Written by Eric Schechter and first published at Dandelion Salad
This morning
an acquaintance of mine emailed me a link to Jem Bendell’s article “Deep Adaptation.”
Following is a slightly revised copy of the reply I sent to him:
That “Deep
Adaptation” article really seems to be getting around — I get the impression
that a lot more people are reading it. I read it when I first ran across it
half a year ago, and again a couple of months ago when a friend of mine sent it
to me. I agree with only a little of it:
It says,
among other things, that our climate problem is much more dire and urgent than
most people have previously realized. I agree with that, and I’m glad to see
that more people are realizing that now.
However, I
find its distinction between “collapse” and “catastrophe” confusing. And I am
doubtful that any kind of “adaptation” — deep or otherwise — is possible.
Here are the
two paths that I see before us:
(1) Worldwide
ecosocialist revolution within the next couple of years, changing everything,
and fixing the climate to some degree. That requires waking up most of humanity
to an understanding vastly
different from anything they have ever imagined. It’s not likely that we’ll
follow this path, but I’m still advocating for it; I haven’t given up hope yet.
(2) The
capitalists retain their grip on power. They continue to block any changes that
would cut into their short-term profits, regardless of how this destroys
everyone’s future including their own. And the destruction is coming much
bigger and faster than most people realize.
(The reason
the capitalists do this is because they are not some unified “Illuminati.” They
are in cutthroat competition against each other, and each says “I just have to
make a buck for myself right now, I’ll leave it to someone else to clean up the
mess.”)
Already,
climate change has begun to cause crop failures, rising food prices, and large
numbers of refugees. Uncle Sam’s psychopathic foreign policies add to the
number of refugees.
All that will
increase, and within a few years we’ll see massive famines, and the end of any
organized human society, i.e., “civilization.” Most humans will die. I’m
estimating this catastrophe will happen by 2035, but I have no precise
timetable or specific evidence — I’m just eyeballing what I see happening
around me. Keep in mind that the processes are exponential, not linear.
Some “back to
nature” idiots believe that the aforementioned catastrophe will stop global
warming, and a few bands of roving humans will find a way to adapt. Those
idiots are mistaken. We have set into motion some major feedback loops that no
longer depend on the carbon emissions of a large number of humans. (For
instance, the warming melts the ice, replacing white reflecting surface with darker
non-reflecting surface, increasing the sunlight that the planet captures, hence
more warming.) And it is unlikely that we can do anything to stop those
feedback loops, once civilization has ended.
And so the
warming will continue until all the ice has melted, all the forests have
burned, and all the phytoplankton have died. By then all the wildlife will be
dead, and all the humans too. I’m expecting this by 2045, though again I have
no precise timetable or specific evidence. (I laugh ironically at all the
newspaper headlines about cities flooding in the year 2100.)
Elon Musk
dreams of flying to Mars, but there’s no need: Mars is coming here. And if he
does get to Mars, and if his closed-ecosystem biodomes somehow are viable
despite their severe lack of diversity, he is bringing to Mars the same
capitalist mentality that is killing Earth — and that most people on Earth,
even most climate activists, still don’t
see.
Good luck to
us all. Viva la revoluciĆ³n.
A third possibility is that over an extended period of time neither 'side' triumphs on a worldwide scale. I haven't read it for decades but have been meaning to dig out Ursula LeGuin's 'The Dispossessed' where she describes parts of the world clinging to the 'old' competitive, destructive ways and being materially better off whilst other parts of the world are less materially well off but engage in a co-operative, ecological way of being. This seems entirely plausible to me given the continuing divisions within the international ruling class which make it unable to work together to police enough of the world to keep it quiet......
ReplyDeleteIt might start like that, but this needs to happen all over the world, or least most of it, if it is to be effective.
ReplyDelete