synthetic lives, from the plastic toys we grasp as babies to the flickering, energy-sapping screens that fix our attention on the advertisers’ world; from the blacktop roads we populate in our teeming masses, contained in metal caskets with wheels on our way to and from our places of work, to the offices and factories and shopping malls we spend a third of our lives operating in order to keep the machine moving, in order that we can be given currency with which we, in our docility, reinsert into the system so it can keep growing, and taking, and killing everything it is able to reach.
And when we feel weary, we take a packaged, predetermined vacation. And when we feel hungry, we eat a packaged, predetermined meal. And when we feel bored, we go to a packaged, predetermined slice of entertainment. And when we are of no more use to the system, we are retired...and only then do we, in those moments of reflection we never had during our urgent “productive” days, think about what we could have been.
Homo sapiens is connected. Homo sapiens civilis has had the connections ripped away from it.
What If We Connected?
We would be free.
In a culture that seeks to timeslice our attention span into smaller and smaller chunks, so that we are left always wanting more, but never reach what we think we are seeking, there is little time for contemplation. Silence is the enemy, and open minds are force-fed a diet of trivia in order to keep us sated.
Full silence departed; empty silence became like a weight around our necks, something to be cast off at any opportunity: anything to keep the flimsy cultural dialogue going, a defense mechanism against the naked, voiceless underpinning of life that was quietly lurking beneath.1
Civilized humans are born into a world where the big questions can only be answered by those in “authority”, and the biggest questions are ignored, for fear that the answers may take people to a place that is not state-sanctioned or approved by the machine. So we must ask the biggest questions: like, “Why are we here?”
To a civilized, disconnected Homo sapiens civilis, there is no answer to this question, for there is no world outside of the civilized one. The best answer a civilized human can give is one that is framed only in the confines of his or her experience: we exist to serve the machine. The ecology of such an answer – for in reality we exist to be a part of nature within the endless cycle of birth, life and death – goes no further than that which we told we are dependent on: the government, work, product, the economy. The true ecology of any answer in a genuinely connected state is limited only by the environment of which we are a part. Where does my food come from?
A shop.
Or the soil, the solar energy that warms it and the rain that falls upon it, and the countless micro-organisms that work as one to create the ideal growing conditions for the plant; that may feed an animal, that may feed yet another animal, or may simply be picked and eaten like the rosehip from the briar that bursts with flavour on a warm September afternoon.
The machine fears the second answer: we have to believe that our food is the product of a systemic, organised process that culminates in an economic transaction. If we don’t then we might question the system and decide to grow or pick our own food, depleting the industrial economy of its energy. We have to believe that in order to live, then we must go to work and produce something, whether that be a consumer product, an energy flow, a service or an ersatz lifestyle; and we have to keep believing that this is the only way to live. If we don’t, then we might fail to turn up one day, and the machine will have lost one of its cogs or rivets or pins. Take away too many parts and the machine will break.
Reconnecting
In the glass of the window that shields me from the world outside, I see the reflection of a tree, blowing in the breeze, and wonder what the air tastes like. I open the window and feel the cool air touch my face as the soft rain patters on the sill and wets the floor in tiny circles of darkness – difference. A sudden gust brings a litter of flora across the threshold that dances in the spaces and falls upon my feet – beauty. The blackbird sits on a swaying branch and tells its story in a burst of sublime avian music that pushes back the noise of the traffic below – joy.
I have let the outside in, and now I need to let the inside out. It’s time to reconnect...
Reference:
1. Sandy Krolick, “The Recovery Of Ecstasy”, BookSurge Publishing, 2009.
The future is everything we will ever know, and everything we have never known. Some people deny its existence: one group of people are the Pirahã of Amazonia, who have created for themselves a temporal bubble that reflects their highly sustainable, hunter-gatherer lives – the future is irrelevant because life is what is happening now, and they have no reason to doubt that they will continue living in the same way. Another group of people who deny the existence of the future are vast hoards of civilized humans, living in densely populated, money and resource dependent parts of the world: for them, the real future is too frightening to consider; so they have created for themselves an artificial one in which they can pursue whatever dream the civilized world considers appropriate to its way of being. If your dream future contains happy children, material goods, vacations, a good career and a fulfilling, healthy retirement in a world of infinite capacity and endless resources, why the hell would you want to know what is really going to happen?!
For the Pirahã, their future may be tragically cut short by industrial incursion, disease and a catastrophic change in their natural ecosystem; but they are not in denial, they have just had no need to fear the change that may come. We, on the other hand, are perhaps in the terminal stages of a terrible collective state of denial, manufactured by a system that dares not speak the truth about the future: Industrial Civilization is close to ending, taking with it a great sweep of the global ecosystem as the machine claws at the air, the earth and the seas in a last-gasp attempt to stay alive. That future is one that even the most hardened survivalist would struggle to contemplate in all its dystopian horror. It mustn’t get to that stage; but have no doubt, it will if we don’t stop Industrial Civilization soon.
There is another future: to quote a recent correspondent, it is one that sits "beneath and between the cracks" of our current ideals. A more "mundane" existence, those that sell the fast-paced, luxury-filled dream would have us believe; a life of "toil", those that ply the cradle-to-grave career paths of the industrialised civilian would call it; a world of "bleakness", those that fill our heads with gigabytes and the artificial realities we dumbly obey would have us perceive. These may be the lies that keep us from seeking an alternative, but this alternative is still different. We are tied to our current lives in so many ways that any change – however vital, however potentially rich and fulfilling, however much it reconnects us with the real world – is difficult to perceive.
In order to make a new future, we have to first break with the past.
Breaking Bonds – Making Connections
This isn’t a self-help guide. I don’t know what your current circumstances are, so there is no way that I can guide you through the precise path you would be best to follow if (and that is a big "if", as you will see) you decide that you – and the people you spend your life with – want to make the break from Industrial Civilization. What I can do is write from personal experience, and share some of the issues myself, and others I know well, are having to face up to. The most difficult of these issues to address, I think, is breaking the bonds that tie you to your current situation.
Here is a short list of things that you may feel you are dependent upon, and which you might find it difficult to sever your bonds with or, at least, stretch them:
- Family beyond those you live with - Close friends - People you share a social life with - Work and other sources of income - School - Your "community" in general (neighbours, shops, clubs etc.)
One factor that they all have in common are that they involve people to a great extent: personal ties, however complex or even fraught they may be, are certainly at the forefront of my mind when making decisions about moving to another place, and/or living in an entirely different way. To a certain extent it is about being rejected – how many people do you know that you can honestly say would wholeheartedly support your decision to step out of the world you and they occupy? Rejection can be hard to take, and so can the thought of losing a part of the world that you have become so used to – even if it just means you won’t be able to see (eye-to-eye with) someone as often as you might previously have.
When you consider how important many of these bonds are in an objective sense, when compared to the kinds of connections we have lost with the real world then a sense of proportion does emerge. School is a place to train children to be workers, and work is predominantly a way of earning money to buy things you probably don’t even need; the social interactions they also allow, as a by-product, can be gained in many other places. Those friends and members of your family that you fear you may not see so often: how often do you actually see them, and how important are they really to you...or you to them? The "community" you live in may bear some of the hallmarks of a close-knit neighbourhood, but if it really is a place where people can depend upon each other, then you are in a small minority. You may even be able to take some of these people with you...
The real wrench, though, is change. We all fear change, even though it may excite or enliven us, because change invokes primal fears about the need to be connected to the environment upon which we are dependent. It is for a very good reason that we adapt quickly to repetitive tasks; so that we are able to carry them out while still being aware of changes to our surroundings and, although this is probably a more modern phenomenon, being able to keep our minds busy whilst carrying out tasks that are not exactly stimulating. Sufferers of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) encapsulate this fear of change in any number of habits and behaviours – but really, OCD is just an extreme example of something we all experience from time to time.
Moving beyond civilization is, for most of us, going to be a change of immense proportions, at least in terms of the adjustments we will have to make to our lives in order to live in relative stability. We have become so used to being cosseted in a synthetic shell, that the mere act of reconnecting with a world that has become alien to us, evokes surprisingly strong reactions. My personal experience is that many other people see such connection as highly unusual, even laughable; and that is the reason we are destroying our life-support machine.
Don’t forget that we have grown up in a world where, increasingly, there is seen to be only one way to live, and that one way is intrinsically disconnected from the natural environment that we come from, and are still part of. There are so many other ways to live, even to the extent that the next move you make could be towards a type of living that has never been done before, but which is no more wrong than any other way of living that has, at its heart, a survivable future. It seems that the perception of breaking bonds when we move to a different life is just part of the essential process of reconnection.
Talking About The Future
This essay was originally going to address just one thing: the way in which we talk to the people we love about the future, and specifically how we talk to children. It has become clear that to get to that point we need to address two other key things – the reason we need to change to a different future, and why change does not have to be for the worse. In a way, that simple assessment makes the act of talking about the future, and the inevitable changes we face, through our own tragic inaction or (and how can anyone deny this is better?) our conscious, proactive efforts; far easier to do. That’s not to say it is easy, but at least we have a place to start.
Children seem to have an infinite capacity for change: in a way they are templates for the final, and far more inflexible, adults they will become, having been shaped according to the culture they have grown up in. Ironically, my fear of change is not a fear for myself, but for other people, and particularly my children, who I don’t want to hurt. In fact I am likely to be affecting myself far more than them, due to their natural resilience and, at least in the longer term, stunningly blasé attitude to change. I have observed children who have lost parents, undergone marital breakdown and been dragged all over the world to fulfil the career ambitions of their parents: and, by and large, they seem to have come out of it surprisingly unscathed. This is not to say that such events are not traumatic, but the point I am trying to make is that we, as parents (if you are reading this from that perspective) tend to overestimate the impact of change: you are more likely to traumatise a child by telling them they are going to be traumatised by a change, rather than just getting on with it.
That said, it is absolutely right, and essential, in my opinion, to treat children as equal partners in any decision they are going to – at least materially – be affected by. Conversation is wonderfully enriching for families: not only is it an opportunity to share ideas and opinions, it is also surprising what you can learn from the down-to-earth attitudes of children. Change should be a shared experience for so many reasons, not least because everyone involved is in it together: maybe that’s just a truism, but it’s one that is all too easily overlooked. Different people are affected by different things, and in different ways (as we have seen with the example of OCD); my children are no exception, and seem to change with the tides some weeks – one being highly emotional about an event while the other is completely untroubled by the same thing; then the next day it could swap round entirely. It’s a dynamic that can be frustrating at times, but one that shows how important it is to understand those we are going to be taking with us into whatever future we choose to make for ourselves.
And don’t forget, that although the future may seem bleak, catastrophic and frightening; it doesn’t have to be like that. There is more than one future, and it’s time to start thinking about yours.
There is a book I would like you all to read, and you don't have to pay a single penny for it, if you don't want to. The book is called "Time's Up! An Uncivilized Solution To A Global Crisis" which, if you have been reading The Earth Blog for a while, you might realise is the published version of an online book I completed last year called A Matter Of Scale. The difference between Time's Up! and A Matter Of Scale, apart from the title and the cover, is in tone: A Matter Of Scale is, at times, a bit rough around the edges, a bit more edgy, and has one extra chapter regarding Anger, which didn't make it into the published version. That said, Time's Up! is most definitely the finished product, and something I am very proud of - if that's allowed.
I have already talked at length about the gestation of the book(s), in a previous Earth Blog article: needless to say, I believe it is extremely important for the information, philosophy and practical advice (of which there is a fair bit) to reach the kind of people - of which you are likely to be one - who have the potential to both change themselves and those around them, not to say have a fair crack at changing the fate of the planet as a whole. Time's Up! has the potential to create this kind of change, but it is up to you (and I ask this in the most humble way possible) to get others reading and acting upon these words: your friends, your colleagues, members of your family, people you meet and strike up a conversation with. The word will not spread through marketing or advertising; it will only really spread through people directly communicating with one another, because that is how real change happens.
There are quite a few ways you can get hold of Time's Up!:
1) You can buy it. Lot's of people prefer to read a book rather than a screen, so if you want to buy it then you will be able to find it at almost any online bookstore (although, at the moment, it is only being printed in the UK). Here are a few places I know it is usually in stock:
2) You can ask your library to stock it. This is really important to me, because I think that libraries are some of the last bastions of free thinking in the mind-control industrial system: if your library does not hold it, then please ask them to.
3) You can read it on Google Books. I have just opened it up so you can read the entire book through this medium, which uses the original proofs directly from the publisher; not a word is different. As I have always said: if you believe in something that strongly, strong enough to commit to the page, strong enough to commit a huge chunk of your being to, then why then make people pay for it?
4) Write to me. I am more than happy to answer questions relating to the book; I am willing to write articles about it and take part in interviews, whether in print, in blog, in audio or on video - so long as it means that the messages contained in the book get out there. I can be contacted by emailing keith@theearthblog.org.
Thank you.
Keith Farnish
Writer of The Earth Blog and The Unsuitablog and author of "Time's Up! An Uncivilized Solution To A Global Crisis" www.timesupbook.com
In the 1970s life became simpler. The Age of Aquarius was the stuff of satire and the hippy dream of a world full of love and peace had died; ironically killed off by a war in a country that few in the West had heard of until the body bags started coming back, and new terms like Agent Orange and Napalm seeped out of the jungle. In the Summer of Love, groups of free-thinking individuals thought about a new way of living – many started down that path, making tracks towards a life that nature found less objectionable and which was fulfilling in a way that no amount of kitchen gadgets and sunny holidays abroad could ever match. Then we got distracted, again and again: we “grew up”, we got jobs, we sent our children to school, we had “responsibilities”, we didn’t have time to think beyond our next holiday…as the years passed we got distracted so many times that it became too late to fix the problems we thought we might be able to solve back then.
Perhaps.
We need a cure for cancer: it’s your job to find it. What will you do?
Convention would suggest a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy and excision to be the best course of action, depending on the nature and progress of the disease. This costs money, so you campaign for more funding to provide medicines, machines and reduced surgical waiting lists. The treatment often works, but the cancers keep coming. So what of the cure? You need to ensure money is put into research for better treatments, and the possibility of a vaccine against virus-borne cancers; you also want to provide extensive information about how to avoid carcinogens and reduce your chances of developing cancer, through lifestyle changes. But the cancers keep coming. Think out of the box! You start stepping outside of the comfort zone that most cancer charities confine themselves to: you find evidence that the cause of many cancers is in the air, the water and the soil – carcinogens expelled by industrial processes responsible for the production and disposal of the goods and services the same people suffering from the cancers avidly consume. You work to close down the worst of the factories, plants, incinerators and industrial farms: victory in the courts! New rules are drawn up; the worst offenders are told to change. But what of the cure?
What of the cure? Surely your job is done – others continue the fight, but you have done well to drill down to the heart of the problem; further than the “mainstream” campaigners ever thought of going. Did anyone ever consider shutting down the reason for these toxic processes ever existing in the first place?
We need a cure for the inexorable destruction of the global ecology, and the potentially catastrophic changes in the climate that will add to the burdens being piled upon our already weakened life-support system. What will you do?
I didn’t start this tale in the 1970s by accident. In 1972, following the efforts of four anti-nuclear activists in trying to prevent the testing of nuclear devices in Alaska, Greenpeace was formed. They were undoubtedly a group focussed on a small number of issues, presenting a small number of point solutions: with only a few resourceful and enthusiastic individuals available to try and make a difference what else could they have done? In 2009, Greenpeace worldwide has millions of donors and, perhaps, hundreds of thousands of activists working on its behalf across a range of issues related to reversing environmental damage. In the last year, Greenpeace UK has campaigned on climate change, deforestation, over fishing, GM crops and nuclear proliferation. It lists among its solutions: decentralisation of energy production, creating marine reserves, changing government and business practices in timber use, encouraging organic agriculture and pushing for global disarmament treaties. Greenpeace is widely considered to be among the most radical of the world’s large environmental organisations.
In 2009, WWF boasted a membership of around 5 million worldwide. It has a similar focus to Greenpeace, although GM and Nuclear issues are absent from their headline roster, and WWF does spend a significant amount of effort on academic research. Among its solutions for individuals, it encourages people to use less electricity at home, to recycle, to buy goods with less packaging and attract wildlife to gardens. It also sells carbon offsets for people who wish to fly. Its larger scale solutions have business at the forefront, with a number of corporations, including banks, advertising agencies, consumer product manufacturers and mining and extraction companies, partnering with WWF to improve their globally destructive practices. WWF is widely considered to be one of the less radical, and most business friendly environmental organisations.
If we are to take this to its logical conclusion then, surely, the solutions to the global environmental crisis lie somewhere along the spectrum occupied by the environmental mainstream, from the business-led approach of WWF at one end to the “radicalism” of Greenpeace at the other. Except that there is no logic to this at all: the logic completely breaks down at the point where you start to analyse the worth of the “solutions” that these groups propose. Even if we take Greenpeace’s approach - rather than that of WWF - the potential success of creating marine reserves, for example, is minimal unless those marine reserves occupy around 40% of the world’s oceans (this, ironically, is based on a study carried out by WWF), and that fishing in the remaining areas does not exceed sustainable biological limits. Given that there is very little chance of even a single-digit percentage of the world’s oceans being formally protected (due to corporate power and government protectionism), let alone the ecological diversity and size required to halt marine collapse, the proposal by Greenpeace is doomed to failure. And that’s just the proposal: how they intend to achieve this is another matter entirely. The range of activities includes petitions to government ministers, leafleting on High Streets, the symbolic planting of flags in the sea bed and parliamentary lobbying. Greenpeace say:
“We must do all we can to make sure that our (sic) politicians deliver a large-scale network of fully-protected Marine Reserves through European and national legislation.” (Source: Greenpeace UK website)
They do not say: “We must not eat any fish we do not catch ourselves.”
You see, while there is a sliver of a chance that the governments of the world might superficially support the creation of a series of inadequate reserves, even while lobbying on behalf of their own industrial fishing industries to prevent any reductions in catch, Greenpeace and other mainstream (not “radical”) environmental organisations will pursue this avenue. Why? Because no one of any significance in the organisation’s hierarchy can accept that it is the system of Industrial Civilization that is the root of the problem; that the only way to prevent global marine collapse is to completely abandon the way that civilization fuels its insatiable demand for energy. Governments and corporations are not going to stop doing things in the way that has led us to the brink of ecological collapse, because that way is the way civilization works: it would be like a person cutting off one or more of their limbs.
Greenpeace, WWF, the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and every other mainstream environmental organisation believe that you can “fix” the problems inherent in the system, to make this planet a better place; that you can appeal to the goodness of politicians and industrialists to make them curb their destructive behaviour; that you can bring about a sustainable society by urging people to change their light bulbs, shower instead of bath, travel a bit less, offset their emissions and recycle.
They are the acceptable face of environmentalism in the eyes of the civilized majority, and so what if the occasional publicity stunt makes the odd company or politician squirm? So long as the public remain Good Consumers then the environmental groups can carry on pushing their “solutions” to as many people as they like.
“Government needs to regain control of big business to give rights for people and rules for big business…Big business must improve its environmental and social performance.” (Source: Friends of the Earth website)
So, I ask you again: What is the cure for the inexorable destruction of the global ecology, and the potentially catastrophic changes in the climate that will add to the burdens being piled upon our already weakened life-support system?
More pointedly: Do you really think that the environmental organisations that claim they have the solutions and the means to carry them through are going to save us; or are we going to have to do this ourselves, individually and in small groups taking a completely different approach to the way we are living our lives?
I have no doubt that the vast majority of people believe humanity and the global environment can be saved through conventional means: for this the mainstream environmental groups have to take much of the blame; they are as much villains of the piece as the corporations and governments who, at least up until recently, never claimed they were going to “save the world”. Unless the environmental mainstream makes a radical about-face, rejecting the civilized orthodoxy that says the system can be fixed, and leading us in completely the opposite direction, then we have no choice but to reject them and make our own way along the path to a sustainable future.
A bit like the hippies.
This article was published in Fourth World Review (www.4wr.org) as "How Green Became A Screen"
Human activity is destroying the natural systems that we depend upon for our survival. Our most basic instinct as humans is to survive; yet we continue to destroy our life-support machine. Connected humans understand this terrible contradiction; disconnected humans are not able to.
Not all humans are responsible: just those who are part of Industrial Civilization. Industrial Civilization depends on economic growth and the unsustainable use of natural resources, so it has developed a complex set of tools for keeping people disconnected from the real world and living a life that keeps civilization running. Humans have been manipulated in order to be part of a destructive system.
The only way to prevent global ecological collapse and thus ensure the survival of humanity is to rid the world of Industrial Civilization.
Civilization is complex and delicate: it depends on everything running smoothly and also depends upon people having faith in its goodness. Global ecological systems are changing in unpredictable and major ways; natural resources are running out rapidly; the population is growing, particularly the population of urban areas; there is considerable political and civil unrest developing throughout the world: any combination of these factors are likely to lead to a sudden and catastrophic collapse of civilization during the 21st century.
It is possible to create a situation where civilization is left to crumble gradually, reducing the impact on humanity, and the sooner this is done, the less the global environment will be harmed. The key things we need to do are:
1) Reconnect with the real world, so that we can understand our close relationships with it in everything we do. The more you connect, the more you will realise how unreal civilization is.
2) Live in such a way that we do not contribute to the expansion of the global economy, reducing our impact on the natural environment in the process. Be aware that authority figures within the system, such as political leaders and corporations, will attempt to provide you with ‘green’ advice: this advice is designed to ensure that civilization continues, and should be ignored.
3) Create the conditions so that others may also change through education and, even more importantly, undermining the tools that civilization uses to keep us part of the machine. Don’t waste time protesting: this changes nothing – that is why it is legal.
A future outside of civilization is a better life; one in which we can actually decide for ourselves how we are going to live.
Un message clair pour l'humanité L'activité humaine est en train de détruire les systèmes naturels dont nous dépendons pour notre survie. Notre instinct le plus fondamental en tant qu'humain est de survivre. Or, nous persistons à détruire notre support de vie. Les humains éveillés comprennent cette terrible contradiction, ceux qui ne le sont pas en sont incapables.
Ce ne sont pas tous les humains qui en sont responsables: seulement ceux qui font partie de la civilisation industrielle. La civilisation industrielle est dépendante d'une croissance économique et de l'utilisation non soutenable des ressources naturelles. C'est pourquoi elle a développé un ensemble complexe de statégies pour maintenir les gens débranchés du monde réel, lesquels mènent un train de vie qui la maintient fonctionnelle. Les humains ont été manipulés afin de faire partie d'un système qui détruit.
La seule façon d'éviter un effondrement écologique global et d'assurer la survie de l'humanité est de débarrasser la planète de la civilisation industrielle.
La civilisation est à la fois complexe et fragile; pour son fonctionnement, elle dépend du bon roulement des choses et de la croyance des gens en sa bonté. Nos écosystèmes planétaires subissent des changements majeurs avec des répercussions imprévisibles: les ressources naturelles s'épuisent rapidement, la population croît rapidement, surtout dans les milieux urbains, il y a un malaise grandissant autant politique que populaire. Ces facteurs combinés vont probablement amener un effondrement rapide et catastrophique de la civilisation au cours du 21è siècle.
Il est possible de provoquer l'effritement progressif de la civilisation, réduisant ainsi son impact sur l'humanité et, les dommages à l'environnement seront d'autant amoindris que nous agirons rapidement.
Voici ce que nous devons faire:
1) Nous joindre à la réalité du monde vivant, afin que nous puissions comprendre notre étroite relation avec lui dans tout ce que nous faisons. Plus nous sommes en affinité avec la nature, plus nous réalisons combien irréelle est la civilisation.
2) Vivre de telle manière que l'on cesse de contribuer à la croissance économique, et par le fait même, réduire notre impact sur l'environnement naturel. Devenir conscient que les figures d'autorité dans ce système, tels les dirigeants politiques ou les corporations, vont tenter de nous proposer des solutions "vertes" opportunistes : ces conseils restent axés sur l'idée d'une continuation de la civilisation et devraient êtres ignorés.
3) Créer, par l'éducation, des conditions favorables afin que les autres puissent aussi changer et, plus important encore, miner les outils dont se sert la civilisation pour nous maintenir dans ce système. Ne perdons pas de temps à manifester : cela ne change rien, c'est d'ailleurs pour cette raison que c'est permis!
Un avenir en dehors de la civilisation induit une vie meilleure: une existence dans laquelle nous pouvons décider par nous-même de notre manière de vivre.
(Thank you to Claude for the French translation / Merci à Claude pour la traduction en français) This statement first appeared in the online book A Matter Of Scale (www.amatterofscale.com) and will also appear in the book "Time's Up! An Uncivilized Solution To A Global Crisis." (www.timesupbook.com). This statement has been written in such a way that it can be easily understood by a large number of people, and passed on intact so that as many people as possible can read it and act upon it.
Please pass this message on: it is the most important thing ever written here.
Subscribe to The Earth Blog's Feed 
All work on The Earth Blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License. 
There is a book I would like you all to read, and you don't have to pay a single penny for it, if you don't want to. The book is called "Time's Up! An Uncivilized Solution To A Global Crisis" which, if you have been reading The Earth Blog for a while, you might realise is the published version of an online book I completed last year called A Matter Of Scale. The difference between Time's Up! and A Matter Of Scale, apart from the title and the cover, is in tone: A Matter Of Scale is, at times, a bit rough around the edges, a bit more edgy, and has one extra chapter regarding Anger, which didn't make it into the published version. That said, Time's Up! is most definitely the finished product, and something I am very proud of - if that's allowed.
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog