*By Tim Murray *
14 November, 2011
*Countrercurrents.org*
I get the impression that too many of us have made a fetish out of democracy. Democracy is merely a method of decision-making, a process, a means to an end. Even if you think that is always a superior method of arbitrating options, it does not always guarantee that there are solutions to the problems that it would attempt to address. Suppose that after the collision, the second and third class passengers of the Titanic had rose up and demonstrated against the incompetence of the captain and his officers, and determined that the reckless pursuit of a trans-Atlantic speed record was madness. Lets further suppose that they were able to seize control of the ship. What then? The ship would still be short of lifeboats. The only thing that they could do is make sure that lifeboat space was allotted to those people most deserving of it, rather than what turned out to be the case, namely, that a disproportionate number of survivors were from the first class section.
When Egyptians took to the streets to overthrow Mubarak, progressives the world over immediately become euphoric, as they are now with the Occupy demonstrations. At long last the people are telling elites that they have had enough. Finally they are taking matters into their own hands. But Egypt's problems remain. How can 80 million people---even as democratic participants----solve the problem of overshoot in a nation with a carrying capacity of perhaps a quarter of that number (or less)? If they came to that realization, would they still adhere to a democratic contract? Would a majority of the passengers on the Titanic have voted for a lottery that would mean that 66% of them would drown? Would the 66% calmly accept their fate because it was determined by a democratic process?
Rather than confront this issue, progressives resort to the antique slogans of the civil rights movement. "The people, united, shall never be defeated....The people, united, shall never be defeated...(ad nauseam)". Newsflash. The "people", no matter how great their solidarity, their resolution and their faith, CAN be defeated by resource shortages. And when they begin to realize it, when they begin to realize that it is scarcity, not some economic or financial model, that is going to kill them, then the veneer of cooperation and the ethic of 'inclusiveness", caring and sharing will wear off, and it will be every man, woman or family for itself. Leningrad offered us a case history of what scarcity can do to civilized values. Despite a generation of socialist programming enforced by the sanctions of a Stalinist police state, during the 900 day siege desperate Leningraders disinterred freshly buried corpses to eat them, and even committed cannibalism. That is what happens when Sharon Astyk's "Love Economy" comes face to face with extreme deprivation. Altruism has its limits.
Egalitarianism does not suffice to save us. If there is enough to go around now, there soon won't be. We can and should "tax the rich", reform the currency, dump the banking system, ration oil and all those good things. But it won't be enough. Not by a long shot. We have already passed several tipping points, with climate change, as lethal and real as it is, in my view, the least consequential of all of them. Our ship has already hit the iceberg. It's called "Peak Everything".
This is a message that will not be well-received. Activism, by implication, is predicated on hope. On the belief that we can "do something" about injustice and poverty. Telling activists that ultimately, nothing can be done for the vast majority of us, reeks of defeatism and fatalism, and runs counter to the grain. While the market for false hope is insatiable, Cassandras are as unwelcome as lepers. We are the bad news bears. The more we tell them that it can't be done, they more they grasp at straws. For each green delusion we deconstruct------be it solar energy, windmills, transition towns, permaculture etc etc----another Great Green Hope comes charging at us like cavalry to the rescue, until it too falls victim to close scrutiny. When pressed against the wall by math and logic, social justice activists lash out in defensive anger:
"Why are you doing this? What is your point? What is the point of writing about our problems if you don't offer a solution for them? We are you throwing cold water on our hopes and aspirations? Humans are ingenious. We are 'problem-solvers' by nature. Solutions are possible. But in order to find them, people need to believe in themselves. They need to believe that it can be done---if only they work together, if only they are allowed self-determination and 'control over the decisions which affect them' (another 60s cliche). They need hope. They need a positive message. So shut up and go away."
To me, this is much like telling my doctor that I only want to hear positive results from my lab tests. Many people would indeed prefer to be blissfully ignorant. Denial, after all, is a proven coping mechanism. But speaking for myself, I want to have a realistic prognosis. I have a right to know how long I have to live, and at what point I can no longer do the things that I now take for granted. Having a timetable would help me reset my priorities, and make the best use of my remaining time. In short, I want to hear the truth. And I think society as a whole has that same right. Those who do not want to hear the truth can wear ear-plugs, or continue to ignore the writings of people like Richard Duncan, William Catton, Craig Dilworth and Chris Clugston and be sidetracked by distractions. I expect that they will be in for a "crude" awakening, just as that documentary title suggests.
*Tim Murray* is an environmental writer and activist residing on Quadra
Island, British Columbia
----[Mailing List for Eritrea Related News ]---- Received on Wed Nov 16 2011 - 23:26:49 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Wed Nov 16 2011 - 23:26:50 EST