The world needs drastic economic and social change if we are to avoid catastrophe, says Peter Johnstone, yet we still keep partying on like there’s no tomorrow.
The Party is Over (Part 1)
The Party is over.
We are at a crucial time in history. Capitalism has failed to protect the natural environment upon which all life ultimately depends and the physical survival of humanity will require a radical change in direction. Drastic economic and social change need to occur if we are to avoid catastrophe.
Ignoring the risk is irrational, especially when it is set against the risks we are prepared to take in other aspects of our lives.
Yet we continue to party on.
We ignore the signs, we denigrate the scientists who are telling us this and we do next to nothing about it.
Why?
Reason 1: Its cosy & warm inside
The changes in living that would be required seem to be so drastic that people prefer the catastrophe to the sacrifice they would have to make now.
Arthur Koestler’s description of an experience he had during the Spanish Civil War is a telling example of this widespread attitude. Koestler sat in the comfortable villa of a friend while the advance of Franco’s troops was reported; there was no doubt that they would arrive during the night, and very likely he would be shot; he could save his life by fleeing, but the night was cold and rainy, the house warm and cosy; so he stayed.
Fortunately, he was saved many weeks later by the efforts of friendly journalists.
There was a different outcome in Balibo, East Timor. Being ‘Australian’ was no protection.
This is also the kind of behaviour that occurs in people who will risk dying rather than undergo an examination that could lead to the diagnosis of a grave illness requiring major surgery.
Reason 2: Pretending to do something effective.
Our leaders and governments undertake many actions that make it possible to pretend they are doing something effective to avoid a catastrophe, such as setting targets, having economic summits, and endless conferences, resolutions, and disarmament talks. These all give the impression that the problems are recognised and something is being done to resolve them. Yet nothing of real importance happens; both the leaders and the led anaesthetise their consciences and their wish for survival by giving the appearance of ‘moving forward’.
Reason 3: Greed makes people stupid
Selfishness is one of the pillars of contemporary practical ethics, so why should our leaders and members of government act differently?
It is no longer shocking when corporate Directors or CEO’s make decisions to their personal advantage, but at the same time are harmful and dangerous to the community. They do not seem to know that greed makes people ignorant about their own real interests, such as their interest in their own lives and the lives of their children. Corporations may produce or do things that we need and that are good for society, but their real mandate is to make money and the more they make and the faster they make it, the better.
When profit is their primary goal, corporate leaders will fight to reduce their share of taxes, manipulate the media and the members of government, demand subsidies, oppose regulations and undermine the community interest. If a carbon price is going to impact on profits, it will be fought with every means at their disposal without consideration of the long term impact of too much carbon in the atmosphere.
Reason 4. Science and technology will solve everything
There is a widespread preoccupation with, and belief that, science and technology can solve our problems. At the Copenhagen Climate Summit in 2009 there were 192 priorities trying to make nature fit our systems.
Travel to different parts of the world and witness the onslaught that the nexus of science and profits has had on nature and on the degradation of our planet. Capitalism is not benign. Capitalism and the scramble for bigger profits has ushered in Climate change; has destroyed or degraded the habitat of most species that inhabit the earth; has altered or stopped water flows; added harmful nutrients and other chemicals to the environment; has brought about unsustainable harvesting (from fish through to forests) and introduced species destructive to indigenous animals and their habitat. Tim Flannery has aptly described what is happening — we are engaged in a ‘war against nature’.
There is a belief that progress is unlimited and that Capitalism linked with science can solve all our problems, including climate change.
Biology dictates our absolute need for clean air, clean water, stable temperatures, clean soil, clean energy and biodiversity for our survival and health. The laws of nature are such and we can’t change them. We have to live within the limits of nature’s laws, and we seem to be blind to the scientific fact that natural resources have their limits and can be eventually exhausted.
As long as we believe that science and technology will rescue us from catastrophe, our imagination will be lacking to visualise new and realistic alternatives. Capitalism, free enterprise, the economy, corporations, currency, markets are not forces of nature. We invented them. If they are not working, we can and must change them. We should be looking for ways to make our systems work with nature, not the other way around.
Reason 5: No pathway, no alternative vision
Greed is everywhere. The general public is also so selfishly concerned with their private affairs that they pay little attention to all that transcends the personal realm.
The Occupy Movement, Angela Merkel, Socialists in Greece, Barack Obama and Wayne Swan are all looking at ways to keep the party going. There are attempts to redistribute wealth and regulate banks, but essentially unfettered capitalism still dominates.
The capitalists are happy to party on like reckless royalty. And they will continue to party until all is exhausted.
Capitalism and the culture of greed have become so pervasive that the current generation assumes it to be the natural way of modern living. We can see its influence – where markets and profit are paramount – in media, in films and in popular music. It is culturally dominant and has penetrated business, the Labor Party and almost every other human activity.
The alternative Social Democratic Socialism failed because it tried to outdo and compete with capitalism. The Soviet version adopted capitalist practices (like Taylorism) and overlayed it with state bureaucracy and technocratic ‘fascism’. Their system was also based on the principle of consumption as a goal for living. The consumption and the enjoyment of the party are not just for the bosses or the elite in society, but for all ‘workers’; a bourgeois life for all — even though it’s state controlled. This was supposed to lead to unrestricted happiness. In any case, the pretence of the Communists – that their system will end the class struggle by abolishing class and redistributing the profits of large corporations – was fiction.
What about the Greens you may ask? The Greens have a platform of ecological sustainability, social justice, grassroots democracy, peace and non-violence. While pointing the direction, the Greens are yet to set a coherent vision in the public arena. At the same time, the Greens in Tasmania make a deal with Forestry Tasmania that may be as damaging as felling the old growth forests — supporting the establishment of chemically dependent plantations that destroy good farm land and poisons the water.
Reason 6: It’s a fabrication of alarmist scientists
The 2010 book ‘Merchants of Doubt’, written by the two science historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway, tells with brutal clarity the disquieting story of how a group of high level scientists, with connections to industry and with a right-wing political agenda, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge in the United States for over four decades. The same individuals who claim the science of global warming is ‘not settled’ and that it is a fabrication of alarmist scientists have also denied the truth about studies linking smoking to lung cancer.
Similar groups and think tanks in Australia, with their corporate funding and with a stakehold in maintaining current practices, have been hugely successful in getting mainstream media exposure and in sowing doubts about the message of scientists. It’s success was demonstrated recently in Queensland, when the LNP state conference passed a motion calling for an end to the teaching of climate science “propaganda” in Queensland schools.
Reason 7: A Hollywood blockbuster
Many people assume the catastrophe will be like one of the movies from Hollywood — set in the distant future, there will be a sudden tsunami tide of rising sea levels that will inundate all low lying land on the planet.
What few people understand is that the catastrophe is already underway. The rate of animal and insect extinction is unprecedented; extremes of weather in different parts of the world; depletion of fish in our oceans; chemicals in our waterways and pollution in the atmosphere; wealth polarization where the rich few get richer and the rest struggle; increasing shortage of water and food; the collapsing economies in Europe and the depletion of natural forests are but a few examples.
We know this and still do next to nothing. We party on.
Where to from here?
I try to map a pathway out of this miasma tomorrow in part 2.
(You can follow Peter Johnstone on Twitter @sem4peter)








17 Comments
@ABCthedrum @ConversationEDU Who gives a F*ck ? Cover the reality of our world ya pathetic-shills. #auspol #Ausnews
http://t.co/38AGIAij
Excellent #auspol RT @sem4peter: RT @independentaus: Why we keep partying while the world around us burns http://t.co/o5iN93zS
Excellent #auspol RT @sem4peter: RT @independentaus: Why we keep partying while the world around us burns http://t.co/o5iN93zS
Add a “god” to greed, and it all fixed? No? Oh well, its only one of the great apes. No? Oh well, in geological time, who would have noticed us….
Seven reasons we're all screwed http://t.co/Ll1Rx5J3 #auspol
We are blessed with a country full of natural resources and a small population to share the wealth amongst. Unfortunately we don’t see ours selves as movers and shakers.We prefer to follow and be directed. Look at our relationship with Britain and America. Until we improve our self image and start seeing ourselves as leaders we will go nowhere. I think a becoming a Republic would be a good step in the right direction. At present all our symbols, our flag, our constitution shout “follower”. Leaders always fare better because they are in charge of their own destiny.
They may drink champagne on their balconies now but one day they could be flinging themselves from that same balcony as their shares plummet.
As a regular visitor to the USA I have noticed the change over the past 20/30 years. You would never have seen such blatant displays like those who mock the protestors. It’s as though there is a class now of Gordon Geckos who believe that flaunting their ugliness is an asset and that displays of ‘greed is good’ is OK. Old style conservatives abhor them.
Much of what this article terms “capitalism” should more aptly be termed “fascism”, a government/corporate kleptocracy. True capitalism, however, is simply a huge network of voluntary exchanges, entered into by the exchanging parties because, based upon their values, they believe they will be better off after the exchange than prior to it. We are light years from such a world of free trade. The world economy is hogtied by the tentacles of regulatory bureaucracy. In the US more than 50 federal agencies have a hand in enforcing more than 150,000 pages of rules. In spite of this monstrous anti-capitalist regulatory apparatus the author demonstrates a complete disconnect with reality by claiming “unfettered capitalism still dominates”. If only. Such massive regulation is inconsistent with capitalism. Many of the world’s problems cited in the article result from a lack of, not a surfeit, of capitalism.
Excellent #auspol RT @sem4peter: RT @independentaus: Why we keep partying while the world around us burns http://t.co/o5iN93zS
What a load of absolute free market think tank tosh, Marlow. Claiming that capitalism will work better because you remove all the regulation has been shown to be false for centuries: it didn’t work in Holland during Tulip mania, it didn’t work in the 18th and 18th centuries with Laissez-Faire and it didn’t work during the Great Depression or the GFC. Open your eyes. http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/philosophy/economics-2/resist-the-rise-of-evil-psychopathic-morons/
In reply to Marlow:
The article begins with the premise that our planet is in trouble.
Stakeholders in Capitalism have been part of the problem and have scarcely shown any evidence of being part of the solution; they have, in fact, been largely in denial or, in some cases, actively lobbying against measures to change direction.
Marlow,do you honestly believe climate change, denuded forests, polluted waterways, etc etc are due to a ‘lack of Capitalism’?; that unfettered Capitalism will avoid catastrophe? I don’t think so.
There is another question to ponder: Can Capitalism adapt? I haven’t seen much evidence, particularly if it is going to impact on profit margins.
[...] [Read part 1 of this series: ‘Why we keep partying while the world around us burns’.] [...]
[...] Read part 1 : ‘Why we keep partying while the world around us burns’. [...]
In reply to DD and sem4peter:
First, I notice neither of you addressed my points. No surprise. DD, you don’t make clear what you mean by capitalism not working in the 18th century. As to the Great Depression and GFC those problems were anything but failures of capitalism. As Rothbard’s book, America’s Great Depression, makes clear, the cause of the great depression was the Federal Reserve System and fractional reserve banking. Neither would exist in free market conditions. And the FED was up to its eyeballs in the GFC. sem4peter, I respectfully submit you familiarise yourself with and google “freemarket environmentalism”. When property is held privately the owners have an incentive to maintain its value – that is, not destroy the resource. Private property rights and tort law are sufficient to assure environmental protection. “Can Capitalism adapt?” Of course. In fact, it is the only system that can. It is constantly adapting, i.e., changing, to satisfy humanity’s ever changing desires. All various statist alternatives are characterised by inflexible government dictates forced upon the people. But really, capitalism is simply the application of personal freedom to the the realm of economic activity. What do you have against capitalist acts between consenting adults?
What utter nonsense, how are ordinary people going to use “tort law” and “private property rights” to sue a big corporation for using shared resources to despoil the invironment. This has been clearly shown to be no protection, hence the need for regulation and thye failure of free markets. Greed is no way to run the world.
Reply (2) to Marlow:
I’m not sure what points you feel we haven’t addressed. I, for one, reject your premise.
I am not ignorant of ‘free market environmentalism’ as championed by groups in Australia like the IPA. At best ‘free market environmentalism’ may improve efficiency where a market mechanism is applied (such as the use of energy, water) but as a system it is a ‘suicide machine’.
Consider the history and imagine applying ‘free market environmentalism’ to the Tobacco Industry? To the Fishing Industry? To pokies? Or to the forests of Tasmania?
Are you going to wait until Capitalism adapts – until there is an unfettered free market before you begin to play your part to secure the future of human kind?
Our children and grand children will need safe food and clean air and water and may wish to see living oceans and forests.
‘Things are moving so fast that inaction itself is one of the biggest mistakes. The 10,000-year experiment of the settled life will stand or fall by what we do, and don’t do, now. The reform that is needed is not anti-capitalist, anti-American, or even deep environmentalist; it is simply the transition from short-term to long-term thinking. From recklessness and excess to moderation and the precautionary principle.’ (A Short History of Progress by Ronald Wright p 131)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_History_of_Progress
By the way, Capitalism is never ‘simply’.
Marlow,
“Can Capitalism adapt? … In fact, it is the only system that can.”
That is blatantly not true. There is barely a complex system on earth, man-made or natural, that does not have some capability to adapt.
There were a variety of complex market systems across the globe before our industrial capitalism (see Polanyi’s ‘The Great Transformation’ or read Weber). They were resilient over thousands of years. Thus there are many feasible market-based variations that may look nothing like Capitalism as we know it. The trouble is our particular system of market-like mechanisms and ownernship brooks no rivals, thus any new alternatives are quickly extinguished, using the same coercive and violent processes that have ellimated all prior existing alternatives. Just see Monbiot’s recent article “The Promised Land” for a recent example (at monbiot.com).
The problem is that systems may be good at adapting in some ways, and poor in others. Capitalism is excellent at adapting to “satisfy humanity’s ever changing desires”, but it seems incapable of adapting to save itself, or the planet that supports it. It cannot change its own fundamental structure, and the structure it has will result in it destroying itself. I would have thought that this is now obvious to everyone. What is not obvious is how to stop it, and in many regards it is already too late (fish stocks, indigenous systems and societies, land degradation, chemical pollution, etc).
To DD, sem4peter and Matthew Mitchell:
I was initially responding to an attack on an undefined “capitalism”. There are many variants of alleged “capitalism”. When I refer to “capitalism” I am referring to “free market” or “laissez faire” capitalism. My main point, that went unanswered by any of you, is that “capitalism” is an expression of freedom, a system of exchanges of title to property entered voluntarily by all parties to exchanges. That is all it is, “simply” or not. All other economic systems, including variants of capitalism (crony capitalism, mixed economy, state capitalism, etc.) rely on violence to force people to act in accordance with governmental directives. To DD: You are uninformed about tort law. Trial lawyers are very successful representing individuals against large companies. That you wish to call people choosing to enter exchange relationships by the pejorative term “greed” is unfortunate. People in all economic systems want things they consider will improve their lives. Do you condemn them all as greedy”? To sem4peter: If you are familiar with “free market environmentalism” you would be aware economists have demonstrated that the private property rights characteristic of free markets are the best alternative for alleviating the problems you are concerned with: clean air and water, pollution, sustainable forests, etc. Bjorn Lomborg has effectively refuted the environmentalist chicken littles. One question for you. How about we apply the precautionary principle to the policy proposals of environmentalists; that we don’t institute them until it is proven they won’t cause severe economic damage. To Matthew Mitchell; You are correct. I exaggerated saying capitalism is the only adaptable system. However, as businesses must adapt to satisfy the ever changing values of consumers, capitalism is the most adaptable. All other systems are saturated with government intervention, characterised by inflexible rules, indolent bureaucrats who get paid no matter how little they do, corporate capture of the regulatory apparatus protecting the corporate elite from competition thus allowing them to avoid improvement, etc. Your criticisms of capitalism are, as referenced above, applicable not to free markets but to crony capitalism (ultimately fascism). In the end, I side with free markets as all others rely on coercion to achieve their goals. Free markets, respecting everyone’s liberty, rely on cooperation, and that’s the society I want, one based on cooperation, not compulsion.
To Marlow.
Regards your need for a “co-operative free market” might I suggest you read the “Berne declaration-commodities 2012″ a free d/loadable document(390 pages).Plenty of fact and data rather than rhetoric and spreading Rex Tillerson’s new spiel of ‘Adaptation’It is well worth reading as I think it dismisses the argument of how the co-operative free market capitalism imperative works for and on behalf of all,but rather, only really serves the few.
Marlow, I suspect I know more about tort law than you, given I studied it at law school. Now, tort law is useless to protect things that may happen in the future, but is a way or gaining reparations for things that occur that could have been avoided. I don’t think the forest, or the air or the seas, or the fix once they are dead will be able to sue and gain reparation for those negligent industries and individual that caused the carbon pollution. That is all of us? Once we destroy everything, are we then going to sue the big polluters and everything will be OK? Tort law and property rights are no protection for assets which owned by no-one – the air, the seas, the rain, the atmosphere, wildlife, etc. So, your idea is utterly spurious and you obviously haven’t really thought it through very deeply.
It occurs to me that you aren’t really a true free marketeer, since you approve of the regulation that allows our legal and justice system to operate, which is obviously a restraint on the market forces. So, clearly a degree of regulation is OK for you such that our society can function, or else you would be an anarchist. But you aren’t an anarchist. So where do you draw the line on regulation? Of course, there is no such thing as a truly laissez faire market, it could not possibly exist in a world in which there are rules — and that is all of them apart from complete anarchies, which I doubt you seek.
Note: every over-arching ideology fails in practice since none can ever anticipate and account for the true complexity of the world.
I don’t believe that science and technology will rescue us from catastrophe. I believe in the words of George Carlin who summed it up so well:
“The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles … hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages … And we think some plastic bags and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn’t going anywhere. WE are!
We’re going away. Pack your shit, folks. We’re going away. And we won’t leave much of a trace, either. Maybe a little Styrofoam … The planet’ll be here and we’ll be long gone. Just another failed mutation. Just another closed-end biological mistake. An evolutionary cul-de-sac. The planet’ll shake us off like a bad case of fleas.
The planet will be here for a long, long, LONG time after we’re gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, ’cause that’s what it does. It’s a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed. And if it’s true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic. The earth doesn’t share our prejudice toward plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. The earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children. Could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place. It wanted plastic for itself. Didn’t know how to make it. Needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old egocentric philosophical question, “Why are we here?”
Plastic… asshole.”
‘Free market’ principles are applied to the carrying of arms in the US. An average of 8 kids die from guns every day in that country and the National Rifle Association has been filling its war chests for an election campaign in which it expects to spend up to US$30 million opposing President Obama’s campaign.
‘Free market environmentalism’ is in the same mould. It is decidedly political and is part of a neo-con agenda to subvert and distract any meaningful discussion about the economic and social changes needed to avoid catastrophe.
Why do we keep partying? I think many of the “Reasons’ listed above are actually symptoms. The reasons lie a bit deeper buried.
I live in an area that elected Australia’s first Greens MP Adam Bandt to the Lower House of the Federal Parliament. Action on climate change was a major plank in Bandt’s election platform.
There is a high degree of awareness of the importance of climate change as an issue in this electorate. There are several community groups addressing aspects of environmental sustainability within this electorate including the climate action group that I belong to.
I suspect the prevalence of rooftop Solar PV systems, Solar hot water systems, Rainwater collection systems, backyard vegie patches etc. etc compares well with the population as a whole. Questionnaires carried out in the area consistently show high levels of support for renewable energy, setting a price on carbon, winding back the use of fossil fuels etc. The municipal council has committed time and resource to a range of sustainability and climate change related initiatives.
Nevertheless, even in this climatically aware community the number of people prepared to participate in activities directed towards promoting effective climate change policy and action from our various levels of government is vanishingly small as a percentage of the population. The active core of our climate action group numbers not more than twenty. This can be doubled with people on the email list willing to be drafted for particular actions. The total email list of people who wish to be informed of what is going on numbers in the hundreds but the vast majority of these are never seen. Friends and acquaintances regularly congratulate me for my good work on climate change (little as it is) but remain completely disengaged themselves.
Now why is that? It is generally accepted that human action is not solely, or even primarily, motivated by rational thought and argument. Our every action and thought contains inextricably entwined rational and emotional components. The emotional component of our thoughts and actions is engendered by our interpretation of the world through deeply embedded (and largely unconsciously held and applied) frames of reference.
As I understand it these set our ‘default position’. They determine the filter through which we view the world. With all of us experience has taught all of us certain things that shape who we are and condition our thoughts and actions in response to external stimulus. To be convinced, we must feel in both our heart (emotion) and our head (intellect) that the position put to us is ‘right’.
An argument that fails to elicit the appropriate emotional response in the recipient will never engender committed action.
It could be for example that our life experience has taught us that authority figures, parents, teachers, ministers of religion etc are prone to fail us and likely to escape punishment for their misdemeanors. It could be that our life experience is characterized by repeated failures engendering resentment of those who are seen to have succeeded. In either case we may not accept their authority and rational argument to the contrary is unlikely to overcome this default position.
There are many contemporary situations supportive of the view that the powerful exploit the powerless with impunity. The sexual exploitation of vulnerable children by those charged with their care and the dogged protection of the perpetrators by the institutions they represent. The perception that the suffering resulting from the most recent global financial crisis was caused by the rampant unrestrained greed of the world’s financial institutions and that governments collectively failed to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Instances such as these almost certainly contributed to the falling belief in the climate crisis. People whose dominant world view is based around distrust of authority figures ‘know’ in their hearts that such figures are not to be trusted. The world’s climate scientists, along with (for example) CEOs of banks and other financial institutions are relentlessly portrayed by industry deceivers and their lackeys in the conservative media as just another self serving elite out to screw ‘ordinary folks’.
Now the middle class, predominantly well educated, moderately wealthy citizens of inner Melbourne I discussed above do not by and large believe that climate change is a left wing con job perpetrated by greedy corrupt scientists. They believe in climate change and support the transition to a carbon constrained future.
They have insulated their houses, changed their light bulbs and purchased green energy. They have offset the emissions from their latest overseas holiday. They have put in the rainwater tanks and the solar panels. They vote for the Greens, compost, grow their own vegetables and cycle to work. They worry about the worsening climate news and the lack of government action but do not confront the politicians from the major parties with their scandalous failure to take effective action. There is a gap between accepting the threat and taking public action to avert its consequences.
My tentative conclusion from all this navel gazing is as follows:
Our capacity to hasten widespread public acceptance of the implications of climate change by massaging the message in this way or that is limited. Until the fear of the consequences of the growing climate crisis outweighs distrust of the messengers and/or the fear of losing too much of what is still a very comfortable lifestyle we will not have reached the tipping point of public opinion.
To me fear is the key. Are you frightened enough of what the the future holds to take the message directly to the elected ‘focus groupies’ and poll diviners we send to Canberra and Spring Street?
The good folk of my community, surely among Australias greenest, by and large are not – yet. They will spontaneously turn out on the street in their thousands to protest the closure of a live music venue but a demonstration in the name of pressuring the State government to close down a polluting brown coal fired power plant would be lucky to attract a couple of hundred familiar faces.
Until the broad mass of Australians are convinced (perhaps by the return of the el niño drought and fires) that the climate scientists are right and that what is happening directly threatens their well being, the strangle hold of those bodies and industries who demand business as usual over government policy and action, will not be challenged, let alone broken. This will happen but whether it will be in time to save our future bacon is doubtful.
RT @independentaus: Why we keep partying while the world around us burns http://t.co/mdxRcpMY comments worth a 5 min read.
Doug Evans – thank you for your contribution to this discussion. I fear your perspective is right on the mark. History shows that groups that are comfortable with their lot, or groups with power or with wealth seldom voluntarily give it up unless they are faced with a crisis or if it ‘directly threatens their well-being’.
As you say, we are still a long way from the ‘tipping point of public opinion.’
[...] world needs drastic economic and social change if we are to avoid catastrophe, says Peter Johnstone, yet we still keep partying on like there’s [...]