Defending the earth: surveying our options

You are walking alone down a deserted alleyway, and you are suddenly ambushed by a gang of thugs. They want to rob you, take the little that you have- though you get the sense they would not be satisfied unless they beat you, too. Maybe to death. What would you do? What would I do? If I'm composed enough, the first thing I would do is resist the temptation to escape. For, as we all know, "making a run for it" would either enrage the thugs and/or titillate them, giving them the perverse pleasure of chasing me down (and they would, as I'm no athlete). What then? If I have the opportunity, I would attempt to reason with them, trying to persuade them not to attack me: "Here, take what I have . . . We're all in this together - why harm me? . . ." I would hurl whatever argument I could muster. But what if my arguments fail?- a failure signalled by the gang's approach. Perhaps, then, I would attempt to get away. Or maybe- hopefully- I would find the courage to stand firm, come-what-may. Whether I attempt to escape or stand my ground, I find myself in the thugs' clutches. What then? I would fight like hell. I wouldn't offer the other cheek after they've bashed or slashed the first one. I would not yield or surrender; I would fight for my survival. And yet, I would probably also continue trying to reason with them, if their fists permit my words to exit my mouth. In any case, I would fight for my life, even if it means the end of it. Even if it means the end of theirs.

What has this familiar (not-so-) hypothetical got to do with "defending the Earth"? Quite a lot- perhaps everything- and in quite uncanny ways, as I hope to show. For this terrifying scenario is a kind of rough analogy for what we humans are doing to the Earth:attacking it, fighting with it- even warring against it. How so?

Like other earthly creatures, humans have always "used" the Earth in order to survive, often in respectful, ecocentric ways (epitomized by Nature-friendly cultures). But over time, this "use" has turned to large-scale abuse. Throughout recent centuries, a mixture of various attitudes and forces, particularly "human chauvinism"(the notion that we humans are superior to- and can therefore dominate - all other creatures), capitalism, and techno-industrialization, have coalesced into what is now the global neoliberal order, which has been increasingly overpowering the Earth. The gang in the alleyway analogy therefore represents this thuggish System, while the assaulted victim represents the Earth. The power elite wrestles with the world in order to violently extract everything it can from it: money, blood, life.

And so, like the victim in the alleyway, what should we do? What are our options?

We may straightaway dismiss one of the first ideas that might pop into our timid heads: escape. Unlike the hypothetical alleyway scenario, which might allow for the possibility of escape, there is nowhere to hide.

What, then, are our realistic/realizable options?

Note how our victim in the alleyway attempts to reason with the aggressors. Herein lies another parallel between the hypothetical scenario and contemporary society: there are peaceful ways for attempting to transform the global order so that it stops ravaging the Earth. This may occur in various ways.

A first option is that our politicians implement policies that reform the System. I think we would all be content if consequential change could take place this way. But can it? While almost anything may be possible (and I hope effective change occurs this way), I'm sceptical that the requisite reform will be actioned by existing political institutions and their actors, given that they're fundamentally a part of the power elite (or at least its puppets). Why would politicians seek to transform a social order that fosters their own personal wealth and well-being? Why would the System substantially reform itself if it's in its own interests to either not change itself or make changes that actually allow it to wield even greater power?

My scepticism regarding political reform from within is perhaps most ably demonstrated by turning our attention to the way the global order has thus far broached the question of pollution-driven climate-change (why I use the word "question" is explained in another article). We should applaud efforts like the summits in Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Paris in terms of attempting to tackle it. But even Paris 2015, which achieved widespread consensus, produced an agreement that is not legally binding; in other words, countries are not required to abide by the accord. Which means it's probably ultimately ineffective by any genuine standards.

Such disappointments are unsurprising and tend to be doomed from the very beginning. For what we have with such talk-fests is the Systemnegotiating with itself. Not many real concessions are made.

Given that "negotiations" with(in) the global neoliberal order continuously fail, do we therefore have any time left to stand idly by while the System appears to reason with itself with regard to changing itself? It's like waiting for one of the thugs in the alleyway analogy to reason with the others to stop their attack even as it grows more vicious.

We should therefore pursue an alternative, more proactive peaceful option. This option, which requires collaborative action (and is therefore unavailable as an option for the solitary victim in the alleyway scenario), goes by noble names like "non-violent resistance," "civil disobedience," and "people power." Thought leaders and activist groups could harness a worldwide movement that adopts and adapts non-violent strategies in order to reform or even replace the neoliberal System.

But before any of this takes place, what appears to be required is the creation of a blueprint of a truly eco-logical society so that we would know what we are attempting to achieve (unlike, for example, the directionless Occupy Movement). A network of the world's leading thinkers would collectively conceive this blueprint, in the process determining what kind of political-economic structure would be the most environmentally sound. (For more discussion of the idea of a blueprint, refer to my article "The Greater Planetary Good.")

Now, while peaceful reform or replacement of the System would obviously be the most desirable way forward, we would be exceedingly naïve if we assumed that peaceful pressure would succeed. On the contrary, history shows that reform or transformation movements are typically met with resistance from the ruling order. For any real concessions entail surrendering wealth and power to varying degrees. So my wager is that the power elite would desperately fight any peaceful attempts to create the requisite change.

What, then, if the peaceful options are ineffective?

Recalling the alleyway hypothetical, we must have the courage to seriously consider and implement the most radical form of counter-attack, especially when all other options have been exhausted: violent counter-attack. Like the victim in our analogy, we might be forced to violently fight back, kicking and screaming. As confronting as this last option initially appears, it can be rationally justified, at least in terms of self-defence and its corollary- what I call "other-defence."

First, the self-defence argument: like the alleyway assault, the System's attack is unprovoked, and since we humans are of the Earth, we would bedefending ourselves even as we're defending non-human Nature. So there's a strong sense here of any counter-attack being a self-defensive one. And as any reasonable justice system recognizes, self-defence is a rigorous justification for violence.

While the self-defence argument is rigorous to the point of being self-evident, it nonetheless initially appears strange and uncanny in this context- why? I think there are a few basic factors at play here. First of all, unfortunately we human chauvinists consider ourselves apart from the Earth rather than an intrinsic part of it. So we ordinarily misunderstand "ecological violence" as something that is basically inflicted upon the rest of Nature, even though we experience a variety of its consequences.

Furthermore, "ecological violence" is not ordinarily construed as a pervasive systemic attack by the global order but rather as isolated- if sometimes concentrated- acts of environmental devastation by wayward individuals, groups, or corporations. Additionally, the power elite may not recognize itself as an aggressor, but, on the contrary, as the humanity-saving catalyst of political "freedom" and economic "development" (with maybe some "minor ecological side-effects"). These factors obscure the reality: that neoliberalism is at war with the world. Such factors make the self-defence argument appear strange and uncanny.

The other thing to note here is that any violent counter-attack would obviously be more than self-defence, given that we humans obviously are not the only ones who constitute the Earth: by defending ourselves against a ruling order that exploits and oppresses us, we would also be defending a world that cannot defend itself (though one might mount the argument that it is "fighting back" in terms of those natural catastrophes that are possibly/probably being induced by human actions). To the extent that Nature cannot defend itself, in defending ourselves we would also be defending the Earth-others that co-constitute our cosmic home. Our counter-attack would thus be both a self-defence and an "other-defence."

By way of conclusion or non-conclusion: you may have noted that I do not state in my alleyway story who ends up "victorious," leaving the "ending" open-ended, just as we can't say for sure whether neoliberalism will be the ultimate victor. But it's definitely winning. So now is the time when we must urgently work through our options, beginning with- and hopefully only needing to pursue- the peaceful type, thereby peacefully reforming or replacing the System. But we must also ready ourselves for the frightening possibility of a fight to the death.