Value Life Itself Above All Elsea!!!

Background Argument 2 - January 2005

NEW MOVEMENT FOR SURVIVAL

[ BY FORCE, PERSUASION OR ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST? Part 2 ]

SUMMARY

Given the possibility of the point of no return for global warming in less than ten years, governments cannot be expected to take preventative action with sufficient alacrity. They are caught in a co-dependent vicious circle of short-term gratification with their electors, fuelling addiction to consume goods and services according to their ideology of continuous economic growth.

Leadership therefore has to come from elsewhere, but, lacking a hearing from those caught up in the vicious circle, it has to come from a coalition of the willing who have already got the message.

This gives rise to a necessary Movement for Survival, which has to address not only the onset of climate change but all the other threats to the preservation of life in its present form - since they all spring from the same dysfunctional but dominant world-wide values system.

By being this broad in scope the Movement can accommodate and support a wide variety of coalitions and campaigns. First it needs to get clear for itself the true consequences of short-term gratification and the way they lead to public confusion and distrust. Then it can focus on the alternative values and beliefs, which were mentioned in Part 1 and are already emerging from those developing a holistic view of the world. It can thereby reach critical mass in a very short time.

This is not the first of such Movements to be proposed, but its time has clearly come again, for a number of parallel proposals are coming to light at exactly the same time as this one.
__________________________________________________________

INTRODUCTION

Since writing Part 1 of this Boiling Point six months ago, I am struck by much greater public reporting of extreme weather events and much greater apparent public awareness about the onset of climate change. With the showing of a series of TV programmes in the UK in the new year [1] warning of the extremes of climate change, I have picked up the first impressions of public fear, unprotected by their governments and for which the latter have no effective answer.

The latters' efforts on flood prevention in the UK appear distinctly passed their sell-by date - not even sure whether the Thames barrage has to be replaced now or later [2], unconvincingly assuring the residents of Bocastle in Cornwall that there is a 400:1 chance against a repeat of the disaster this last summer, and still holding onto plans for a massive expansion of the aviation industry, which will devastatingly increase the onset of climate change. [Note the word 'onset' in place of the regular past use of 'danger' of climate change]

A slightly more encouraging change over the last six months has been the new mention of 'society's core values' in relation to environmental issues, albeit negatively with respect to the prevalence of public denial 'the greater the level of change required' to them, and yet more generally implied in the latest review of Jared Diamond's new book 'Collapse: how societies choose to fall or survive' [3] The word 'choose' is a significant departure from the purely rationalistic arguments for taking action that have been widespread up to now.

As stated in the same review, 'Diamond reserves his most insightful analysis for the more "irrational" reasons why we are not yet responding to the scale and urgency of today's converging environmental problems. The often irreconcilable clash between the pursuit of short-term gratification and the defence of future generations' long-term interests features prominently in his collapse case studies'.

Most of the time I have been a lone voice at conferences, up till and including the beginning of January 2005, maintaining that action on climate change by governments and international bodies does not follow from reasoned scientific evidence as such, but from a whole range of motives including vested interests, defended on grounds that Diamond aptly describes as "rational bad behaviour". It was, however gratifying to receive Klaus Topfer's warm agreement, at the end of one on 6 January, that the devastating tsunami in the Indian Ocean appears to have brought about a new recognition that we human-beings have to co-operate with Nature instead of trying to 'fix' it with reliance upon 'carbon sinks' and 'sequestering' carbon under the sea - and carrying on emitting greenhouse gases as usual [4]. He rejoined that we need to have more 'modesty' about what we can do.

Diamond cites examples of societies that 'choose to survive', especially Netherlands with its highly organised system of reclaimed lands [called "polders"] in order to sustain normal life below sea level. He concludes his book optimistically, with a faith in 'our awareness of our interdependence and the need for unprecedented solidarity .. as the threat of ecological meltdown seems to get greater by the year'. Maybe, but there is still a huge gulf between this hope and the claim in "Tomorrow's God" that 'It is only through PRE-serving ... (that is) serving Life itself before you serve the Little Self ... that Life itself will be preserved in its present form on the earth', that I introduced in Part 1 of this Boiling Point, with the following footnote [5].

The matter of motivation appears to be critical in this context. Contrast the motivations implicit in Diamond's reference above between: 'the pursuit of short-term gratification and the defence of future generations' long-term interests', and it requires little imagination to conclude that the Dutch must have been very highly motivated to create their system of "polders". Strong positive motivation can also be inferred in Diamond's other examples of societies that 'choose to survive'.

CENTRAL QUESTION

This line of thinking leads to the central question: what motivation is required to bring about the 'preservation of life in its present form on the earth', or, in terms of Diamond's final chapter, "The World as a Polder", - and how can this necessary motivation be realised?

First it has to be recognised that present motivations associated with short-term gratification are doomed to failure and collectively suicidal for the future survival of the human race and most other species. However, this message is not going to be taken seriously and acted upon by the leaders of our 'democratic' institutions because of their own dependence on the short-term gratification of their own re-election and continued power, and the pandering to the short-term gratification of the public in order to get re-elected. This is both a form of co-dependency and a vicious circle.

So leadership out of this auto-destructive process has to come from elsewhere, firstly to draw attention to the true consequences of short-term gratification; then to bring the public's attention to the pernicious way in which it is being misled, confused, and led astray; and then finally to point to alternative values and beliefs about individual and collective survival, and the attitudes, motivation, will, habits and lifestyles that are necessary to realise them.

Enough has been written in earlier Boiling Points and elsewhere on denial about climate change [6] for it to be pretty obvious that any alternative leadership is not going to be heard by a public that does not want to know that placing value on short-term gratification is suicidal and that the public itself is being misled in believing in it. So such leadership has to come out of a coalition of the willing who have already got the message.

What then, might comprise such a coalition of the willing and what might be its agenda?

It is important that it should be very broad, For though it is true that 'only collective action can overcome the climate crisis', Robin Cook nevertheless understates the problem [7]. For, even more fundamental than averting the climate crisis and 'the greatest catastrophe' of AIDS, redressing obscene disparities of wealth - which lie at the root of perceived "terrorism", and the prospects of starvation for millions of people across the world - is changing the totally dysfunctional value system that has led to and perpetuates these crises. Huge as these distinguishable crises are, they are part of that one problem for which a world movement of collective action is called for.

A NECESSARY MOVEMENT FOR SURVIVAL

Such a Movement could offer an umbrella for all these issues and focus on the common values, motives, beliefs, habits and lifestyle requirements that apply to all of them. By being very broad it can transcend loyalties to particular technical solutions and policies over which advocating organisations frequently fall out, and accommodate a variety of short-term or long-term coalitions and campaigns, which can coalesce, dissolve and reform with increasing ease with the use of the Internet.

As to its agenda, the first task of drawing public attention to the true consequences of short-term gratification needs to start with clarity, within the Movement, as to what those consequences are. Many of them will be familiar to advocates for change and campaigners already.

Consumerism is an obvious candidate, because it encourages gratification from the present instant to the long term, through forms of encouragement on every side: advertising in every form of media, discounts, freebies, bargains and trade-offs. This applies not only to material goods but also to services, as becomes immediately obvious upon entering private schools, clinics, sports facilities, and dentists - and then comparing these with their publicly provided counterparts, in provision, decor, style, comfort levels and how one feels inside.

Advertising increasingly exploits these subjective factors, and as the political parties do as well - and more blatantly over time as they target the 'swing' voters, it is no surprise that most of them are moving to the Right in espousing the consumerist cause. Being selective about how they 'sell' their policies to their voters, they increasingly indulge in 'spin', thereby disguising how much they are at the same time misleading and confusing the public and so leading it astray. Just how much is evident from imagining the opposite of what they are doing, for example by highlighting the plight of those who miss out from the opportunity to consume, who do not have the means to purchase both goods and services, who have to accept whatever is provided by an increasingly under-funded public sector, shamed into not complaining, often in poor health, and constantly anxious about making ends meet.

Yes, some of the political parties do address the plight of those who miss out, but their 'caring' rhetoric usually far exceeds the action they take, leaving a mind-boggling credibility gap between upbeat messages and, e.g. the future level of pensions that most people now face, and the crippling debts that most students have to carry at the start of their careers, with little idea how they will repay them, let alone eventually receive a decent pension. And this is just in the affluent so called First World. What about those with TV in developing countries, who receive delectable invitations to consume, but have neither the money to do so, or alternative services of any kind available to them?

So the consequences of short-term gratification are intimately connected with being misled, confused, and led astray. A breakdown of trust between 'consumers' and receivers of services, on the one hand, and 'suppliers'/providers, on the other, is an inevitable consequence.

Note that this line of argument applies equally to the environmental crisis (especially with respect to climate change), AIDS, redressing obscene disparities of wealth and the causes of 'terrorism', and the prospects of starvation for millions across the world. It justifies the breadth of the needed Movement for Survival. But there are further consequences, about which, for the sake of focus and brevity, I shall limit myself once more to the environment and climate change.

The consumerist ideology in the West requires the resources of three planets Earth in Europe and six in the USA [8]. This is blatantly not sustainable - if one has the slightest concern for those living in the rest of the planet! This ideology both requires and is supported by the broader one of unlimited economic growth, without which the Western capitalistic system is itself unsustainable. The UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, has tried to square this conundrum by claiming 'the UK has demonstrated that economic growth did not have to be at the expense of the environment' by presuming an [unwarrantable] causal connection 'between 1990 and 2002 the UK economy [growing] by 36% while greenhouse gas emissions fell by around 15%' [9]. Since much of the latter was due to a freebie from the previous Conservative government in closing down the coal industry, Blair's claim was certainly open to challenge then, and even more so since, given the later admission that 'the government will fail to meets its own target to cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2010' [10]. The claim will soon inevitably be shown to be untenable altogether.

Some of the output from the consumerist ideology has confusing effects on the public whether or not intended. However much the media tries to warn of the dangers of climate change, and insulate itself from the agendas determined by corporate ownership (as does my regular source of information, The Guardian newspaper in the UK), it is nevertheless highly dependent on advertising in order to stay in business. And a significant chunk of this advertising goes on selling cars and air-travel both of which, for the foreseeable future, have devastating effects on increasing greenhouse gases, and, thereby, climate change. I have even read that free Air Miles outstrip the dollar as the World's leading form of currency!

Of course, there is other output from this ideology which is flagrantly counter-sustainable. The headline: 'Kyoto sacrificed to (commercial) competitiveness' [11] lets the 'cat out of the bag' of rejigging UK carbon reduction targets to levels that are higher than the previous government estimate of business-as-usual, i.e. without any reduction at all. But this pales by comparison with the Bush regime's 'wrecking tactics over climate change', [12] teaming up, at international talks last December, with those countries which it complained were exempted from the Kyoto protocol, not in order to meet its own demand to bring them onboard but in order to try to sink all international co-operation. As George Monbiot writes: 'Wrecking these talks is pretty good work for a country which, as it refuses to ratify the protocol, doesn't even have negotiating rights... It sought to trash the 2002 Earth Summit', and to some degree succeeded by frightening other countries not to have climate change on the agenda at all, and into subsequently setting themselves Millennium Development Goals which downgrade it unmentioned to an aspect of environmental sustainability on energy, without any targets for that agreed.

One final aspect of misleading and confusing the public applies to making public awareness of climate change an urgent priority in the UK and then doing too little about it to have any effect. This was so apparent in the preparations for the 2002 Earth Summit that those of us forming a small awareness-raising group for United Nations Environment and Development UK Committee [UNED-UK] decided to study the government's disincentives for such awareness-raising and produced a fair number of them, which predictably came down to mixed motives and conflicts of interest [13].

Another miss-match between rhetoric and delivery was elegantly expressed in a Guardian leader on 9 December [14]: 'The sad thing is that the government has invested so much of its credibility in attempting to keep to its "golden rules" of finance, even if the sky is hardly going to fall if the exchequer ends up a billion or two short. In comparison, global warming and climate change are infinitely more serious. Yet for public finances the rules are made of gold, while for the environment, rules crumble to dust'.

THE CONTRIBUTION THE MOVEMENT CAN MAKE

So much for the true consequences of short-term gratification and misleading the public about them. What can a Movement contribute to alternative values and beliefs about individual and collective survival, and the attitudes, motivation, will, habits and lifestyles that are necessary to realise them?

A number of them were mentioned towards the end of Part 1 of this Boiling Point, following the section in bold script, paraphrased as: enlightened self-interest starts with an aim of the highest order: to value the continuation of life on Earth in its present form above all else. How can such an aim be introduced to the public in a way that can be readily accepted?

The task I advocate is not so insuperable as it appears, for the values by which the national and global institutions presently operate are an aberration from those which apply within all other species apart from so-called Homo Sapiens. These are the values of reciprocity and co-operation. Beneath our aberrant and dysfunctional values and ideological systems lies a natural recognition of these same essential ones. They appear spontaneously at times of community crisis and among oppressed people.

Neale Walsch's received wisdom also states: 'If your survival is directly threatened, you will do what you have to do. You will even change your most sacred and long-held beliefs about yourselves, about God, about Life, about everything, if you have to. You will always choose survival, make no mistake about that. You are encoded to do so... Life is functional, adaptable, and sustainable. Always. .. You would abandon those beliefs that are killing you, that are impairing your ability to survive, right now, but the negative effect of most of your most damaging beliefs is so insidious, is so slow in showing itself, that you do not recognise them as being damaging.' [15]

This is why the Movement for Survival is needed NOW, so as to forestall the worst of the threat. In support of such a vision, elsewhere Walsch writes: ' In the months and years ahead people will be joining together in a grassroots movement, not of proselytising, but of education; not of changing people's minds, but of expanding them... All this will occur over all the world, because a message of freedom inspires the experience of freedom itself... When the number of people who no longer support oppression reaches critical mass, that government will fall, and that religion will disappear... The speed with which the process moves forward will depend upon the number of people who choose, individually, to create their evolution consciously, how rapidly they find each other and can agree to cocreate their tomorrows together, and how soon that number reaches critical mass... If large numbers of people get together, create a team, and choose to experience conscious evolution, humanity could reach critical mass within a very short period. Decades, not centuries. Perhaps not even decades, but years'. [16]

At a more practical level, part of the answer lies in the profile and the reputation that the Movement develops and receives back in acknowledgement from the public. To facilitate this process the Movement has to be very broad in another way from that of being an umbrella for many causes. It has to be inclusive of many belief systems and establish a careful balance between moral, political and scientific attitudes, as well as between intuition, insight and reason. The profile as proposed and developed has to appeal to influential people for them to give their backing and thereby increase its acceptability to a developing section of society.

It also has to set a high standard of ethical behaviour for its own activities. As stated in Part 1, this aim is more than the substitution of one set of imperatives for another. It goes deeper and becomes more personal. It is not just a mental paradigm shift but also a deeply felt one, that becomes, over time, instinctual. It requires holding up all one's personal values to the mirror as to whether they serve or obstruct the overriding one. This will affect, in turn, one's most deeply held beliefs and most entrenched habits before lifestyle changes can become established and durable. This will almost certainly require new learning, especially in detachment from personal ambitions within the Movement, and from promoting the agendas of particular groups above others. All effort has to be subservient to preserving the continuation of Life on Earth in its present form.

Since the Movement needs first to appeal to ordinary people as individuals, it needs to collate and present alternative information to the prevalent ideology of consumerism on what does constitute a sustainable lifestyle, given the resources of the one planet upon which we live. This must not become an ideology of its own, but be continuously reviewed as information about it becomes developed and refined, and made relevant to people of different cultures.

This is not the first Movement for Survival to be proposed. Thirty-five years ago it was also proposed, as a way of realising the Blueprint for Survival that launched the Ecologist magazine on a wave of concern for the fate of the planet. Another Movement for Survival was launched in 1997 in order to protect the Ogoni people of Nigeria from pollution and exploitation from oil and gas extraction. The earlier Movement for Survival led to the creation of the Ecology Party, at a time when the founders 'believed that if politicians were alerted to what was happening to the planet, they would do something about it'. They no longer think so. [17]

This time the Movement is broader, outside the main political system, even more urgent as those earlier predictions come home to roost. Its time has clearly come again, for a second similar project has just come to light at exactly the same time as this one, called The Climate Movement. We look forward to pursuing our shared potential with alacrity.

Jim Scott (C) 28 January 2005

return to top