Open Letter to Prince Charles

In response to his call for a Sustainability Revolution.

Dear Prince Charles

In your book, Harmony, you say the following:

“The Earth is under threat”. It cannot cope with all that we demand of it . . . If we want to hand on to our children and grandchildren a much more durable way of operating in the world, then we have to embark on what I can only describe as a ‘Sustainability Revolution’ - and with some urgency”.

I agree entirely.

Influenced - like you, I suspect - by books such as E F Schumacher’s Small is Beautiful, Meadow’s The Limits to Growth, and Herbert Gruhl’s Ein Planet wird Gepündert (We are Plundering our Planet), the whole essence of which is contained in its title, I came to this same conclusion in the early 1970s - more than 40 years ago!

Clearly, you were also an early convert to the realisation that we couldn’t carry on as we were, but needed a radical change of values and behaviour, in respect to the economy and the grossly materialistic lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations it engendered and depended on. We were placing an increasingly unsustainable drain and strain on the finite natural resources and carrying capacity of our vulnerable and already (even back then) overpopulated planet, which the very survival of our civilisation clearly depended on us putting an end to. There HAD to be a Sustainability Revolution.

I was young and naively expected those in positions of power and influence to recognise this too and take appropriate action. I was greatly encouraged by many eminent individuals, including yourself, who clearly shared my perspective and concerns.

When I eventually realised that, despite all the fine words and good intentions, the radical change of course towards a sustainable economy and ways of life wasn’t happening, and wasn’t going to happen  (on the contrary, the socio-economic order of consumer capitalism responsible in the West for our suicidal direction of travel, was emphatically endorsed by our leaders and put into “turbo mode”), I set my mind to trying to understand the cause of such madness. How could such an intelligent race as our own, capable of putting men on the Moon, be so blind and stupid when it came to the existential need to develop a sustainable global economy and ways of life?

It took a long time, but eventually I discovered what I believe to be the answer. Again, despite being older and wiser, I naively expected those in positions of authority in academia, to recognise the importance of my discovery; but again - thus far, at least - this hasn’t happened. When I’ve tried to communicate my insights and ideas to academics and others, they have not listened, or, if they have, have dismissed them, usually with distain as a form of “social Darwinism” - which I’ll come back to.

The obvious explanation for my ideas being ignored or dismissed is, of course, that they are rubbish, that I am deluding myself about their importance. After all, who am I to judge? 

Then again, who is anyone to judge?  We look to academics as authorities in understanding the human condition and situation, but as my discovery (which is indeed based on a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective) reveals, it is a mistake to expect academics to have a realistic understanding of the society, state and economy they themselves, like everyone else, are utterly dependent on, and thus quite incapable of viewing objectively.

Undeterred by the lack of academic interest in my ideas, I’ve continued to develop them and explore their implications for understanding human nature and behaviour (individual, social, political and economic) which evolved, in the natural and very tribal environment as it existed for human beings long before the first states and civilisations emerged from it.

From what I know of your views, you look to “old wisdom” as your main source of inspiration in facing up to the existential challenge of achieving a Sustainability Revolution, while my inspiration is based on the relatively “new wisdom” generally associated with the name of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. I don’t reject the “old wisdom”, where it makes good sense, but see it as part of our historical heritage, which is a mixed bag of ideas and values, which need to be assessed very critically.

The Abrahamic idea of man being a sinner, i.e. a fallen angel, for having disobeyed divine (i.e. priestly/state) authority is a very bad idea, or at least, one well past its sell-by date. I see man very differently, as an aspiring ape. We have to rise above our primitive Darwinian nature, but first we must acknowledge and develop an understanding of it, rather than making it a taboo, which a previous generation of academics did in overreaction to the Nazis having hijacked and abused, for their own evil purposes, the half-baked ideas of social Darwinism

So, what does an evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, perspective tell us about ourselves and our situation, which academics, because of their self-interested blindness to the true nature of the state and the taboo they themselves put in place, are missing?

First of all, it tells us that the human brain must have evolved to want (subconsciously more than consciously) to maintain the environment on which it depends and has been “successful” in. Clearly, we ALL depend on the socio-economic status quo and don’t want it changing to our own personal disadvantage.

This means that everyone who is anyone in society, whose “success” within it has given them any degree of power or influence, is the least inclined to want radical change. Or if, like you, they recognise the vital need for radical change, they will, nevertheless, still be subconsciously very much inclined to envisage only the kind of changes which preserve their own privileged position within the changed socioeconomic order/environment.

This is a difficult obstacle to get around, rather like trying to jump over one’s own shadow. We have to trick our brain into recognising what it (subconsciously) doesn’t want to recognise, either ignoring or rationalising it. It is a difficult trick to pull off, not least, because we can never be sure that we have succeeded, are not just rationalising and deceiving ourselves at a deeper level. We have to remain sceptical and self-critical.

If I feel with some confidence that I have got closer than most to the truth, it is because mainstream (academic) understanding of the human condition and situation is so badly misconceived, the academic brain being no different from other human brains in respect to its inclination to rationalise the state and status quo to suit its own, personal, self-interests. 

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, academics are privileged clients and employees of their respective "patron state", with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as a "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial/formerly religious), on which the state bases its claims to moral and knowledgeable authority.

Secondly, a human-evolutionary perspective reveals how the state and the society associated with it conflate and confound very different aspects of the original tribal environment in which human nature evolved, with the so-called “nation state” now deceitfully posing as our tribe or nation (intra- and inter-tribal environment) itself, while at the same time facilitating society’s SELF-exploitation (as an extra-tribal environment, on a par with the natural environment) to the personal advantage of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients, at the expense of society at large and its long-term survival.

This is why all past civilisations were bound to a cycle of boom and bust which eventually led to their demise, as happened to ancient Greek and Roman civilisation. 

Our own civilisation is bound to the same cycle. The present, unprecedented, boom phase, will soon be followed by an equally unprecedented and likely terminal bust phase. 

Our failure to face up to the challenge of a sustainability revolution will, of course, play a major role in our civilisation’s demise. But so long as we fail to recognise the true nature of the state and its primary role of facilitating society’s self-exploitation, there is no way we can rise to this challenge.

I’m not a doom-monger, any more than you are when you warn of the dire consequences of us failing to achieve sustainability, but a realist - and an optimist. 

If we continue on our present course, we are doomed. That’s just a fact that you and I have been aware of for a long time. It is probably too late now to avoid a degree of civilisational collapse in the decades ahead, which will be terrible enough, but we could still reduce its scale, overall damage to the biosphere and bio-diversity, and greatly increase our children’s and grandchildren’s chances of survival and recovery.

However, before we can embark on the Sustainability Revolution in earnest, we have to develop a much better understanding of society and the state, along the lines I have indicated above.

As heir to the British throne, you are in a uniquely influential position to promote such an understanding and to play a leading role in the revolution that would follow from it.

The question is, are you up to it?

I’m optimistic, but at the same time realistic in respect to just how big a challenge this would be for you.

All I can do is present my ideas and hope that they resonate with you.

Best regards

Roger Hicks

P.S. I know, you receive piles of letters every week and are very unlikely to actually read this one. For this reaon, I will publish it as an open letter on my blog, where others might also read it, and who knows, perhaps someone who knows you personally will recognise its relevance and bring it to your attention.

My BLOG.

P.P.S. A few years ago I watched live coverage of the Queen's Speech to both houses of Parliament, in which your mother read out the government’s plans for the coming legislative period.  

My overwhelming impression was of it being a ritual humiliation of the monarch, who is required to present the government’s plans as if they were her own, when everyone knows they are not.  

You will be expected to do the same in due course and, given public knowledge of your views on many issues, I shudder at the thought of you allowing yourself to be similarly humiliated, especially in view of you usually having more enlightened ideas than any British government is likely to have.

What's Preventing the Sustainability Revolution?

This was my submission to the Conservative Party's Quality of Life Policy Group, which I never received any feedback to and had pretty much forgotten about. I've just rediscovered it and thought I'd post it to my blog.

An evolutionary/anthropological approach to the root causes of the "Sustainability Problem"

Revised version: 11 Feb 07

When tackling big problems, we are often encouraged to "think outside the box", but when someone actually does so – as I have – and comes up with insights and ideas that don't fit nicely into any of the existing boxes, they tend to be ignored or ridiculed.

This tendency to ignore, ridicule, or otherwise resist ideas that would challenge or undermine the status quo is not surprising in view of what is known about human cognition, the fact that we don't experience reality itself, but an interpretation of it, produced by our brains, which it adapts to be more-or-less consistent with the view we already have of the world, and is thereby very strongly influenced by past and present interpretations of experiences, as well as by our dependencies and vested interests.

The view we have of the existing socio-economic order is no exception, and because from birth we are all totally immersed in, familiar with and dependent on it, and because of the anxiety it would cause if we did, our brains, which evolved in, and to cope with, totally different circumstances, actively prevents us from recognizing its inherent non-sustainability. This accounts for our collective blindness to the perilous impact our economy and way of life are having on our finite and vulnerable planet, and the threat they pose, if not immediately to ourselves, certainly to our children and grandchildren.

Global warming is just one major consequence of an underlying "Sustainability Problem" that we should have faced up to 30 years ago, when publications such as "The Limits to Growth" by Meadows et. al. first drew broad public attention to the fact that an ever increasing population of technologically empowered, but essentially insatiable human beings (still dominated by their animal nature and behaviour), is placing an unsustainable drain and strain on Earth's finite resources and carrying capacity. Instead, because of the enormous implications for our economy and way of life, and all the vested interests in continuing with "business (and pleasure) as usual", we went (allowed ourselves to be led) into collective denial. Which, essentially, is where we still are - virtually everyone, although some more than others - but now struggling both to and not to face up to the situation as the effects of our increasing impact on the planet become ever more apparent and threatening. 

At the moment, despite all the talk about the environment, sustainability and saving the planet, we have yet to face up to the sheer scale and magnitude of the Problem. The threat it poses is terrifying, which only adds to our reluctance to face up to it; but continuing to bury our heads in the sand will not make it go away. On the contrary, like an approaching tsunami, it will engulf and destroy us if we refuse to recognise the threat. Only by facing up to it can we avoid - or at least, reduce the impact of - the approaching catastrophe, by creating sustainable economies and ways of life (for 7-9 billion! people) in our own (humane) way. 

If WE fail to do so, a ruthless Mother Nature will do it for us. The climate change we are witnessing is her just "warming up" for the job. If it entails reducing human numbers by 100's or even 1000's of millions, that is what she will do. She is not squeamish. The poor will suffer first, of course, as always, but for once we really are ALL in the same boat, Spaceship Earth, rich and poor alike.

We urgently need to face up to the ROOT CAUSE of the "Sustainability Problem", which lies in our animal nature. Unsurprisingly, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins, it is in our animal nature and behaviour that the existing socio-economic order (our economy and way of life) is rooted, and which free-market capitalism developed, naturally enough, both to serve and exploit.

Human emotions and behaviour evolved over millions of years to serve the individual and their family group in the struggle for survival and advantage in the "natural environment" (which included other, rival, groups of humans). With the advent of civilisation, for the individual, this Darwinian (blind, dumb-animal) struggle transferred to an artificial, "socio-economic environment", where - greatly facilitated by the development of free-market capitalism - it continues as the driving force of most human (particularly economic) activity. Only now it is driving us towards disaster, because, as things are, we cannot help but give priority to economics (the household of man in the artificial, "socio-economic environment"), rather than to ecology (the household of our planet in the natural environment), despite it being obvious (were we not blinded by familiarity and dependency) that human survival urgently demands the opposite.

From birth, we are ALL totally immersed in, familiar with and dependent on the existing socio-economic order, making it virtually impossible - not least, because of the anxiety it would cause - for us to recognise its INHERENT non-sustainability.

Man is not a fallen angel, but an animal; not just a "prime ape" (if you will excuse the pun, and the one that follows) but Earth's Greatest  Ape, who greatly and dangerously overestimates his powers of understanding and reason; like a child, and misled by his scientific name - Homo sapiens, indeed!  The failure to recognise the extent of our own blindness and irrationality (except in others, of course) is the biggest underlying threat to human survival (and, incidentally, the principal reason for my opposition to the large-scale use of nuclear energy).

The truth - which far from fitting into any boxes, threatens to rupture or sweep many of them away (thus, the massive resistance to facing up to it) - is that our growth-dependent economy and the grossly materialistic way of life it engenders are both rooted in our primitive, animal nature and, as a consequence, are fundamentally unsustainable. 

Mine is an anthropological approach to the "Sustainability Problem". It is an approach which needs to be applied to ALL the social sciences: history, politics, sociology, economics, etc. The reason it is not is that social scientists too, like everyone else, are blinded by their own total dependency on the existing socio-economic order and environment, and on the niches they occupy within it.

In view of everyone's absolute dependency on, and vested interests in, the status quo, implementing the radical changes necessary for Sustainability would be quite impossible, with everyone naturally inclined to preserve their own niche and advantages (social status, source of income etc.) in the existing socio-economic environment. This is why there has been so much talk and argument about global warming, but so little action; and the action which has or is intended be to taken barely scratches the surface, without going anywhere near solving the Problem.

The solution is not to try changing the existing order, but to create an Alternative, within, but distinct from and increasingly independent of it, which, as it grows, we can transfer our activities, dependencies and vested interests to - each of us, when we are ready and at our own pace, bit by bit, and without coercion, which would be counterproductive, evoking strong (if not violent) resistance from our animal nature, in defence of its interests in the existing socio-economic order. 

By “we” I mean those of us who have come out of denial (to some extent at least) and recognized what is at stake, for our children and coming generations. Surely, there can be no greater motivation than that. The way forward is for us to use the Internet to self-organize into groups, and groups of groups ("nonymous religious societies", which I will explain in due course), which will further self-organize and interact, gradually replacing the existing socio-political order (initially, some politicians are not going to like it, but hopefully most can be won over). There will be as many "nonymous religious societies" as are needed to cater for everyone. If you cannot find one you like, you can get together with like-minded individuals and found your own. Genuine, grass-roots democracy will come into its own, with people free to pursue their own enlightened (as opposed to dumb-animal) self-interest. And what greater self-interest can there be than saving the planet for our children and future generations?

We have allowed ourselves to be deceived and dominated for far too long by our own animal nature and a socio-economic order that is rooted in and dependent on it (expending much of our brain power in rationalizing and justifying it). We have to create an alternative socio-economic order, rooted in our more enlightened human nature. Otherwise we will perish.

If this all sounds rather idealistic it is because at the moment that is what it is: just an idea – for preserving the planet for our children and future generations. Although the rudimentary beginnings of such an Alternative are already in existence (organic farming, fair trade, recycling, renewable resources, cooperative rather than exploitative and competitive economics, etc.), they lack a coherent theoretical and moral framework that would provide a clear and distinct alternative to the existing socio-economic order. This is what urgently needs to be developed and put into practice, grass-roots democratically, with experience feeding back into theory and further development.

Diversity is what gives the natural world beauty and stability. For the past 400 years or so, ever increasing globalization, and the absolute priority given (by our animal nature) to economics and MONEY (the most versatile form of POWER), have been reducing diversity in all its forms, biological and human (not least, in the name of “multi-culturalism”). We need to give priority, not to economics, but to Sustainability, and to retaining and cultivating human, social, economic and biological diversity.

I know how tempting it must be to dismiss me and my ideas to the lunatic fringe, but please don't; at least, not until you have given them serious, unhurried consideration. You've nothing to lose, but possibly a whole world to gain.

Each foot of coastline contains five bags of plastic

This is a satirical response to a report in today's Telegraph (LINK) about the amount of plastic polluting the Earth's oceans. The comment I posted in the Telegraph was rather spoiled by the moderation, so I'm posting an unmoderated version of it here:

Why such a negative attitude?

Surely, all this waste in our oceans is an indicator of wealth creation, economic growth and PROGRESS.

And besides, the planet is OUR property and if we choose to trash it, that's our business and no one else's.

I'm sick of all these environmental freaks who want to "save the planet" for future generations, telling us what we should and shouldn't do.

What have future generations ever done for us? Bugger all! So bugger them is what I say . . . !!

I shall continue screwing the planet to my hearts content - because I'm worth it. And I don't give a shit about the future. Why should I? I'll be dead and gone!

Western Economies Staring into the Abyss

In response to an article in today’s Telegraph by Jeremy Warner, “Is the world doomed to suffer another Depression?”

“. . with Western economies once more staring into the abyss . . . . there is little or no consensus about what needs to be done.”

Because the global capitalist-consumer economy – on which we all depend, and are thus loath to question – is built on sand, which business people, investors, economists and the politicians they advise are, thus far, psychologically incapable of recognising and facing up to, rationalising this behaviour by insisting that the only alternative would be “socialism” which has been tried and rejected as being far worse, notwithstanding all its faults, than consumer capitalism.

It’s fascinating and frightening to observe how such highly esteemed, intelligent and well educated people, as all the leading social science academics who advise our business and political elites surely are, can still be so blind towards and deceived about human nature, the society (social, political and economic structures) it has given rise to over the centuries and our situation within it, and when anyone (like me) tries pointing it out, we are simply dismissed as unqualified crackpots – just as those questioning the literal truth of the Christian gospels or belief in an Earth-centred universe were in earlier times . . .

The denied or trivialised truth is that our economic system is deeply rooted in man’s Darwinian nature, which is why, in many respects, it works so well – because it comes naturally to us, appealing to our inherent drives.

Only, Darwinian evolution adapted us to a tribal environment VERY different from the artificial environment which now constitutes civilisation, and behaviours and motivations which once served our survival are now leading to our self-destruction.

We deceive ourselves into believing that we are a “rational animal”, guided by reason, when in fact we are far more a “rationalising animal”, interpreting reality to suit our own, largely preconceived and socially preconditioned, narrow and short-sighted self-interests.

Until we recognise and develop an understanding of the perverted Darwinian nature of our civilisation and situation, we are doomed to suffer the blind Darwinian fate of an animal no longer adapted to its environment.

The Problem is Our Low Birth Rate?

My response to the claim, made in a comment on my Telegraph blog (The Union Flag) that “the white man’s problem is his low birthrate.”

I couldn’t disagree more. Our low birth rate is a BLESSING. It is a tragedy that we fail to recognise that. What we need is quality, not quantity.

Our planet is already unsustainably overpopulated, certainly given the kind of lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations most people are currently pursuing or aspiring to. But never mind exceeding Earth’s carrying capacity, as we are currently doing; as a species, we need to live WELL within its limits, leaving ourselves plenty of room for manoeuvre when environmental conditions change, as they surely will.

We urgently need to stabilise and start reducing the global population – something our own, white race, is already doing. Instead of worrying about our decreasing numbers and bringing in immigrants to make up for them (which is utter madness!), we should be rejoicing at the fact, and adapting ourselves, i.e. society, to the changing demographics.

What’s happening at the moment is that Europeans are being displaced and replaced by migrating and faster breeding non-European races, which is very Darwinian, of course: survival of the fittest and all that. From a primitive Darwinian perspective, Europeans seem to be flawed, thus accounting for our absolute and relative decline in numbers, to the advantage of less flawed (dare I say, “superior”) races.

However, what from a primitive Darwinian perspective seems to be a flaw, isn’t, if we want to avoid a primitive and brutal Darwinian struggle for resources and survival with our fellow humans, which a ruthless Mother Nature would, as a matter of course, subject other, less intelligent, species to; this being the way that evolution works!

We have the knowledge and intelligence to transcend our primitive Darwinian nature and avoid this brutal struggle within our own species, but at the moment it doesn’t look as though we are going to use them, because of our blindness to the way in which our Darwinian drive for survival and reproductive success, misplaced in the artificial environment of human civilisation itself, has been perverted to a struggle for individual advantage, POWER and riches.

Paradigm Lost, Paradigm Gained

We are trapped in a paradigm which prevents us recognising and facing up to the two principal existential problems now threatening to put a premature end to our civilisation: 1) the inherent non-sustainability of rapacious, consumer-capitalism, and 2) the liberal-fascist/statist ideology (not coincidentally, the exact, but equally extreme, opposite of Nazi racial ideology) used to impose the madness of mass immigration and multi-ethnic society on us, by equating the natural ethnic basis of national identity with “racism”.

This paradigm (which we urgently need to “lose”, i.e. replace with a more realistic, rational, humane and sustainable paradigm) equates STATE and NATION, so that however the former chooses to define itself (whether racially “pure”, like the Nazi state, or “multi-ethnic” like the liberal-fascist state) it remains a NATION, with a legitimate claim to its citizens’ loyalty.

The truth, however, is that the STATE is not our NATION, and never was, but only poses as such, in order to fulfil its perverted Darwinian purpose of facilitating “society’s” self-exploitation as a human environment, to the advantage of power, wealth, privilege and now, of course, “talent”.

The STATE and consumer-capitalism are mutually dependent on each other, and on the madness of perpetual economic growth, to provide ever-increasing material wealth for individuals and revenue stream for the state, without which the mercenary democratic STATE cannot survive, because of its vassals (voters and party donors) insatiable demands. The obvious fact that such a system is inherently unsustainable (as well as unjust and inhumane), on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet, is simply ignored, as if under some form of collective post-hypnotic suggestion, because trapped in the existing socio-economic paradigm.

The STATE, has always demonised and suppressed its subjects inherent tribal nature and its free and spontaneous expression, in order to co-opt, manipulate and exploit it for its own ends. This is what the Nazi state did in one particularly extreme and unpleasant form; it is also what our own liberal-fascist state is currently doing in an oppositely extreme and (not so obviously) unpleasant form. It brings different races and ethnicities together in the name of DIVERSITY, which it then destroys, i.e. homogenises, in the melting pot of the multi-ethnic state.

The alternative paradigm is a new, grass-roots-democratic, Nationalism of Good Nationalists, as opposed to the state nationalism we have only known up until now. A nationalism based on “love of ones own (nation) and respect for others”. It’s a paradigm in harmony with our healthy (as opposed to perverted) Darwinian and tribal nature.

Being grass-roots-democratic, it is up to US work out the details. So what are we waiting for?

It goes without saying, I hope, that this revolution, i.e. change of paradigm, must, if it is to succeed, proceed peacefully. It’s a revolution which will take place in our heads and hearts, rather than on the streets.

The Approaching Limits to Growth

An increasing number of reports (e.g. “A global energy war looms“, in today’s Telegraph) of looming energy and food shortages, depletion of other scarce natural resources (such as rare earth metals), environmental degradation, climate change and overpopulation, makes me think that we are now fast approaching the “limits to growth” on our finite and vulnerable planet, predicted decades ago – at least since the early 1970s – but effectively ignored by politicians, business interests and the media, who wanted to continue, not just with business and consumption as usual, but by putting consumer-capitalism into turbo mode, so that NOW, instead of having turned the super tanker, which is the global economy, away from the rocks of non-sustainability, or at least being well on the way to doing so, we are STILL heading directly towards them, only even faster (and with DOUBLE the population) than we were before.

Tragically, it seems, the magnitude of the catastrophe we are heading towards will only be recognised in retrospect, by those who survive; who will wonder, WHY those in positions of power and influence, especially in academia and the media, where the best educated, most intelligent and, one would have hoped, impartial, with their central role in advising governments and shaping public opinion, reside, were so BLIND and DEAF to all the warnings.

In fact, it would be a good idea to start wondering about it NOW, because although it is surely too late to prevent the supertanker, Global Economy, from striking the rocks of Earth’s finite resources and carrying capacity, and the massive loss of life which will accompany it, it is not too late to reduce the impact of the catastrophe and loss of life, and increase, at least our OWN children’s chances of survival and recovery.

Recognising Anti-Social Behaviour

The police are right to stop children picking daffodils, is the title of a Telegraph article which I pretty much agreed with and commented on.

The anti-social behaviour (which is what it is) shown by these parents, who allowed their children to pick whole bunches of flowers in a public park, reminds me of those people who don’t bother to pick up the mess their dogs leave on the pavement for others to tread in.

It also reminds me of bankers bonuses and the kind of grotesquely unfair (and thus also anti-social) income differentials they represent.

“Picking” millions annually from the economy, it seems to me, is no less anti-social than picking daffodils in a public place. It’s just that the former is perfectly legally (because the state “traditionally” favours power and wealth), while the other is not.

I don’t have a problem with income differentials, provided they are fair and proportionate, any more than I have a problem with someone picking a couple of flowers in the park. But when they pick a whole bunch of flowers in the park, or take millions from the economy, that is no longer proportionate or fair and undermines social cohesion and solidarity.

Picking “just a couple” of flowers in the park can be a problem too – if there’s a limited number and a lot of people picking them, which also serves as a good analogy for sustainable/unsustainable human behaviour on our finite, vulnerable and overpopulated planet:

When a few million (even 10s of millions) of people want to drive their own cars and fly off on holiday once or twice a year, it’s not a problem, since quite sustainable. However, when a few billion people want to do the same there is a problem, because unsustainable.

Oil Price Shock that’s no Surprise

I posted a rather depressing – although quite realistic – comment on the thread of an article in last Friday’s Telegraph, “Oil price shock; you ain’t seen nothing yet“, which I followed with another, more optimistic one, both of which I though worth posting here on my blog.

First post:

“Oil price shock“

Why the “shock” or surprise? Many of us have seen this coming for decades and been warning about it.

We should have started moving away from a fossil-fuel based economy decades ago, when the necessity was made abundantly clear in numerous publications, but our political and business leaders weren’t interested. Nor the media, which encouraged people not to worry but to follow their leaders example and continue with business and consumption as usual.

The Telegraph was – as it still largely is – particularly dismissive of suggestions that the economy needed to be placed on a sustainable basis.

Still, why should I worry? By the time things start to turn really nasty here in western Europe, with a bit of luck, I shall be dead and gone.

Sorry kids! I’m afraid that we – your parents and grandparents – have screwed up on you. But don’t think we didn’t want the best for you. We did. We were just too stupid, too greedy, too complacent, too distracted (by work, shopping, holidays, providing for YOU etc.) to realise that we were screwing up.

2nd Post:

Despite the above post, and the inherent non-sustainability of our rapacious, growth- and fossil-fuel and other non-renewable-resource depend economy, along with the grossly materialistic lifestyles and lifestyle aspirations it both engenders and depends upon, I see no reason (or excuse) for resignation or despair.

We may not be able to avoid the approaching global catastrophe, but we CAN still reduce its scale and increase our children’s prospects for survival and recovery. The only question is HOW?

Obviously, the first thing an increasing number of people need to do, is come out of denial. Otherwise there’s no hope at all. Keeping our heads in the sand may serve us well, personally, who are soon going to be dead and gone, but that’s hardly a responsible attitude to take towards our children and grandchildren, who will still be alive (hopefully) long after, and who many want children and grandchildren of their own . . .

Then we need to develop an understanding of our situation and how we got into it – why our political and business leaders, aided by the media, led us into denial, instead of facing up to the threat when it was being pointed out to us.

I spent most of the 70s expecting politicians to face up to the issue of sustainability, and then most to the 80s and 90s trying to understand why they weren’t. Why instead, and insanely, they were leading us into denial and encouraging us to carry on with business and life as usual.

The answers I eventually came up with and am still working on (which are in urgent need of being extended and clarified) are based on a human-evolutionary, i.e. Darwinian, approach to understanding human nature and the social, political, religious and economic power structures it has given rise to over the centuries.

Our situation is essentially a consequence and expression of our own, perverted, Darwinian nature. Only by developing an understanding of it, rather than continuing to deny or rationalise it, is there any hope of us solving our existential 

The Straw(s) that Broke the Camel's Back

Everyone has heard about the straw that broke the camel's back - and perhaps wondered, whose straw was to blame?

Paradoxically the answer is no one's and everyone's.

But that is assuming, of course, that each person placed just a single, or the same number of straws on the camel's back. The answer is rather different if some people place more straws on its back than others.

Let the camel represent Earth's finite carrying capacity, on which each of us has to place a certain number of straws in order to live. Although we do not know exactly how many it can carry, we can be sure that there is a limit - which will be exceeded if increasing numbers of people continue to pile on more and more straws.

Insanely, this is exactly what we are doing. Everyone can pile as many straws onto the camel's back as they have - or can borrow - the money to pay for, and are encouraged to do so, not just by their natural inclinations, but also by a growth-dependent economy and multi-billion dollar credit and advertising industries.

This constitutes what I call the Insanity of Normality, which is difficult to recognise (except in flashes, which we are quickly distracted from and forget about), because we are all so familiar with and dependent on it.

The obsession with economic growth

“David Cameron must reassure us that he has a strategy for growth”

 It is THIS belief in the paramount importance of “economic growth” which is the REAL problem. Trouble is that it lies so deep and underlies so much (forming the very foundation of our economy) that it is obviously very difficult – especially for politicians and newspaper editors – to recognise.

The obsession with economic growth is a seemingly more benign expression of the earlier obsession with military might. It’s all about POWER, as it relates to man’s perverted Darwinian nature, which, having given rise to civilisation, is now driving us towards self-destruction. And, because we fail to recognise it, there is nothing we can do to prevent it.

Continued on my blog:

I’ve been trying to point this out to Telegraph editors and others for years, but it is like trying to point out the absurdity of their literal interpretation of the Bible to Jehovah Witnesses: no one is as blind as he who will not see, especially when confirmed in their blindness by most of their peers and superiors.

But who am I to tell the esteemed editors of the Telegraph, or anyone else, that they are blind? Perhaps, if I were to explain HOW they are blinded . . . ? It didn’t have any effect on the Jehovah Witnesses I’ve attempted explaining it to, although, to be honest, I didn’t push it with them, because they obviously have a strong social and personal/psychological need to believe what they do, and are harmless enough; their absurd beliefs and blindness to reality are not leading to our self-destruction, as belief in the imperative of economic growth is.

Post-hypnotic suggestion offers an impressive demonstration of how we can be deliberately blinded to normally quite obvious aspects of reality, and examples of how OTHERS are naturally blinded to aspects of reality, we see all around us. But our own blindness, by definition, we cannot see, except in retrospect, AFTER we have recognised it.

The reality is that we are naturally blind, and must learn to see. Only, our brains did not evolve to see “reality” itself, but to “interpret”, i.e. produce a concept or model, of it. These interpretations are more or less useful, and we generally learn (subconsciously) to select the more useful ones. But what our brain considers “useful” may have little to do with objective reality itself. For Jehovah Witnesses it is useful (for social, personal/psychological and perhaps material reasons) to stick with their literal interpretation of the Bible.

Belief in the imperative of economic growth is obviously very useful, which is why we are so reluctant to give it up, despite the (one would have thought, obvious) insanity of it on a finite, vulnerable and already overpopulated planet.

To be continued . . .