Tuesday, May 01, 2007
A Different Kind of Unity
Reading Julia Whitty's article on biocide yesterday helped me to put into context Nicholas Shaxson's tales from West Africa of the merging of ecocide and genocide in oil-rich states like Nigeria. Up to now, I tended to think of species loss or environmental catastrophes as something tragic but endurable. Part of my natural resilience, I suppose. But this time, I think, the human spirit may have met its match in overcoming circumstance. Not that we should collectively subordinate our intelligence to our emotions, but neither should we ignore the temptation under such circumstances for widespread panic. Knowing the endgame of the path we are on is a shock to our psyches; whether we choose a more holistic, rooted way of life remains to be seen.
Panic, however, is not a solution; it's a process out of control. Albeit often highly manipulated, it lacks coherence as a method. Which is precisely why a transparent and comprehensive discussion is needed to arrive at plans that meet our objectives without sacrificing our goals. If the end result is guaranteed to be unacceptable in terms of economics, ecologics, or social organization, then we know we have to reconsider.
Personally, I've yet to see a benificent market or institution that was organized at such a scale as either our federal government or the energy industry, and the track record of combining systematic unaccountability with colossal corruptability is there for all to see. Alternative technologies and ways of life are also readily available for review and discussion, which is what I am suggesting as part of an inclusive process of arriving at a new consensus. How we get there makes all the difference in where we arrive; the tyranny of the market or state has never gotten us there.
Starting with the disintegration of the fabric of life as a given in our lifetime, our choices boil down to mass suicide on a scale equivalent with deaths from the Black Plague, or a conscious conscientious effort to preserve what remains of our planet's life-giving membrane. Choosing even a diminished life means nothing less than a complete restructuring of our society; no fence, bomb, pill, or rhetoric can save us.
Mad Max was an entertaining movie, but the way of life it portrays is not one I care to live.
Panic, however, is not a solution; it's a process out of control. Albeit often highly manipulated, it lacks coherence as a method. Which is precisely why a transparent and comprehensive discussion is needed to arrive at plans that meet our objectives without sacrificing our goals. If the end result is guaranteed to be unacceptable in terms of economics, ecologics, or social organization, then we know we have to reconsider.
Personally, I've yet to see a benificent market or institution that was organized at such a scale as either our federal government or the energy industry, and the track record of combining systematic unaccountability with colossal corruptability is there for all to see. Alternative technologies and ways of life are also readily available for review and discussion, which is what I am suggesting as part of an inclusive process of arriving at a new consensus. How we get there makes all the difference in where we arrive; the tyranny of the market or state has never gotten us there.
Starting with the disintegration of the fabric of life as a given in our lifetime, our choices boil down to mass suicide on a scale equivalent with deaths from the Black Plague, or a conscious conscientious effort to preserve what remains of our planet's life-giving membrane. Choosing even a diminished life means nothing less than a complete restructuring of our society; no fence, bomb, pill, or rhetoric can save us.
Mad Max was an entertaining movie, but the way of life it portrays is not one I care to live.
