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.
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. So, without further ado, if someone really is looking like a threat, banging on about how “the science is uncertain” and “we’ve seen this all before” and “it’s a big hoax”, be they a corporation, a politician, or any other individual or group that could influence someone else, then here is 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.
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.
Credit crunch; economic crisis; financial meltdown…2008 became the year of monetary superlatives – and for good reason because, as far as most objective economic observers can tell, this is one event that is going to stretch well into the future, leaving no national or regional economy untouched. The Western capitalist economy is in meltdown – its financial rivers running drier by the month, it’s consumers having to climb higher and higher to harvest the fruits of their labours. Banks are swallowed, smothered or die. Chain stores cry out for customers. Politicians urge us to spend not save; to keep the wheels greased and the sputtering engine charged with just a little fuel. The media shouts as LOUD as it can: we are in CRISIS! Times are BAD!!
We concur.
Meanwhile, in the Amazon rainforest, close to the Brazilian / Bolivian border, an undiscovered tribe of semi-mobile hunter-gatherers feel no pain from the downturn; sense nothing of the slump; are blissfully ignorant of the financial despair beyond their sensory horizon. Their world (rapidly being approached on all sides by the tide of "progress") has only one economy that matters: the economy that mattered long before money was ever exchanged, saved, spent and lost; long before interest, tax and inflation were ever conceived; and long before "resources" were extracted (stolen) and transported from far away to create the illusion we call growth. Their economy is simply the ability to manage what they need to live from day to day: no money, no interest, no tax, no imports and exports.
But for now we will, as we should, leave them alone and ponder the unreal economy, the Economy that was capitalised in the Industrial Revolution and has danced for the entertainment of the privileged few ever since.
A Troubling Fact
When you plot the Earth’s human population against the amount of carbon dioxide being created by that same population, there is an undeniable similarity in trend: as population rises, so does carbon dioxide production, up and up towards their twin tipping points. After a while there will be no return to a world where ice caps refroze in the winter and we could rely on the seasonal rains to water our crops: after a while the heat engine will start a runaway trip towards who knows what end. After a while there will simply be too many people to feed, to clothe, to shelter, to heal; but it’s not the raw numbers that are breaching the limits, however frightening they seem and crowded it feels. Population growth is slowing, but carbon growth is accelerating – there must be something else.
There is.
Money.
Take the graph of population against carbon dioxide and plot another line, this one showing the amount of trade between different Economies, and two of the lines start to take their partners in that privileged dance which has come to define whether nations and corporations are successful or not. Population has become a glowering wallflower, while Trade and Carbon twist and turn their way ever upward.
But why should this be the case?
It’s simple, when you think about it: trade is synonymous with Economic activity in the modern, globalized world. Unlike the self-sufficient Amazonian tribe that finds all it needs within walking distance, nations are no longer content to remain within their Economic borders: they cannot gain the diversity and level of growth they "need" simply by using (and exhausting) what they have, especially not if their consumers have become accustomed to a materially high standard of living. They must trade to create the necessary flow of materials, goods and capital to feed a growing Economy. More that just this, though, as corporations demand transparent borders and global channels, they – not the national governments – end up dictating the way the Economy operates: workers in China, raw materials in Uganda, oil in Saudi Arabia, customers in the USA – no problem! Who needs local economies when you can have a global Economy?
So Trade is the measure of the strength of the Economy and, as only a person immersed in an ocean of denial could refute, the production of Carbon Dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere, the oceans and the exhausted biosphere is a direct function of the power of that economic machine.
Contraction Is Good
At this point you will need to make a decision: do you value Economy (with a big "E") over ecology? Or, to put it another way, having seen that there is a clear link between Economic strength and environmental damage – and I haven’t even taken into account mining, deforestation, toxic dumping, agricultural pollution and slave labour – are you prepared to recognise that link, and accept that the Economy has to shrink?
I can’t make that decision for you, but I can help you a little by answering perhaps the one thing that, if you put aside the "growth is good" rhetoric that infects the civilized humanity like an endemic disease, most people will want to ask: will I be hurt by a shrinking Economy?
It’s a fair question, but relatively easy to answer: it depends on how much you depend on the Economic system to maintain your way of life, and how important the lifestyle you have become used to (or wish to attain) really is to you. This is because the real casualties of the economic collapse will not be the people who have modest needs and the ability to grow, make, cook, mend, discuss and think about the future. The real casualties will be those who depend entirely on the economic and political system for their "needs", especially those who have high-consumption lifestyles.
The loudest voices during any kind of economic downturn come from those people who have most benefited materially from economic growth: the urban and suburban rich, the corporate leaders and the political elites who judge the quality of their lives by the size of their house, the size and number of their cars, the expense of their vacations, the amount of consumer goods they own and the number of people they control. To them, recession means the unimaginable prospect of a more frugal and less powerful lifestyle; Economic depression is lifestyle meltdown. If their place in civilized society is threatened then the whole of society must be made to feel their own fears: by exploiting their position in the hierarchical structure, they manufacture a universal fear of Economic contraction. We become scared because they want us to be scared.
Fear is contagious.
That said, many people have become trapped in a way of life, perhaps through no fault of their own, that makes them entirely dependent on the System for their well-being: those in cities, living entirely on state support or working long hours in a poorly paid job, initially have a lot to lose should those mechanisms fail. But the surprising thing is, such people have had to develop many of the skills required to survive a lack of financial and material resources: essentially, the urban poor – the majority of whom have considerably more self-respect than the urban rich – like those brought up between the two World Wars with limited financial means, already have many of the skills to survive Economic contraction perfectly well. In the short to medium term there will remain a baseline of support from the state, and almost certainly sufficient work to go round to obtain the essentials of life; during which those that really want to get out of the state and corporate created poverty trap, will be able to create a new, more system independent life, away from the hellish cities and the corporate machine.
This is no Utopian dream: it’s simply a move towards a less dependent, less damaging way of life.
The rich and powerful have no intention of changing; they want things to carry on as they have done since Industrial Civilization was first created. For them, the worst thing that can happen is for the Economy that has fed their – and our – dreams to power down and fail. For the planet, and every single natural habitat, food web and species on it,the best thing that can happen is for that destructive thing called Economic Growth to be turned on its head, and buried for good.
Civilization or civilisationn. an advanced stage or system of human social development
(Concise Oxford English Dictionary)
Something BETTER than civilization is awaiting us.
(Daniel Quinn, Beyond Civilization)
How is that possible? One must be wrong, and it must be the second one because we know that civilization is all; we know that to be civilized is the pinnacle of human achievement; we know that we are better than what has come before us.
And that’s why Daniel Quinn is right.
I’m not certain you understand what I’m saying. For sure, you probably get the meaning of the words and the sense of the syntax, but if the rest of this society is anything to go by, the chances are that you don't understand – yet. Forgive me if you do: if you truly understand, and you agree that something better than civilization is awaiting us, get on and start finding it; help others to find their better future too; hasten the end of the thing that so many of us are enamoured with. Stop reading.
Where are we now?
Half the world’s tropical and temperate forests are now gone. The rate of deforestation in the tropics continues at about an acre a second. About half the wetlands and a third of the mangroves are gone. An estimated 90 percent of the large predator fish are gone, and 75 percent of marine fisheries are now overfished or fished to capacity…Species are disappearing at rates about a thousand times faster than normal. The planet has not seen such a spasm of extinction in sixty-five million years, since the dinosaurs disappeared...Persistent toxic chemicals can now be found by the dozens in essentially each and every one of us.
This summary, written by one of the most eminent living environmental analysts, James Speth tells the tale of awful side effects, the kind that only became possible – imaginable, even – with the rise of Industrial Civilization. Civilizations have come and gone, like the flooding and ebbing of tides across the globe and throughout time: they appear, they take from the Earth, they grow, they become exhausted and they, invariably, collapse spectacularly. Civilizations are all different to a certain extent, but all of them leave their imprint in some way.
How To Be Civilized
It’s such a grand term: Civilization. But it is really just a word, like “leaf”, “stone” or “baby”, that has defined itself in the highest sense possible – “civilization” speaks to us with such importance because it demands to be heard, and hear we do, by defining ourselves in its image…
Civilized Civility Civil Citizen
They all mean the same thing, in truth: City Dweller. The most obvious physical manifestation of civilization is the city, something totally alien to any uncivilized* culture. Cities are one manifestation; there are others that are less physical, but no less integral for all that. According to the influential but now sadly defunct Anthropik Network there are five key features that are common to all civilizations:
1. Settlement of cities of 5,000 or more people. 2. Full-time labour specialization. 3. Concentration of surplus. 4. Class structure. 5. State-level political organization.
The four other features all require structures and systems in order to operate as effectively as possible so, for instance, in order to concentrate surplus food (so it can be given out, or rather sold, on demand) you must, as a civilization, have storage and distribution systems, the means to generate that surplus in the first place (i.e. mass agriculture), accounting processes and, of course, a means of asserting authority over that surplus. This feature and, in fact, all of the five features listed, point to the primary function of civilization: a tool through which power and wealth can be accumulated by a select few.
If you don’t believe me, then look at the history of all civilizations, past and present, long and short-lived, large and small: they all begin in the same way – a small group of people wish to obtain more of something they haven’t got, but cannot do this within a communal or tribal culture; they therefore, through a combination of force, propaganda and corruption, create something over which they have authority. The city becomes the realisation of civilization because within a city – as opposed to a sparsely populated series of small settlements – it is far easier to control the activities of the population. The city also acts as a symbol of the power of the civilization, can be easily defended, and can provide the highest-ranking members of the society a base from which their activities may be conducted.
State level political organization and class structure exist to provide an easy means through which power can be exerted, from top to bottom, as a continuation of the desires of the “founding fathers” (it’s always fathers and not mothers, notice). Any kind of freedom in these areas, such as the opportunity to move up the career ladder, to educationally better oneself or to have a bigger say in your local decision making process, are always conditional – step out of line and threaten the system in any way, and down you go, with the ladders being drawn up faster than you can blink.
The seemingly most innocuous of the five features – full time labour specialization – is potentially the most damaging of all in terms of social fragmentation and environmental damage. We all understand specialization; as employees we have set roles (clerk, builder, miner), and set positions (junior, manager, director) within an industry that itself is likely to only be part of a larger system. This specialization serves a most important purpose in any civilization – it ensures that those employed know their place, and once availed of that information are kept in that place wherever possible. You may move jobs, you may be promoted, but you still have your set place in employment. A side effect of this, and it is most definitely intentional in most cases, is the distance it creates between the job you carry out and the harm you may be doing.
The violence that we know as environmental destruction is possible only because of a complex economic, administrative, and social machinery through which people are separated from responsibility for their misdeeds. We say, ‘I was only doing my job’ at the paper mill, the industrial incinerator, the logging camp, the coal-fired power plant, on the farm, on the stock exchange, or simply in front of the PC in the corporate carrel. The division of labour… hides from workers the real consequences of their work.
Weighing Up The Goods
You would be right in thinking that civilization has provided humanity with the kinds of things that, without it, would have never existed – civilization, after all, is extremely inventive. Some of those things are genuinely positive, such as the educational institutions that have provided valuable anatomical and medical knowledge, but they are in a desperately small minority. Most of the “positives” that we attribute to civilization are only positive at a very superficial level; dig down a little and something always seems to go wrong.
Civilization has given us the ability the save money for the future. Absolutely, but in order to obtain money you must work, and work in such a way that your earnings exceed your expenses – this means that somewhere, someone or something else has lost out; money does indeed grow on trees, and if you can arrange a way of cutting down trees cheaper than you sell them for, you can make a profit. You put your money away, kept in trust by the bank that uses that money to fund socially irresponsible projects, further funded by the debt accumulated by the people who failed to make a profit. You lose your job, and dip into your savings and, for a while you manage, until it runs out and you have to find another job in order to recoup your savings. And why did you need the money in the first place? Could you not have been living self-sufficiently, bartering and skill-sharing with others?
In a city: you’ll be lucky. Welcome to the endless cycle.
Civilization has given us the tools to communicate with others across the world. So what do we do with that communication? We do what civilization tells us to: play games in artificial worlds on global servers; watch movies, television programmes and lots of clever advertising; be told about fantastic beaches that we must visit before we die; send rude jokes and chain letters to people we barely know. Sometimes we talk to our families on the other side of the world: families that fragmented and moved apart because the promise of a “better life” was more important than being together. We waste time licking the veneer of life offered by the high-tech world; and even when we do use the ability to communicate for altruistic reasons – like telling others what is going wrong with the world – it’s only because civilization has created the reasons we have had to do it.
The global city is the ultimate dream of the empire builders.
Civilization has brought us clean air, clean water, safe food and safe lives.
No.
Before Industrial Civilization the air was clean, the water was clean, the food was safe and lives were lived on our own terms, as safe or as dangerous as they needed to be. Civilization is trying to turn things around and, for some people, the air is cleaner, and the food is safer, but only if you live at the top of the pile. The bigger picture tells a very different story and as the influence of the industrial West merges with the desire of more and more nations to ape that sense of power and wealth, the health of the planet keeps moving towards “critical”.
The goods of civilization – if you even consider such disconnected, self-satisfied lives to be “good” – exist only for those at the top: for everyone else the dream will always remain unfulfilled. That’s the way it is meant to be.
Industrial Civilization is the most powerful and most widespread manifestation of civilized culture there has ever been. So many people across so many formerly distinct cultures and geographical areas are now part of it that it is hard to imagine there being anything else; and, for so many people having known nothing else for their entire lives, it is hard to imagine that anything could improve on it. Surely all we need to do to provide humanity with a liveable, safe and clean future is to improve Industrial Civilization in some way, through better use of technology, fairer voting systems, better labour relations and so on. But, of course, this doesn’t stop civilization being what it is – a means of maximising the power and wealth of a selected few through the continuation of the very systems that have caused so much social and environmental misery throughout the history of this gargantuan edifice; whatever it takes, and whoever and whatever has to be harmed in the process.
“Something BETTER than civilization is awaiting us.”
Now do you understand why Daniel Quinn is right?
To get to that better place you just have to stop believing that the answers lie within the most destructive thing that humanity ever had the misfortune to create.
The Earth Blog’s “The Problem With…” articles are short opinion pieces that take an uncompromising look at key things that affect the global environment.
(*I use the term “uncivilized” in its literal and untainted way: “uncivilized” simply means not being part of civilization. That is a good thing.)
When the signal fails during the advertisement break, who will be screaming: the children in the middle of getting their fix of consumer messages; the shoppers finding out what they can buy on their next mall run; the drivers being tempted by vehicles with more power, more safety and more sexiness; the television sales executives placing advertisers' messages where they will be absorbed by the maximum number of people; the advertisers creating the adverts that sell product and dreams for their clients; the companies that produce the goods and services that make them money; the system that needs the children, the shoppers, the drivers, the sales executives, the advertisers and the companies to all play their part so that the economic machine can keep on turning?
You can make the system scream, if you want to.
Adam sits in his apartment in front of 5 kilowatts of broadcasting equipment, watching the channels, flicking and flicking until..."We’ll be right back after this break"...474 MHz on scramble: and the aerial sends out a wave of television liberty, just until the adverts are finished.
It only takes a few hours until the "off" switches are used. The hypnotic dance of the lights across the glass teat that once sold dreams to the masses is now an unintelligible squall of white noise, cascading arcs of interference, static dissonance of interest to no one: least of all the children, the shoppers and the drivers. They look to each other, they talk, they connect: where once there was a room of atomised individuals hooked into their own electronic realities, there are families and friends once more.
Until Adam is prosecuted, and locked out of harm's way: a criminal, an airwave terrorist, an enemy of the system.
A hero.
Why Sabotage?
To understand the need for sabotage, we have to go back to a few basic principles. Rather than reinvent the wheel (if only the wheel had never been invented, then we would probably not be in this mess) here is a short list of logically connected statements, extracted from A Matter Of Scale (www.amatterofscale.com), that take us to an inevitable conclusion:
1. The world is changing rapidly and dangerously, and humans are the main reason for this change. If we fail to allow the Earth's physical systems to return to their natural state then these systems will break down, taking humanity with them.
2. Humans are part of nature; we have developed in such a way that we think we are more than just another organism; but in ecological terms we are irrelevant.
3. Regardless of our place in the tree of life, humans always have been, and always will be the most important things to humanity. We are survival machines.
4. Our failure to connect the state of the planet with our own inarguable need to survive will ensure our fate is sealed. This must not happen.
5. In order to bring us to a state of awareness, we must learn how to connect with the real world; the world we depend upon for our survival. We are all capable of connecting.
6. Our lack of connection with the real world is a condition that has been created by the culture we live in. The various tools used to keep us disconnected from the real world are what make Industrial Civilization the destructive thing that it is.
7. To understand how to remove Industrial Civilization we must realise that we, along with everyone else in Industrial Civilization, are the system.
8. Industrial Civilization is complex, faith-driven and extremely sensitive to change and disruption. It will collapse on its own, but not in time to save humanity.
So what is the next step, assuming you follow this line of argument (if you don't, then I strongly recommend you read the whole book on the web site linked to above)?
It’s obvious when you think about it: we need to do something that will remove the things that stop us connecting with the real world, the people around us and our own ability to think for ourselves. These "Tools Of Disconnection" are everywhere: advertising that makes us want things we don't need; legal systems that bind us to a standard way of living as prescribed by the state; communication systems that tie us into restricted, and synthetic means of connecting with each other; economic systems that deign to carry our lives along a path of material growth; education systems that turn us into good and willing workers; corporate lobbyists who ensure that our every activity is touched by the hand of industrialization – all of these things and more work together to keep us under control.
We exist in a state of cosseted discontent: convinced that the way we live is the only way to live, and yet constantly craving more of the same.
The only way to ensure as many people as possible can live their lives in a sustainable, non-industrial, non-approved way is to take away the things that stop them thinking there is another way. To give the people a chance, we have to sabotage the Tools Of Disconnection.
Sabotage What?
The things I have mentioned are pretty esoteric and so the link between the things that stop us from being ourselves, and the things we can actually attack directly, needs to be made clear. I wish I could do so, but to do so directly, would be to place myself in a very difficult situation: at some point the words I write could be classified as terrorism; maybe not now, but maybe some time in the future when a growing number of people are carrying out many minor acts of sabotage (or, to be more specific, things that Undermine the Tools Of Disconnection) and it becomes clear that Industrial Civilization is starting to lose control over its slaves.
Adam lost his liberty because he chose to sabotage the media machine - the one selling the wares of the corporations that drive economic growth and environmental catastrophe - on a large scale. What he was doing lost no lives, and freed up the minds of thousands of people, but he broke the rules: he became undesirable.
That is the risk you take, but it is a risk that many people would think worthwhile. Adam didn’t need to be caught – he could have used a smaller transmitter over a shorter period of time, working in loose collaboration with a number of similarly equipped and motivated people. He could have, under cover of night, stripped off billboard advertisements; removed advertising from public transport; blocked radio rather than television adverts. He could have.
And Sarah could have posed as a corporate lobbyist in conversation with politicians; or posed as a politician in conversation with corporate lobbyists. She could have got them to agree to things normally considered off limits. Sarah could have recorded the conversations and placed them on the Internet, making sure as many web sites as possible mirrored the recordings. She could have made the political system very unstable indeed.
And Pierre could have taken a job in an educational establishment, altering curricula to remove positive references to economic growth and the need to be good citizens; or perhaps sent a few memos to schools, without even needing a job at the education authority, requesting the downgrading of citizenship and economics, and the need for compulsory nature walks, gardening, community work and time for students to think freely. He could have given a few children their lives back.
And Rosa could have started spreading information about the dangerous side effects of certain carbon-intensive, highly processed food products – placing letters in newspapers and calling up radio stations. She could have posted information on financial web sites reporting on the financial precariousness of highly destructive companies currently trashing the planet for economic gain. Rosa could have created instability.
And Keith could have run a web site devoted to exposing and broadcasting the greenwashing and blatant environmental lies told by corporations, governments and even the half-hearted efforts of environmental charities, helping people to understand that what they see, hear and read may just be designed to keep them living a destructive existence.
OWING TO THE EXCEPTIONAL ECOLOGICAL CONDITIONS CURRENTLY OCCURING ON EARTH, ALL HUMANS ARE REQUIRED TO READ AND SIGN THE FOLLOWING CONTRACT IN ORDER TO SECURE THEIR CONTINUED TENANCY ON EARTH. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL RESULT IN THE WITHDRAWAL OF ALL ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS. ALTERNATIVELY YOU MAY CONSIDER LEAVING THE PLANET ALTOGETHER IN SEARCH OF A PLACE MORE WELCOMING OF YOUR ACTIVITIES.
THANK YOU
LIFE
GLOBAL TENANCY AGREEMENT
BETWEEN:
(1) All non-human inhabitants of planet Earth, hereafter known as “Life”; and
(2) The human signatory of this agreement, or his or her agreed representative (as agreed by the individual rather than any “legal” imposition), hereafter known as “The Tenant”.
1. This tenancy agreement forms a binding contract between the two parties. Failure of The Tenant to fulfil their agreed obligations will result in the termination of the agreement and removal of him or her from the global ecosystem.
2. Tenancy means inclusion within the global ecosystem, subject to all appropriate energy flows both to and from The Tenant, including the use of organic and formerly organic substances and the production of waste matter whether directly or indirectly, from and to all global biomes, until the end of the natural term of species occupation, or the termination of the species by other means outside of the control of the global ecosystem.
TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS:
3. The Tenant agrees to only take from the global ecosystem that which is necessary for survival; this may include those things necessary in order to ensure a reasonable level of physical and mental well-being, whilst not breaching any other clause.
4. The Tenant shall not carry out any activities, through accident or design, which cause the net loss of any natural habitat for more than a period of one year, excepting that such habitat may require a greater period of time to naturally regenerate.
5. The Tenant shall not cause the net increase of any Toxic materials into the biosphere, bathosphere, atmosphere or lithosphere. “Toxic” means any substance (gas, liquid, plasma or solid), which causes an impairment in the ability of a natural process to function normally.
6. The Tenant agrees to abide by the laws of nature, not acting in any way such as to remodel or alter the genetic or chemical makeup of any organism except where existing natural processes are utilised to such ends.
7. The Tenant shall treat all life as equal, and in doing so respect the function of all life forms within the global ecosystem. In accepting the presence of Clauses 3 and 4, The Tenant shall treat the death of and/or damage to all life forms with an appropriate level of respect and reverence.
SIGNED:
Tenant: …………………………………………………… Date: ……………………
Representative of Life: ………………………………… Date: ……………………
THIS CONTRACT MAY ALSO BE DOWNLOADED BY CLICKING ON THE LINK BELOW:
PLEASE RETURN YOUR SIGNED COPY FOR COUNTERSIGNING TO YOUR LOCAL ECOSYSTEM REPRESENTATIVE WITHIN ONE (1) MONTH. IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHERE YOUR ECOSYSTEM IS, OR WHICH LIFE FORMS REPRESENT IT THEN IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU LEARN MORE ABOUT YOUR PLANET AND THE NATURAL SYSTEMS WITHOUT WHICH YOU WOULD NOT EXIST.
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