Editor’s note: This commentary is by Richard C. Bell, of Hyattsville, Maryland, and Nova Scotia, and Jock Gill, of Peacham. Bell has worked in journalism, national electoral politics and environmental research and activism. He is a co-author of the book “Nukespeak: Nuclear Language, Myths and Mindset” and a recipient of the George Orwell Award. Gill, an internet communications consultant, served in President Bill Clinton’s Office of Media Affairs. He is town energy coordinator in Peacham.
[I]f we could wave a magic wand and stabilize the climate tomorrow, we would still be on a path to disaster. Our normal day-to-day activities (at least in the industrialized world) are driving an interlocked series of crises that threaten to upend the one-world civilization we live in. These crisis include the Sixth Great Extinction in the history of the planet, as written about by E. Kolbert, the ever diminishing amounts of topsoil, the ever deteriorating state of the oceans, and the disappearing supplies of fresh water. Of course these are all part and parcel of global climate disruption. With the exception of corporate-funded climate-change deniers, most people are aware of one or more of these global challenges.
In reality, we are dealing with the consequences of neoliberal economic and political theories holding that infinite material growth on a finite planet is possible. The feedback from our planet, however, confirms that these theories are nonsense. They are creating climate disruption. Our unthinking faith in the promises of neoliberal theories has burdened us with what can only be termed “degenerative” systems. They make things worse, not better. If we want to address the global crises, we must first see these degenerative systems for the threat they are. Only then will we be able to replace them with regenerative systems that increase the quantity and quality of the essential elements required for life on our planet.
Getting control of climate change, however, is a relatively small problem, compared to inventing a capitalism appropriate for a finite planet, the socio-political problems around ending population growth, or those around ending the use of automobiles as the primary mode of transportation — a good example of how a proposed solution, electric cars, can be seen initially as regenerative, if the electricity comes from renewable sources, but remains, in toto, a degenerative solution because of the impact on land use.
At a deeper level, we must solve the problem of shifting away from an economy based on ever higher material consumption to one in which we do not manufacture anything that is not exquisitely designed to last a long time and be completely and easily recycled.
In this “eye of a needle” sense, the globalized, industrialized civilization we have built on the false premise of infinite growth has made our species too “rich.”
And then there’s the question of just how much “stuff” we need in order to live healthy, happy lives. One of the long-standing attacks on the environmental movement has been the “Oh, you want us to go back to living in caves wearing hair shirts,” or as the nuclear industry used to put it in New England, “freeze in the dark.” Recent political developments show the power of appealing to people’s fears that someone is going to take away what little they have.
We are, in fact, facing a parallel spiritual crisis that will determine whether or not we can solve the environmental crisis facing us. Most organized religions are pretty direct about the dangers of wanting too much “stuff.” For one example, see the vivid parable Jesus used, “And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24.) Or study the use of the “eye of the needle” in the Quran. Or consider aparigraha, as used in Hinduism and Jainism.
In this “eye of a needle” sense, the globalized, industrialized civilization we have built on the false premise of infinite growth has made our species too “rich.” That very richness now threatens to kill us off. (We make this argument leaving aside the grotesque inequalities of wealth that the world’s better off have been perfectly happy to tolerate.)
We welcome any technological advances that move us in the regenerative direction. But outside of the most techno-cornucopian fantasies, we think it’s unlikely that our species will get through this looming evolutionary bottleneck (the eye of the needle) through technology alone. We must make far-reaching spiritual changes that support a move from systems and policies that have put us in jeopardy to ones that support continual improvement. Our internal values and beliefs must support and echo the regenerative choices required externally to address the crises we face.
