Chris Hedges, in his recent “Occupy Draws Strength From the Powerless,” states:
Those who do not carve out spaces separate from the state and its systems of power, those who cannot find room to become autonomous, or who do not “live in truth,” inevitably become compromised. In [Vaclav] Havel’s words, they “are the system.”
The Occupy movement, by naming corporate power and refusing to compromise with it, by forming alternative systems of community and society, embodies Havel’s call to “live in truth.” It does not appeal to the systems of control, and for this reason it is a genuine threat to the corporate state.
Who is Hedges kidding? And what’s so important about the Occupy Movement anyway? Are they addressing the primary issue facing us Americans—us humans—at present, or is their focus on a minor issue?
The Occupy Movement, as I perceive it, has been reacting to the fact that more and more of us not only increasingly feel powerless, but are—for as Jim Hightower put it in his piece, “It’s Official: Money Now Governs America.” But in protesting this fact, what is the Occupy Movement accomplishing? Hedges seems to argue that this Movement is “a genuine threat to the corporate state.” But is it really? And is that the primary thing that needs to be done anyway?
My answer is a definite “No!” in both cases. But in defending my position I plan to ignore the first question in favor of the second one—for the simple reason that I regard it as the most important one. And I would answer that question by asserting that two major—and related—problems face humankind at present, problems that make all other problems—such as corporate power—pale in comparison:
- The fact of global warming.
- The fact that a whole industry exists out there denying the fact of global warming (see this, for example).
In some of my previous essays (e.g., “Salvation for the 21st Century”) I have discussed the threat posed by global warming. Suffice it to say that I am “with” British scientist James Lovelock (of “Gaia” fame) in believing that the events precipitated by global warming in the decades ahead will result in a severe culling of the world’s population—from the current 7 billion to perhaps as little as 500 million (or perhaps even less) by 2100 CE. Thus, this is a moral issue, and I find it surprising that Hedges — who has had theological training—is seemingly oblivious to the moral challenge presented by this threat.
Lovelock would argue that we humans have either reached a stage of “runaway,” or will very soon reach that stage—a stage where the negative feedback mechanisms that have been “working” to maintain relative stability give way to positive feedback mechanisms having the effect of propelling us toward disaster. What this means is that we may have entered a phase of change such that reversing that change is now impossible: No proven technology exists which could be deployed that might halt the change that is occurring.
If it is true that we are now in a stage of no return, the implication is that there is now but one course of action open to us—that of attempting to adapt, as best we can, to the changes that will be occurring, are occurring already, in fact. And even if we have not yet reached that stage, the “inertia” of our socio-economic systems is such that we are guaranteed to reach it soon. So that the sooner we begin to think about how to adapt, and then acting on our ideas, the better the chance that fewer will die as a consequence of global warming. And—just as important—the better the chance that those living in 2100 CE will have some semblance of a “civilized” life.
Unfortunately, there are many “deniers” in our midst, and as the link provided at the beginning indicates, many of them are very wealthy, and are using that wealth to promote denial in the general population. It’s likely that such efforts are meeting with success—which fact should make us nervous. For it implies that efforts at adaptation will be scattered and feeble—so that Lovelock’s prediction that few humans will be alive in 2100 CE will turn out to be realistic. Being 72 myself, I am unlikely to experience the full effects of global warming. But I have four grandchildren, and they most certainly will. Let me assure you, it is hard to be cheerful when you know that your flesh-and-blood may die prematurely because (indirectly) of global warming, and you feel powerless to do anything about it. If I had the wealth of some of these deniers, I know what I would do with it. Unfortunately, that is far from the case—and the pain that I feel is not only the sciatica in my left leg, but the pain in my heart.
About the author: Al Thompson works (data management) for an Engineering (Avionics) firm in Milwaukee. Click here to mail him.
