Saturday, February 23, 2019

The next 100 years





We´re doomed. I mean that quite literally. Climate change is real, and even if it weren´t, peak oil and rampant destruction of the living environment will soon make our entire civilization unsustainable anyway. Not to mention resistant bacteria and what have you.

What can be made to stop this development? Very little, I think. I base this on the following consideration: *no* class or strata in late modern capitalist society (or whatever you want to call our current mega-golem) has an objective material interest in radical Green politics. Not the bourgeoisie and state bureaucracy. Not the middle class, the upper echelons of which want to become part of the bourgeoisie and state bureaucracy. Not the working class or underclass, which both want to become middle class. As for the external proletariat in the “Third World”, their goal is to become middle class, too, either by moving to the metropolises of the “West”, or by economic growth at home. There simply isn´t anyone whose material interest points beyond our present day predicament. And why should there be? Why should anyone under modernity strive to abolish it, rather than attempt to integrate into it (if not culturally, at least economically)?

Or look at the great powers. How likely is it that China, Russia, India, Saudi Arabia or Brazil will pursue a Green policy? That would make it impossible for them to compete with the West. And how likely is it that the West will implement such a policy? The first nation that does so will be EATEN by its great power rivals, or even by smaller (but equally hungry) polities. It´s more safe – at least in the short run – to shore up the military-industrial complex and secure new energy sources abroad, than to disarm and adopt frugality.

Or look at our dominant philosophies. To me, it´s painfully obvious that a Green polity *can´t have mass immigration* but tell that to a radical Green, who is usually an open border leftist… Or look at all the "Greens" who believe fusion, fission, thorium, clean coal or bio-engineering can save us. They really don´t get it, do they?

Or look at the “mass movements”. Some people have suggested that the Green movement can become successful if it actually “walks the walk”. Al Gore, with his jet plane, is out. Greta Thunberg, with her vegan diet and dour clothes, is presumably in. However, this won´t work either. Nobody will listen to a movement the supporters of which *really* cut their carbon footprints. Why? Precisely for that reason. The moment the common man realizes that the Greens are serious about taking away the high standard of living of the middle classes, *the common man will start opposing the Greens even more*. And what will a bunch of young woke moral monsters (the usual base of the radical Green movement) do in such a situation? Probably turn to righteous terrorism. We will see a lot of new Unabombers! This will simply polarize the situation even more, with the common man eventually electing One Strong Man who promises to smash the Greens and make the economy great again…

But won´t people wake up at *some* point? Well, both yes and no. Obviously, the crisis will be too “yuge” to deny at some point. But that still doesn´t mean that everyone will suddenly see the light and go green ever after. No, instead the upper class will try to maintain its standard of living by shifting the burdens onto the middle and working classes, the middle class will do likewise with the working class, and the domestic working class will do the same thing to the external proletariat, which at this point have probably formed war bands both within and without the metropolises. I don´t deny that some kind of “revolution” might become possible, even inevitable, at some point on the downward trajectory, but it might just as well be fascist or religious rather than “democratic socialist”. A more likely scenario is that some of the great regional and world powers turn into failed states. The apocalyptic events that will transpire if China is hit by a severe famine, and the PLA starts moving across the borders, is a frightening thing to contemplate...

This also means that “climate despotism” is an illusion. The climate despots will either do nothing at all, except being despots, or they will make sure that *you* pay the energy bills on *their* behalves. Since when has a despotism ever been benevolent? And how can a global despotism even function without – surprise – high technology dependent on fossil fuels and/or nuclear power? The idea of powerful dictators voluntarily relinquishing their carbon footprint privilege is ridiculous.

None of this means that “nothing” can be done. However, the things than can (or perhaps must) be done are of such a nature that I can´t mention them here. You are simply not ready to hear them. Neither am I. Neither are Google´s moderators. I don´t long for the destruction of our present civilization. Quite the contrary, I support its continued existence. I would like nothing better than to live with high modernity. However, it seems that “our” civilization may have run its course.

The next 100 years won´t be pretty.

5 comments:

  1. Ett mycket extremt förslag du inte vågat nämna? Jag nämnde det förra sommaren på min blogg. Att skapa en partiell atomvinter. Slänga ett mycket stort antal kärnladdningar över världshaven och hoppas att de nedkylningseffekter detta skapa väger upp den globala uppvärmningen lagom. Kan bli aktuellt först efter att massiva vågor av hetta svept över världen ett antal gånger med hundratusentals eller kanske miljontals döda varje gång.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fast det är klart - en sådan makaber metod skulle slå "demokratiskt" över hela världen. Om man känner de härskande rätt kommer de säkert på något mer öppet ruttet. På senare tid har det föreslagits att lilla istiden på 1600-talet med en drastisk temperaturminskning, orsakades av att nio tiondelar av urbefolkningen Amerika utplånades av (framförallt) de sjukdomar som de vita förde med sig. Det finns säkert superhemliga thinktanks lite här och var som funderar på den typen av scenarier.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Intressant...och skrämmande. Ett annat sätt att få ner överbefolkningen vore ju genetiskt modifierade virus som bara din grupp känner till vaccinet emot, och så vidare. När det gäller atombomberna är jag dock tveksam - om jag har förstått saken rätt, orsakar koldioxiden i luften totalt kaos i vädersystemen, vilket i genomsnitt leder till uppvärmning, men i vissa fall nerkylning (längre och svårare vintrar i t.ex. Nordamerika) och då borde det ju bli ännu mer kaos om man atombombar atmosfären - det är inte alls säkert att effekterna på ett balanserat sätt "tar ut varandra", kanske inte ens på längre sikt...

    De obekväma lösningar jag tänkte på handlade dock inte om detta, utan om mer näraliggande saker, som t.ex. nationell isolering, kraftigt ökade försvarsanslag, krav på mer auktoritära och patriarkala strukturer för att upprätthålla "lag och ordning", offentlig sektor bara för vissa (soldater, kanske?) etc.

    Det handlar alltså om åtgärder som kan "rädda" det egna landet i ett läge när klimatkrisen nått nivån "allas krig mot alla".

    Eftersom mina ideologiska ideal är mer åt de socialdemokratiska hållet så skulle jag uppfatta detta som rätt så obehagligt också...

    ReplyDelete
  4. När det gäller indianerna förresten så undrar jag om inte skogen kom tillbaka för att jorden, vattnet och luften ännu inte var förstörda? Idag är de förstörda också, så jag undrar om det där skulle fungera ens om man försökte. Däremot blir det ju "mindre konkurrens" om kvarvarande resurser om t.ex. Kina eller Indien drabbas av apokalyptiska epidemier och helt enkelt försvinner.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Något mer positivt. Har du läst mina två inlägg om druserna?

    ReplyDelete