Two truths about the climate crisis of which I assume the whole world now is aware. Aware of the crisis I mean, not necessarily the truths.
Extracted from the shared article below, so not my idea, but truths nonetheless with which I am in complete agreement – though I may not necessarily agree with every statement in the article.
It is no longer possible to avert a substantial climate catastrophe.
(Please read that again, and again, until the essence of it sinks in)
Global capitalism must be toppled in order for the human race to have a future.
(That is what the article says. Personally, I would render Truth 2 much more strongly. Like this: (Capitalism in all its forms must be renounced and removed in order for the human race to have any sort of medium to long term future.)
Ask yourself, and only you can decide this, do you have any real understanding of what those truths mean in a practical sense? It doesn’t matter whether you agree with them or not, but do you understand them?
If you do fully grasp what they entail, and you agree with them or at some point down the road you begin to realise how true they are, then you will undoubtedly recognise the sheer futility and even the danger in supporting any form of climate change action.
Why does that follow? It follows because a) under Truth 1, it is pointless to try to avert something that is inevitable ie. the coming catastrophe, and b) under Truth 2, any and all human driven climate change action will require money (resources and energy also, but lets just take ‘money’ for now), and money is a concept of capitalism which, if you are still reading this, you have come to agree – or you completely misunderstood the meaning of the truths – must be renounced and removed. Even obliterated, if you prefer that strong a term.
Can you now see the pointlessness of climate action? In fact can you now see the pointlessness of doing anything that you normally do, other than working towards the renunciation and removal of capitalism?
Which brings me to my final point. An article which correctly recognises and espouses such truths and then makes statements like the shared article does in its final paragraph (and I have yet to find such an article that doesn’t do that), loses quite a lot of its integrity (in my view).
“TO ADAPT TO THE ESCALATING CLIMATE CRISIS, MERE REFORM WILL NOT BE ENOUGH” – an article published on Wrong Kind Of Green, October 16, 2019, written by Rainer Shea
That final paragraph is quoted below for convenience:
“In the coming years, we’re not going to be living out a scenario where capitalism changes itself into something sustainable. We’re counting down to the collapse of civilization’s current configuration and, in my view, all that can save us now is the construction of a new ecosocialist civilization in its place.”
“What’s wrong with that,” you may ask? Well, what makes it a blooper for me is the concept of “…the construction of a new ecosocialist civilization in its place.“
Is ‘replacing’ (“in its place”) a defunct form of civilisation based on a defunct economic theory with yet another defunct form of civilisation based on a yet another defunct economic theory, not simply setting humanity up for a repeat performance of the same kind of tragedy?
Perhaps that is our destiny – to constantly repeat the same tragedy over and over again.
But why can we conceive any possible human experiment only in terms of ‘civilisation’?
If in fact we are given the opportunity to begin again at some future point in time, and that is by no means certain, and it is equally certain that there are unlikely to be enough of us left to form groups of a size sufficient to ensure long-term survival of the species in any given area of the planet to even worry about concepts like ‘civilisation’, for centuries to come and perhaps for millennia. By which time we will have most likely forgotten everything that went on before – our knowledge limited to those things that we have of necessity learned to do by hand since the catastrophe.
So, to call for a new form of civilisation at this stage of play is entirely ridiculous.
Do you now understand the full meaning of the two truths?