Dismantle Civilisation Rotating Header Image

March, 2009:

Uncorking The Demon Of Synthetic Life

If the hype is true, then within ten years there will be viable, new life-forms existing that were entirely created by humans: we have no way of predicting what will happen after that. Genetic modification is merely the start of an experiment that has one clear Endgame — the ability to create new life-forms at will, to serve whatever purpose the creators (or rather, the creators’ employers) deem necessary in the name of “progress”. Keith Farnish summarises the situation like this:

Some futuristic pipe dream, you may think. Think again: synthetic biology is real and it is being created at a university, government or corporate research laboratory near you. At this level of work biology, technology and chemistry fuse to provide the means to create the building blocks of life from scratch or make modifications to living things that would have been impossible 20 years ago. A glance at one web site, used by many researchers as a hub for information, reveals a host of tools, methods, protocols and systems that would be far more at home in a computer programmer’s library; and essentially, that’s what it is – a library of tools for reprogramming life. Fancy a new strain of E. Coli, yeasts with artificial chromosomes or perhaps a faster growing mouse cell? You can find instructions for creating these right now, on the Internet. Downloading such “recipes” from the web is perfectly legal, yet were the same web site to host information assisting conventional “terrorist” activities like taking out an electrical grid infrastructure, it would almost certainly be shut down.

It seems that it is not enough for industrial society to change the planet in the course of pursuing the dream of infinite growth and the total ownership of all humanity and all other life on Earth; there is always more in this insatiable appetite for domination, even if it means playing God and lining up innumerable Pandoras Boxes with the lids barely shut, and access granted to anyone who wants to play with nature. Yet we see glee in the pages of the scientific journals, as we keep “progressing” towards some new goal:

Around the world, several labs are drawing close to the threshold of a second genesis, an achievement that some would call one of the most profound scientific breakthroughs of all time. David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz, has been saying that scientists would create synthetic life in “five or 10 years” for three decades, but finally he might actually be right. “The momentum is building,” he says. “We’re knocking at the door.”

A synthetic, made-to-order living system might even serve as a self-maintaining, self-improving, adaptable assembly line for producing everything from pharmaceuticals to petrochemicals.

And there you have the key argument for all this tinkering and reprogramming: it is to benefit the economic system, increase profits, develop more “solutions” that we become dependent upon and, as always, ignore the negative consequences, blinded by the desire for “progress”.

But what of progress itself? Ronald Wright has this to say:

Change is not in our interest. Our only rational policy is not to risk provoking it.

The scientists in the pay of the industrial machine attempt to trump rationality with the lie that all progress is for the better, that without progress then we fail as a species. They say: “Producing synthetic life would be an achievement comparable to finding alien life on other planets.” We say: “Bullshit. It would be comparable to destroying any life we find on other planets: such is our inculcated fear of accepting things as they are.”

The dream of synthetic life is not fulfilled yet, and some may hope that it is never fulfilled such that it threatens the biosphere still further – don’t hope! If you just hope this doesn’t happen then you are as culpable as someone who is ignorant of these dangerous experiments — more so, because you knew, yet chose not to do anything about it. Consider yourself informed: now go and stop the experiments, in any way you can, before they have a chance to break out of the laboratory.

Share

Public Money for Private Greenwash

The UK government yet again showing their ‘green’ spirit:  Government gives Land Rover £27m for green 4×4

The UK government has offered Jaguar Land Rover a grant of up to £27m towards the production of a new “green” 4×4 model.

Business Secretary Peter Mandelson said: “The Government is fully committed to supporting the UK automotive industry as it moves to a lower carbon future. This project aims to design and build a greener car in the UK, safeguarding vital skills and technologies.

Land Rover, not satisfied with some of their previous greenwashing gems , have managed to persuade the government to use taxpayers money (so your money) to fund their private greenwash.  £27million that could have funded projects directly benefiting the environment, instead going straight to a private corporation in order to sells us a ‘green 4×4′.  The fact that a green 4×4 in the true sense of sustainability is impossible, and that what this really achieves is a nod to green issues in order to sell cars, seems to be of no importance to the government, as all they really want  is to continue with the status quo of mass car production and use.

So don’t be surprised if your money is for now on used to subsidise greenwash (especially as Mandelsons quote seems to suggest for thw whole car industry), the government have as much invested in creating these lies as much as the corporations.  It’s our job to realise, uncover and sabotage this hypocrisy, and show the government that we don’t approve of public money being thrown at private greenwash.

Share

passive solar heating – glass is all you need

Share

creating a home graywater system

Another inspiring video from PeakMoment TV.

Share

the world of tomorrow

Part 1, the old future

Part 2, the darker futures

Part 3, four scenarios

Part 4, emergency preparation.

Part 5, local industry

Part 6, electricity

Share

Dmitry Orlov: The Collapse Of America is Inevitable

Share

COMPLICATIONS: responding to collapse means you must become more personally responsible

by Kurt Cobb, reprinted from carolynbaker.net

In this way the complications which are about to enter our lives as the fossil fuel age winds down will move us away from the one-dimensional, disconnected, simplified life we now lead, and toward a richer life in which objects and people call upon us to care for them much more deeply than we have in the past.

["Able to respond" = "response-ability".--CB]

Some advocates for a sustainable future claim that the fulfillment of their vision will result in a simpler, healthier, happier existence when compared to our current consumption- and status-oriented unsustainable present. They may very well be right about healthier and happier. But will that sustainable future seem simpler to the individual?

The bright green high-tech globalized future imagined by some may result in lives that will seem no simpler than what we currently experience (that is, assuming we could achieve such as future). But a future characterized by a reversal of globalization and a return to more regional and local economic activity, or relocalization as it is often called, may actually make life suddenly much more complicated than we are used to. Let me explain.

Right now the relationship that most people have with their electricity and heat providers is simply a monthly bill. Their participation in the system amounts to flipping the light switch or adjusting the thermostat.

Their food is provided primarily by the chain grocery store, and their gasoline is available from ubiquitous service stations which sit on many corners of our cities and along every highway.

The software on their computers is neatly bundled to provide an all-in-one, ready-to-use solution acceptable to the vast majority of computer users.

Even the trash and recycling are hauled away on a regular schedule by a municipal or private hauler.

How might that change in a relocalized world? Currently, few people are involved very deeply in the provision of their most critical services: food, fuel, communication, waste disposal and recycling. But a relocalized world would probably mean a more complicated existence. Instead of having others simply take care of these things for us, we would have to become much more actively involved.

Take food. A relocalized food system means more food grown locally, of course. At a minimum that implies a different distribution system which would likely involve building a relationship with one or more local growers or at least the owners of the farmstands that service them. It might also mean growing food in one’s own yard, a vastly complicated task for the uninitiated.

How about fuel? If your community installs its own wind or solar power, you may at the very least have to contribute funds in advance of actual power production. But you might also install solar panels on your house or in your yard. You might even be involved in installing a wind generator in your neighborhood or your subdivision. And, these sources of power require maintenance, of course. For example, the solar cells on your roof or mounted on your lawn would need periodic looking after as would batteries used to store that energy for later use.

What about communications? As the computer and the Internet become the avenues of most communication, how could mere mortals be called upon to maintain the infrastructure and programs that make them possible? This is actually already happening in a small way. Growing up alongside the multinational software behemoths are the “open source” and “free software” movements. The software produced by these related movements require the active collaboration of their users who do everything from suggest improvements and new features to actually writing the code for such improvements and features. It’s a layer of complication that most computers users do not experience today.

As for trash and recycling, it is certainly conceivable that in the not-to-distant future composting could become obligatory in some communities. I can attest that it is not as simple as throwing garbage into a box. To successfully compost one has to understand how to achieve the proper carbon-nitrogen balance among others things. More complications!

What these complications really mean is that each person is taking on more responsibility for his or her own critical needs and the critical needs of the immediate community. That can have many positive effects as people in communities get to know and trust one another in a way not currently necessary or encouraged. It can also mean more resilience for every community as the production of the necessities of life become more decentralized and thus less vulnerable to disruption by, say, a crop failure in some distant place.

Implied in this decentralization is a rebuilding what James Howard Kunstler calls the local networks of retail and wholesale trade which existed before the devastation wrought on them by the national, big-box retailers. This is yet another complication that will require the active involvement of individuals in each community–not only those who seek to establish businesses based on slowly reviving local networks, but also from others who must make a conscious effort to patronize these establishments to help them succeed.

All of these things mean more, not less thinking. They are in some ways vastly more complicated than what most of us are used to. Up until now we have been largely content to let governments and large corporations fashion solutions for our basic needs, often without much input from us. This has led to a hugely complicated globalized system, but one which we rarely experience as such.

We have been sold the idea that a life filled with “low-maintenance” objects and processes is better than one filled with objects and processes that require our frequent attention. But as psychologist James Hillman has said, this is really an escape from care of the objects and processes most important to our existence. For it is in caring for things both animate and inanimate–the soil, the solar panel, the house we live in, the neighbor we live next to–that we come to love and understand their nature and experience them more fully. We also become connected to their pain or at least the pain we feel when even inanimate objects in our lives are in disarray.

In this way the complications which are about to enter our lives as the fossil fuel age winds down will move us away from the one-dimensional, disconnected, simplified life we now lead, and toward a richer life in which objects and people call upon us to care for them much more deeply than we have in the past.

Many of us who are already growing food, and taking active parts in the provision of many of our own needs, are finding it incredibly hard at the moment. Trying to earn money to pay bills etc, at the same time as running a smallholding is effectively living two lives, and can be very exhausting and disheartening.

But the reality is that a real life, growing food and all the other activities that civilisation has encouraged us to let someone else take care of, is far easier and liberating than earning a wage. And I believe we would be less inclined to allow our waterways to be polluted, as an example, if we could see that was where our drinking water came from – rather than just out of a tap.

We have been conned out of our responsibilities, and in doing so have lost so much. To reclaim that responsibility can be daunting, but is truly empowering and liberating. Dismantling civilisation is as much to do with freeing ourselves as it is about stopping the devastation to the natural world, and the collapse gives us an opportunity to make those badly needed changes to our lives.

Its too late for civilisation – and why would we want to keep it going anyway? – but it’s not too late for humanity to start living simply again, but with a greater level of complexity of responsibility.

Share

The Unreachable Dream: The Terrible Loss Of Humanity

I’m watching the seagulls as they pour their vengeance down upon a crow, fluttering and stalling in the afternoon sky but resisting again and again until the onslaught becomes too much and it is forced to retreat to the crown of a tree far away. The seagulls catch the thermals and rise away to wherever it was they were defending. All this is viewed through a double-glazed window looking out onto a concrete and blacktop street lined, end-to-end, with brick, glass and concrete houses.

All this is out “there”, maybe fifty metres from where I stand, but a whole world away from the one I still live in: civilization came and took me from birth, entrapped me in a place I would call home and assume was the only place that mattered. I grew up; I dreamed of exam results, a degree, a job, a house, promotion, computers, fitted kitchen, conservatory, holidays, retirement…I don’t remember dreaming of death much. It was there, though, after the pension, or maybe before: before I had the time to enjoy the fruits of 40 years of toil, working for the machine that I called “employment”, buying the goods of the machine that I called “retail”, looking through the windows of the machine that I called “home”.

I want to be up there with the birds. Fuck the machine; fuck the system; fuck this steel, concrete and glass veneer that shuts us in and keeps us close so we can bleed ourselves dry in pursuit of a dream we have been forcefed from birth – a dream that sucks the humanity out of us and leaves civilians: loyal, hard-working, dreaming civilians that watch the skies for a second then turn away, unmoved.

Share

counter argument for “Stimulus,” growth and employment

Original by jan Lundberg at Culture Change.

It is not clear where we are headed in terms of a society impacted by ecological destruction and the end of globalized consumption. I for one am not sure I want to see the result. However, as things are not so bad now compared to where they seem to be heading — with too many mouths to feed and no social safety net or ecological capacity up to the challenge for avoiding big pain — I continue to soldier on, so to speak. I try to serve the greater good while I worry about my own survival and that of my loved ones. I also have a good time when I can, but things are getting weirder for me as they seem to be for most of us.

I keep in mind my former career-training as an oil-industry analyst and my generalist knowledge gained, in order to try to make sense of our changing, swirling world. It’s what I learned after leaving the industry and government that ultimately allowed me, I believe, to find out more or less fully what is going on, and thus feel I can offer ideas on what needs to be done. That is not to say I know everything or am prepared for any direction the human experience may take. But some things I know for sure from experience and meditating on the forces of both history and the universe.

Predictions

In the 1980s I was making widely reported gasoline price and supply predictions. After leaving industry I made more interesting predictions. In 1991 I wrote in the Spring 1992 edition of Population and Environment: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies, that the U.S. socioeconomic failure would be worse than the Soviet Union’s collapse, because we were so petroleum-dependent compared to the Russians who on the household level were growing their own potatoes. Through the 1990s I predicted collapse of the U.S. economy due to the coming global peak of oil extraction, in our Auto-Free Times magazine which became Culture Change. I have also predicted an eventual Ecotopian outcome, even in the U.S. that I’ve jokingly called the United Paved Precincts of Amerika.

I have learned that the kind of economy and social structure we have been living under is lacking in any sound foundation for long-term continuity. In fact, our survival is threatened by our present system. The political solutions that have been allowed to circulate are really economic band-aids that do not threaten the power structure. This is a prime reason it is so hard to predict where we are going to end up as a people. Our culture and Western Civilization are so threatened from within — the system’s own contradictions and failures — that collapse prevents us from imagining in much detail what kind of new (or traditional, close-to-nature) culture or society can be around the corner. Likewise, technology worship and clinging to material things hold us back.

For my whole adult life I have yearned for and worked for — except when I was mostly serving corporations — a better world that left war, greed and pollution behind. The paradox is that when one wants fundamental change enough to take action and look deeply at the obstacles, the positive vision is tempered by unpleasant realism and truth that others may call negative or doom-and-gloom. But the sum of positive alternatives — to ecocide, war and unequal treatment — is in one’s heart and not suppressed everywhere at all times. Here I leave the style of first-person writing and lay out the rest of my argument.

People are currently their own worst enemy. Some are removed from caring about themselves or others, and they are motivated to hold the power to enforce the status quo. They manage to keep the majority of people, who are not aggressive or creative, under control by various means. One way is to convince people that being able to buy things means freedom, although for 99% of our evolution as a species we lived in a natural way so as to use freely what was at hand for survival and for the good of the tribe and “relations” (other species). Another way to control people is through divide-and-conquer tactics with a large measure of fear generated. Hence, we have a fairly obedient population that allows astronomical disparity in wealth. The frogs in the pot are starting to boil to death, but now we at last have a black frog who croaks really well and means well, but he represents change-lite.

The “Obama Stimulus” is not all bad, just as there are some good government programs. However, it is time to question the feasibility of really reforming a doomed system built on lies, exploitation and separation from nature.

Workers as the key to the problem

Workers are enablers of the system that exploits them and kills them. Workers “earning” their paycheck and material wealth that serves to destroy the ecosystem are dutiful dupes of authoritarian, ruthless rulers who control not only wealth but institutions and public information. Workers are not all of one mind, and many are reluctant workers who would rather be relaxing or doing something to directly benefit themselves and their family. But enough workers have bought into the ideas that jobs are necessary and that it is acceptable or inevitable to work for others — in order to get nowhere but the eventual grave after a stunted life deprived of fulfillment.

No one dares call today’s worker a glorified beast of burden, for we have “progressed” and overcome the bad old past where things were more cut- and-dried. This mistake or inescapable conclusion in logic (and conclusion of one’s life) means that the adherents of more jobs are the actual problem with humanity and the ecosystem today, whether the adherents are workers or capitalists. Another way to put it is that our enemy is merely lack of imagination and of love for one another.

The social policy course of employment, which is the apparent easy way out of recently added stress, versus the course of rejecting the system (and living under the radar, ethically or no), is dominant, and correlative with the deteriorating state the species finds itself in. At a time when the failure of mega-finance and debt is so clear that no one has a certainty of future well-being, it should also be clear enough to generate doubt in the entire system that is so clearly ailing and teetering. The approach of more of the same, to prop up the existing system instead of create a better one that’s a major departure from the present one, is insanely dangerous.

The Stimulus assumes the system will respond to it and go back to growing. When we look at the weakness of the system and see what the permanent loss of cheap energy and pristine nature have to offer, it should be obvious there’s no return to growth.

The idea of growth is diametrically opposed to stability. So stability has been redefined as growth, which is physically impossible over time on a closed system called Earth. Because growth cannot go on forever, those advocating it are really the forces of short-term gain for greed. To claim that growth helps people goes with attempts to stave of problems relating to overcrowding in relation to resource limits.

It is only when people
(1) finally question the existing system’s ability to care for everyone (which it never could) in the long term, and
(2) when people reject the ridiculousness of endless growth, and
(3) they take control of their own affairs to assure their local environment meets basic needs (instead of working for a corporate entity to buy things from strangers), will the true economic problems and ecological crisis be dealt with.

So it must be with different eyes that we see developments now signaling the end of growth. For example, the cutting of 16,000 jobs at Sony, and 4,000 jobs at Microsoft, need to be seen as good news. (What should be much more troubling is the estimated 95,000 agricultural jobs to be lost in California during 2009, due mainly to drought.) Although the workers are displaced, they have stopped producing machines and gizmos that warm the globe through electric use that then become toxic junk for the landfills due to questionable recycling. The idled workers, largely ignorant of ecology and energy, may be waiting for more work of the same kind while unwilling (or at a loss) to work for themselves as full members of their own communities.

The world is faced with global unemployment rising this year by more than 50m from baseline 2007 levels, according to the International Labour Organization, a UN agency. The agency also spoke of an additional 200 million people going into lower-paid poverty. (These calculations are based on the stronger corporate economy of over a month ago.) There is probably no solution for this in terms of new jobs opening up in the traditional sense. However, if these people can somehow obtain food, they can shift to the kind of work that benefits themselves and their own communities while safeguarding their ecosystems. And it is not “them” at risk; we are all going to affected in the accelerating depression and petrocollapse.

The economic crisis is overdue, as the WTO and various capitalistic bubbles delayed the once normal business cycle of recession. Now the system is going down fast. The workers and non-workers of today will figure out a way, although with huge casualties due to lack of preparation for the real world.

Rather than argue over the present system’s ability to come back and allow its proponents to offer more of the same — using the veiled claim that it’s good for families to be dependent and helpless — it is time to imagine that a better world is possible. Local food production and caring for a region’s water supplies are just two features of what needs to happen now, and ultimately will happen. The doubt one may have over the timing, and how weak we may be to start over as a saner society, confuses the issues as much as the ongoing suppression of better ways of organizing ourselves. Cooperative arrangements and sharing are anathema to those suffering most from material insecurity: those who must own unlimited wealth. As long as these sociopaths can continue to hold or control positions of leadership and manipulate the masses through media and other institutions — as well as through fear and divide-and-conquer — then the weirder will be our daily lives as the pressure and uncertainty build. Recognizing this can help get us on task.

It is time to unshackle ourselves from the machine, to stop allowing sociopaths to dominate our world and start deciding ourselves what kind of world we’d like. This collapse is a great opportunity, if we see it as such and begin to consciously create a cooperative reality to fill the vaccuum that is being created. No point stressing about what is falling down, it has to come down to make room for the new.

Share

why James Lovelock is so wrong

Keith Farnish points out, at the Seitch, that James Lovelock’s belief that it is ‘too late’ only relates to industrial civilisation or the Culture of Maximum Harm. The world has already passed the climatic point of no return, we can not save industrial civilisation – why would we want to?

From memory, Gaia: A New Look At Life On Earth came out on 1978. I didn’t read it until 1990, when I was studying for a Geography degree, then it hit home how little I knew about the world, and how little I was likely to ever know. James Lovelock has always been there at the back of my mind as a dominant figure, an intellectual giant who was responsible not only for bringing to wider humanity the concept of a self-regulating global system that would be able to take care of itself during even the darkest of times (and yes, Daisyworld was just symbolic, but a bloody good symbol at that), but also alerting us to the terrible dangers of CFCs, and the horrible potential of positive feedback loops in taking us towards climatic catastrophe. He is the public face of environmental scientific radicalism.

No wonder then, that when he speaks, we take note: even when he makes life difficult for himself in avowedly supporting nuclear power, or just making statements that are plain wrong. No one is perfect, and some people can be forgiven the odd quirk more than others.

Proposing a series of heavily-defended climate refuges, in which Industrial Civilization can remain, locking out the billions who failed to live in the “right” parts of the globe, is not a quirk.

In his latest book “The Vanishing Face Of Gaia”, Lovelock sees the world as already having passed the climatic point of no return – he may be right; in fact he is most definitely right, but only in the context of Industrial Civilization remaining as the dominant cultural influence on Earth. Whether we will definitely see the predicted loss of billions of humans, and the desertification of half of the Earth’s landmass, whatever we do, is another question entirely, but one that Lovelock is seemingly unable to contemplate.

I posed a difficult question to him (via an interviewer) on BBC Radio 5Live last week:

“I have been a follower of your work for a long time, and watched your views harden and become more apocalyptic in recent years. In many ways this is welcome, especially to warn people of the likelihood of catastrophic change, and also to ridicule the ideas of the mainstream environmental movement, who still think we can tinker around with civilization to make things better. I was wondering, though, whether you welcome the views of people like myself and Derrick Jensen, who see Industrial Civilization as the cause, and the removal of Industrial Civilization as the solution to our current predicament?”

The key point was the last one, which would reveal whether Lovelock could see beyond civilization into a world in which humans lost all pretence of domination over the Earth, and instead accepted that only true sustainability would allow humanity to continue as a going concern.

His response can be heard by clicking on this link.

His response is factually wrong: Industrial Civilization is an extreme way of living, and other ways of living are not “stone age” they are just non-industrial; whether hunter-gatherer, kitchen garden, permaculture or a hybrid of these, or any other way of life that is fundamentally sustainable. These ways of life can easily support as many people as are currently on the Earth, but with far less impact.

It’s difficult to explain to someone who is so cast in a civilized mould, that everything they believe about civilization may be wrong: even more difficult to convince them of this. After all, when you are civilized, surely that makes you the epitomy of what it means to be a fully developed human being – Homo sapiens sapiens civitas – and so anything else is a step down from your current position. Step down or not, it is surely not a morally defensible position to suggest that you can carry on living in much the same manner as you have become accustomed to – providing you have been lucky enough to have been born in the right place, at the right time, to the right people (you don’t really think everyone living in a Lovelock “Life-Raft” will be allowed to stay, do you?).

But we continue to defend this way of life, and this Culture of Maximum Harm, because it is all we have ever known: we are blinded by our lack of perspective, and are thus prepared to support this behemoth, even though we probably know it will end up killing most of us; just as it has started killing so much life already. No other way of life is more destructive than Industrial Civilization.

Your choice: do you follow Lovelock and the rest of the civilized world into a future where we live in city states, ringed by gun turrets, thronged by the bodies of the unlucky millions; or do you make the leap into a way of thinking that may be alien to you now, but which – when you have a chance to contemplate it – is really the only logical conclusion.

Share