Sustainability vs. Apocalypse
I poked around the Long Now site that dcarto mentioned. It's very good. I also read the summary and discussion of the Sam Harris talk, and I think Harris is basically right - not all religions are equal.
However, I would argue a point about sustainability vs. apocalyptic thinking.
"End time thinking," Harris said, "is fundamentally hostile to creating a sustainable future."I'll quote Ran Prieur (who is a bit controversial if you know him at all) talking about solar power:
This solar power breakthrough is supposed to be good news, but it's terrible. What they don't understand is that power, in the strict physics sense, corrupts absolutely. Human instinct tells us how to do good with the power of our own muscles, and beyond that, with the power of slaves and machines, we are morally adrift, and we will be seduced into domination, insulation, and extermination. Why do you think the Arawaks were nicer than the Spaniards? It's not genetic. It's because they lacked social arrangements to give one person the power of multiple people. Now, with oil, we're all more murderous than Cortez and so disconnected from our victims that we don't know it. The only way to redeem humanity is for us to run out of all external sources of energy. There are lots of ways of living worse than death, and solar powered cars are worse than nuclear bombs.There is a fundamental issue of power asymmetry that now seems beyond correction. Some argue (and Ran is in that camp) that the only thing that can save us is a complete reboot.
I still think it's important to fight the good fight and promote sustainability and eco-consciousness, because we want to nurture that sort of consciousness for the long term, even after a reboot. And there is always a chance of a soft landing. The reason I write (admittedly from a somewhat dark perspective) is precisely to increase the probability of a gentle paradigm shift.
posted by slomo at 7:35 PM
6 Comments:
This is something to think about, but I would argue that all religions have their fanatics, and that the tendency to fanaticisim is not a "religious" trait so much as a "human" trait. One thing we do need to be on guard for is the frequent fanatic tendency to associate themselves with the mainstream of their faith. Dominionism portrays itself as "most Christians," Jihadists portray themselves as "most Muslims," just as the minority Nazi party portrayed itself as "All Germans." The common thread to me appears to be fears of diversity and just plain fear, and demonisation of a "common enemy," which fanatics of all stripes play at, with the aim of, you guessed it, gaining power.
This is exactly what is going on in Iraq now -- Sunni Muslims versus Shiite Muslims, fear of diversity and the common enemy the rallying cry. When the U.S. is gone, they'll find another. In fact, which common enemy is which is highly confused, but yelled loudest by the most extreme. Most common Iraqi people, by far the majority, just want to get on with their lives, but are too afraid to walk out their door, as extremists which represent the minority of both their communities have guns, lots and lots of guns. And bombs. Deciding "which religion is better" in this deadly mix is a recipe for disaster, not a sustainable fix.
SInce most religions, and I mean most in the broadest sense, have shown they, the majority of people, can fall prey to this type of gambit for power by a minority, it seems to me the problem is one of not choosing religions, but rejecting fear of diversity in civil society, and rejecting one group's claim to sole interpretation of sacred writ. This saves much conflict, as Jefferson and others knew when they drafted and pushed for the passing of the 1st Amendment calling for a separation of Church and state.
And as for "end of times," I think that's just plain fear in the biggest imaginable way. I think the choice we have, going along with the theme of "sustainablity vs. apocalypse," is if just go along with the fear and deal by unconditionally accepting whatever apocalype occurs, or forget the fear, and turn our attention to real solutions.
I think the man you quote seems on the face to be a raving lunatic, but probably he fears that people might favour the old adage "Gold helps him who helps himself" rather than "sheep to the slaughter."
5:42 PM
Ran is a bit weird, and I don't agree with everything he says. But I would say he is the least fearful of all the apocalyptic types I read on the internet.
The point he makes similar to one made by author Derrick Jensen: as time goes on, the power asymmetries inherent in civilization get more and more extreme. This is expressed through increasingly lethal and destabilizing technologies. With fossil fuels it has been possible to create the most destructive and also the most intrusive technologies, available only to the few and deployed against the many.
It's best to approach life with the most optimistic frame of mind possible, so in that regard I believe that we should prepare appropriately for the future and assume that solar panels are a path to Nirvana. But rather than assuming that life will be hell without the technologies requiring energy inputs made possible only by fossil fuels, Ran is more interested in "organic" technologies, e.g. permaculture. He goes one step further (and I'm inclined to agree with him on at least a theoretical level) saying that high-energy technology can only make life worse. Obviously on a practical level I'm pretty dependent on such technologies and probably couldn't survive a month without them, so I'm aware of my personal contradictions, but it doesn't stop me from talking about it.
9:05 PM
The problem with Permaculture, which is a great idea, is that despite its harmonization with nature, it requires planning by real live people in the context of a developed, industrial society, not "nature god," and that spells politics.
On a second look at Ran Prieur's quote, I still think it seems a bit loony, though perhaps not of the "religious radical" type, but more of the politically radical type. He also seems a bit out of step with the current thinking on achieveing energy independence, and the fact that all this big industrial infrastructure just won't dissapear in a day. And if an advocate of the system won't give up the comforts of modern life, what does that say for the plan's "marketability" to other citizens? Still, Permaculture is one, of many, great pathways.
The days of on size fits all "one big fix" technology are done. More and more people are talking about developing a "diverse energy portfolio," and realizing that the major impediment to the discussion and solution is not asymmetrical, but vertical and monopolistic in nature: ExxonMobil and friends, Big Oil.
Ran seems to share the same thing in common with other "one big radical solution" types -- lack of a practical sense of how decisions are made in both the political and economic realm. In this sense, he is less a Mullah Omar or Pat Robertson, but more comparable to V.I. Lenin, though Lenin was practical, so I guess the analogy would be Marx. In any event, any radical solution that suggests a rapid reordering of society to fit a proscribed ideological point of view has always landed countries in chaos and at the very mercy of entrenched power, which just becomes more entrenched and vertical in alignment, even if it changes form. ExxonMobil is not assymetric in power -- it is by far the largest global conglomerate as measured by amount of capitalization. This is no great secret.
A big, radical "reboot" of a heavily developed, industrialised society "back to the organic tribal roots" is not only a completely impractical political position (nobody on board that sales pitch), but it also completely ignores the basics of Dialectical Materialism 101. Once born, the baby cannot be tossed out the window, and your neighbors won't see that as a tenable position with regards to what to do about early childhood education. Sloppy metaphor, but I think you get my point.
Even dusty old Congressman (on the Democrat side of the aisle) speak now of a "mixed energy portfolio," where your house has solar cells supplemented by a local wind turbine and energy conservation technologies, your car a hydrogen battery, running along side others powered by bio-fuels, etc., which addresses the problem of agricultural over production.
Rather than being the thought experiments of academics, these are the real life energy solutions applied by other countries, and rather successfully at that. The hybrid car is the ultimate example of the successful, transitional model: making the half step from gas to electric, via R&D into the development of hydrogen fuel cells that can power a car without gas.
In fact, the hydrogen fuel cell is in itself an example of mixing a variety of power sources: wind turbine, instead of directly powering a factory, just generates enough electricity to separate H20, which supplies the H for the fuel cell. There is no reason why this could not exist side by side with the kind of alternative energy changes made in Brazil with regard to biofuels. And several other energy alternatives that simply lack the venture capital to become competitive against oil and viable.
Ah hah! There's the nub of the problem --
ExxonMobil and other heavy industrial companies, which have the economic power to laugh off Ran as just another academic kook, would be less able to resist a U.S. government that, say, sat them down with the Detroit automakers, who were actually rebuffed by the current president, the agent of Big Oil. Detroit is ready and willing to make the changes necessary to compete with Toyota, but require other points in the "asymmetrical elite," including Big Oil and government, to join the enterprise. But BIg Oil is too busy milking the current crisis for short term gain to get involved in the discussion. In fact, the dirty secret is that these companies, and other heavy industrial companies, already have alternative energy techonologies *they have already developed* but are sitting on, waiting for the oil spigot to run out. Their plan is simple: when the energy crisis goes from crisis to critical, they'll just roll out the new alternative energy sources, but not until they can milk the last drop of oil for "as much as the market can bear."
I welcome anyone who says, "it doesn't stop me from talking about it" to the discussion, as this represents the tenacious attitude of small scale developers of alternative energy who have produced wonderful things or challenged the sustainability of the "all the eggs in one basket" approach of oil. The problem is, we have an administration, a Congress, and an oil industry with very few players but much power, who do NOT want to join the discussion. What we need is a government willing to exercise a little muscle, by hook, crook, or threat of a massive tax hike, to bring the intransigent on board with other players ready to make the changes necessary.
Talk to Japan, South Korea, even Europe -- government in parnership with industry to plan a sustainable path in the context of a well regulated market economy to build on, and hopefully out of, the mess we are in now is very practical and possible.
The result, hopefully, would be a new diversification of energy sources, a new asymmetrical arrangement of town and industry, and I think a more healthy an stable future, with space even for lots of permacultural communities.
10:43 PM
I agree with your practical statements about what can be done at the political and financial level to propel alternative energy forward: indeed, we have no other choice. Certainly we're not going back to the old glory days of tribalism, as much as that romantic vision appeals to me sometimes (of course the reality was a mixed blessing, with some aspects better and some aspects worse than our current collective situation).
I think Ran is dealing with a different issue in that quote. Even with more sustainable technologies, there is the problem of what to eat and who controls the food supply. I quoted him in my Memetix post about the South Central Farm, where he basically lays out the asymmetrical power dynamic in play there. The fact is that there are very powerful and pernicious forces that would make people utterly dependent upon them, and have the firepower to enforce their desires. When food becomes a serious issue because of (1) global climate change and (2) the lack of petroleum for fertilizers, this will come to a head. The problem, in essense, is what to do about both issues.
Ran's position, not necessarily mine, is that things will take care of themselves in the very long run: lack of fossil fuels means that eventually all the terrible firepower will go away, or at least the transportation capabilities that makes it easy to deploy it over a large geographical range. I don't think that's necessarily the case, since there is always nuclear power available to people who know how to use it and have the will to do so.
My personal belief is that it is important to develop sustainable technologies and also a sustainable food supply. It's also important to consider architectural changes, i.e. construct communities that are close to food supplies and do not require automobiles for daily life. That stuff is a no-brainer: we have to do it.
The real difficulty is how to deal with the political problem of power. As you suggest, power and its enforcing structures are here to stay, and any disruptions would make things much worse in the short run (meaning our lifetimes). For example, Katrina. My only solution, at the moment, is to try to make people at least aware of the problem. If enough people have their antennae up about it, cultural solutions may emerge.
In reality, I'm stuck here. But it seems to me that the problem won't go away simply by ignoring it. This is why I'm trying to promote awareness about it.
3:54 AM
I guess what I'm really trying to say is this: while apocalyptic scenarios are not productive (in that you can never prepare for them and expecting them only saps productive energy), I understand why some people gravitate towards them. And while I despise the violent apocalyptic frames of Christianity, I have sympathy for the people who are looking to them as a release from the pain of living in a world that is becoming increasingly difficult to negotiate. I think many (if not most?) people intuit the power asymmetry I'm talking about, sense that something is about to change, and fear the ramifications. Apocalyptic Christianity (or apocalyptic environmentalism) is a cognitive strategy some people use to grapple with it.
When looking to the future, we need to consider the meaning of this.
6:03 AM
I think then we are in agreement, although I would say the biggest threat to discourse and change is neither apocalyptic nor sustainable: it's just plain apathy. This is the cognitive strategy people employ in difficult times. There is also the more pernicious form of apathy, the "knowing" cynical kind that derides any alternative option but offers no other positive solution.
The fanatical and their followers, with their loud voices warning of apocalyptic doom, always a small minority compared to the tremendous numbers of the apathetic but generally sensible majority, always use this dynamic to their advantage.
However, on the plus side of the ledger, Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. are just two examples of directly and successfully overcoming apathy and effecting change through collective action directed against entrenched power. Both had local and national visions and strategies that extended beyond just one minimalistic goal, the awareness that local change was vital, and a respect for individual identity, toleration, and diversity.
I despise the fact that Reagan is given credit for "Winning the Cold War." The Polish workers union Solidarity got that ball rolling, and the former KGB guys know it, followed by countless numbers of East Germans willing to take a chance and turn out into the streets. These were the people I saw on TV tearing down the Berlin Wall, not Reagan. Reagan bred apathy and sheepish acceptance, the East Berliners overcame it and made a difference.
I think positive awareness and change is spreading these days, as local communities can no longer sit idle as another Walmart opens, depresses local wages, impoverishes their community, making local businesses bankrupt as the money all flows to the one Walmart HQ. It just takes time for these local changes and exchanges of information across the internet (and in documentaries on Walmart) to build in number and power before the self annoited elite of both parties in the D.C. bubble beltway get the message: change, adapt or get out of the way.
Sometime I'm not sure whether to be optimistic or pessimistic. CNN and Fox News have demonstrated their ability to generate apathy in mass waves, yet studies of the viewers of the increasingly popular "fake news" shows on Comedy Central, "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report," demonstrate that this demographic has a more sophisticated and knowledgable appreciation of the issues of the day. However, it is this demographic, mostly younger voters, that are least likely to turn out on election day, even though they have the most at stake.
I'm not a big proponent of apocalyptic scenarios in the short term, but I do believe in Mutual Assured Destruction as a workable doctrine, which should now be called "Your Assured Destruction." Iran and North Korea will never nuke the U.S., and could only take out a single city, as they would be instantly annihilated in return. Yet these regimes just want the possibility of "exacting a price" should the U.S. try another Iraq adventure. Today's conservatives seem to have tossed M.A.D. as a doctrine as they seem more interested in instilling fear in their own population rather than in the enemy. And what has that fear bred? Apathy.
We've been bombarded with so many bogus "terror alerts" that everyone has grown weary and cynical of the whole exercise, seeing George Bush as the boy who cried wolf. But what if the threat is real, as in the fable?
Still, I fear more the "death of a thousand cuts" rather than a big black bang. I think this November and the next two years will be a big indication as to whether the population at large has gotten the message its in their enlightened self image to make changes. Maybe not an "Orange November," (as in the bloodless revolution, not the threat level), but I'll settle for a vibrant, positive, information rich exchange as we see on so many sites on the internet occurring in Congress. Then maybe we can get somewhere.
9:17 AM
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home