Dystopia Now! How bad does it have to get?
Nihilo Zero
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Dystopia-Now--How-bad-doe-by-Ray-Louis-080823-226.html
Humanity is in crisis, bodily and spiritually. Humans are the direct
cause of the current mass extinction. The biosphere is being laid to
waste, in new ways all the time, at a quicker rate each passing day.
The evidence, from prestigious bodies of scientists, is readily
available via our toxic computers and the world wide web. We who are
fortunate enough to get these facts ignore the information, dismiss
it, or don't act upon it nearly to the degree which we ought. Human
caused mass extinction will eventually catch up with our own species.
Despite pockets of affluence, more people around the world are
starving today than at any point in human history OR pre-history (both
in total numbers and per-capita). Agricultural practices have allowed
for a global population boom but they also deplete the capabilities of
the soil with each harvest. Deforestation and petro-chemicals only
temporarily alleviate the problem by creating more farmland and
fertilizers. But these tactics are not a long-term solution by any
means and, in fact, make the long term consequences much worse.
Unfortunately, these are the most common solutions implemented.
The potential for devastation caused by war has not lessened since the
atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. More devastating technologies have
since been developed and more groups have an easier time gaining
access to them. Intelligence agencies designed to prevent it are often
complicit in proliferating the technology. Archaic religious wars have
reached the age of nuclear weapons and hostilities are just as great
as ever. It is only a matter of time before a new Hitler or an evil
Ayatollah/Pope gets access to this technological power.
I would make the case connecting the progress of industrialized
education with the progress of technological weaponry, but the
institution is sacrosanct and scientific progress is presented as both
unstoppable and desirable. Consequently, whether that's true or not
doesn't matter... too few question or resist it. Most luddites are
presented as historically irrelevant, currently misguided, or revered
only in the realm of science fiction. Let me just say that primitive
children living in the wilderness know as much about the world as
children repeating their abc's and multiplication tables.
The prison-industrial complex is a fast-growing business. Already
though, in America, more people are imprisoned in total numbers (and
per-capita) than in any other nation. Land of the free indeed.
To the extent that other oppressive regimes exist around the world,
they work with each and/or the United States of America. The Peoples
Republic of China, for example, is the number one trading partner of
the U.S. and both benefit by keeping large portions of their
population repressed. Oligarchic powers around the world all benefit
from (and desire to keep) large segments of the global population
repressed and in poverty. They are able to pit these oppressed people
against each other by old religious and nationalistic methods as well
as modern media propaganda -- and do you think that the U.S. leaders
would really want the Chinese to rise up in liberation to throw off
their oppressors? No more than the Chinese oligarchs would want
domestic upheaval in the USA.
This all amounts to modern humanity, and all life on earth, being in
an unprecedented crisis. Our ethics and morality have only kept up
with our technological capabilities insomuch as the more that we could
do, we did. And make no mistake, supposedly benign mathematics can
have surprising implications towards less noble pursuits -- Einstein
should have taught us that (if Alfred Nobel didn't). And who are the
esteemed intellectuals of science? Why they are rocket scientists, of
course. But the point is that the fruits of benign sciences can plant
the seeds of further devastation. This is a point that should not be
as readily dismissed as it often is.
What we need is a fundamental break from the technological oligarchy,
but this is no small chore. Those in power will not accept this
because they don't have to face the common realities of the masses
and, even if they knew of our crisis, they may be content to let the
world die with them. How unprecedented is it that so many care so
little about their children and their subsequent descendants? How much
more true must this be for a high-tech war-profiteering arms dealer?
We are talking about people who don't really care even about their
immediate families -- much less you or any of the other billions of
people on this planet!
Momentarily, I will get on to a milder response to the present
situation but, what we really need is a revolt against the whole
techno-industrial oligarchy. Even if they can't be stopped, even if
they wholly intend to take the world with them, basic human dignity
demands that we resist and rise up against their efforts. It may be
wholly futile, but at what point is your entire lineage essentially
dead anyway? In the name of non-violence, some people wouldn't punch
someone in the nose to prevent them from launching a nuclear holocaust
-- I am not one of those persons. As the most domesticated animal,
humans have been bred into passivity or blind servitude, but I suggest
you break those mental chains and act for the greater good of not only
yourself, but also future generations.
In less dramatic terms, we must push the precautionary principle as
far and as hard as it will go! The current wikipedia definition will
suffice:
"The precautionary principle is a moral and political principle
which states that if an action or policy might cause severe or
irreversible harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence
of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of
proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. But in some
legal systems, as the European Union Law, the precautionary principle
is also a general principle of law. This means that it is compulsory.
The principle aims to provide guidance for protecting public health
and the environment in the face of uncertain risks, stating that the
absence of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason to
postpone measures where there is a risk of serious or irreversible
harm to public health or the environment.
There are many definitions of the precautionary principle.
Precaution is caution in advance, or ‘caution practised in the context
of uncertainty’. All definitions have two key elements.
1. an expression of a need by decision-makers to anticipate harm
before it occurs. Within this element lies an implicit reversal of the
onus of proof: under the precautionary principle it is the
responsibility of an activity proponent to establish that the proposed
activity will not (or is very unlikely to) result in significant harm.
2. the establishment of an obligation, if the level of harm may be
high, for action to prevent or minimise such harm even when the
absence of scientific certainty makes it difficult to predict the
likelihood of harm occurring, or the level of harm should it occur.
The need for control measures increases with both the level of
possible harm and the degree of uncertainty."
Full implementation of the Precautionary Principle is just a start of
the epic project which humanity must commence with. Not only must we
work to prevent the implementation of new potentially devastating
technologies, but we must stymie the usage of several ubiquitous
technologies which already cause great amounts of destruction. Even
simple projects protecting local green spaces are useful endeavors.
Horticultural gardening to prevent the need for so much industrial
agriculture (and processing) is a simple step which not only works
towards these ends, but it is also a pleasant activity which can
considerably help preserve financial resources. The list goes on, but
moving away from the industrial cycle of consumption is key.
Again, however, we are faced with the problem of power dynamics. As a
twist of Margaret Meade's famous statement about activism... I like to
point out, "It only takes small group of committed individuals to do a
great amount of environmental and social harm." Those who have
demonstrated their commitment to environmental destruction and promote
policies of war must be stopped. The key is consciousness of our own
complicity within the destructive systems and an honest effort to move
away from such practices -- without that we are less than human. But
you are not on the same scale of a Hitler if you fight back against a
rapist and using a tissue is not the same as enthusiastically
encouraging the destruction of the rain forests. It is foolish not to
consider intent or scale when thinking about such matters. Violence in
self-defense (or in defense of others, or in defense of the
environment) is not the same as aggressive violence for the purposes
of greed and destruction. Do not let people convince you that saying a
hurtful word is the same as the President, on national television,
encouraging war. Yes, we are all sinners and are flawed, but some of
us are just human while others are absolutely diabolic.
Preemptively, in terms of my own personal computer use, I like to say,
for example, "The best uses for the tools of destruction are against
the other tools of destruction." I hope that makes sense to some
people.
Finally, I'd like to take a moment and talk about suppression and
repression of radical environmentalists. In the past it was the
communists/socialists who were seen as the preeminent threat to big
business interests, but now it is the radical environmentalists (who
often have a more anarchistic stance). The "red scare" has become the
"green scare" and the tactics used previously are being used again.
Before 9/11 it was the Earth Liberation Front that was considered by
the U.S. government as the #1 domestic terrorist threat. This despite
the fact that no one was ever physically harmed in an action claimed
by that group. This despite the fact that the KKK still exists and neo-
nazi's still flourish. This despite the fact that the police forces in
this nation still kill innocent people every day.
So take this as a warning... if you want to struggle against the
state's interests, even if you organize in the most peaceful ways, the
state will take notice. Resistance is needed, but you must fully
consider the consequences of even your most trivial participation in
such activities.
With any luck, someday the value system of techno-industrialization
civilization will be completely turned on its head. We will have peace
and not war. Freedom and not constant surveillance by our so-called
leaders. Conservation and sustainability rather than unhindered
environmental degradation. But we must work and struggle for these
things if we truly want change. It won't come from above, not from god
or a politician. We must take it upon ourselves to bring about this
the reality or it's not going to manifest. It is our responsibility.
It is our duty as human beings.