Let’s face facts

Few things in life are certain but I believe this is one of them:

Human beings will not long suffer under conditions of inequality before their dissatisfaction mounts to resistance. This is not the unique province of Americans, though we laud it in our history. It derives from a person’s very being, their self image and their own self respect. That given, the unequal nature of the commercial system that has developed over the last several hundred years, leading to the present extent of vast territory under US influence and control, cannot long endure. It has been built and is held in place through (some would say) moral example, but also through military force, and the threat and terror of nuclear weapons, maintained at 750 foreign military bases, through an annual military budget as great as that of the rest of the world—combined.

This situation cries out to every person placed in a position of inequality around the globe for transition to a more equitable distribution of the world’s resources. These bare facts led George F. Kennan to articulate for the post WWII era the policy of force and subversion veiled by diplomacy, in a statement that would have made Machiavelli proud, that guided US leaders in garnering the majority per capita use of the world’s resources at the expense of creating enemies in every corner of the globe:

We should cease to talk about vague and unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.

A succession of US governments have been fairly successful at cajoling the US populace to go along with this, in exchange for a minimal share in those benefits.

So, those who are unquestioningly committed to the enjoyment of this inequality must also be unquestionably committed to an unending war, at a time when the benefits from such an enterprise are fast disappearing for all but a miniscule number (war profiteers and oil men). It helps for one’s self image, if not one’s mental health, to live in denial of these facts, the better to feel morally justified in these wars, hot and cold, and enjoy their fruits. This, however, leaves us in the somewhat ridiculous position of wandering around asking each other “why do they hate us?,” when “they” have the temerity to strike back against “our” policies. This is the very question we need to be asking though, because its answer is the way out of our morass.

If we are to acknowledge our past behavior, which we must if we are to resolve this mess, then we must admit that while to us this may have seemed a good way (at the time, at least) to run the world, as to date we North Americans and Northern Europeans have enjoyed more of the benefits, it is less so for the majority of others. It is therefore unstable. We have started something we cannot finish. If you answer full spectrum dominance, I answer nuclear proliferation.

Add to this the following fact:

Global climate change is real. Its effects will be drastic enough to destabilize the global economy, through disruption of agricultural production (arable land turning into arid desert) and displacement of populations (reducing to desperation millions of people in every coastal nation on Earth due to the above and sea level rise). Our only hope on limiting the severity of its effects is to achieve global co-operation at shifting away from a carbon-based energy economy (coal, oil, natural gas and even ethanol).

Nuclear is no solution because there is not enough uranium ore on the planet to serve our needs, even if it could all be mined in time, even if there could be enough reactors on line in time to use it, which according to Dr. Nathan Lewis of Caltech is impossible. Even if we managed to surmount these insurmountable limiting factors we would merely succeed in tossing ourselves from the frying pan of climate change into the fire of irradiated un-disposable deadly waste and nuclear proliferation amidst political instability, before we ran out of uranium in twenty years or so. Effort in this direction is a red herring that will divert necessary intellectual resources and capital away from more effectual systems.

We need a global carbon treaty that serves the needs of developing and developed countries alike, as both will sink under these effects unless both are on board. This fact dictates a global transition to equity. “Don’t do as we do, do as we say” has worn very thin with the developing nations, and is a non-starter for climate negotiations. The US, with 6% of the world’s population consumes between 25 and 30% of the world’s resources, and is responsible for a like amount of global carbon emissions.

Responsibility for taking the first step to resolve these issues lies with the countries who to date have benefited most from industrialization while putting the majority of the carbon into the atmosphere, the wealthiest and therefore most capable of initiating the technological conversions necessary. The technology of avoiding this catastrophe is achievable. What is required is a major shift in our thinking.

This would be easy if we recognize the message the Earth is sending us. It is time for a new era in human relations—time to move beyond empire.