Dear Sir/Madam,

The Prime Minister gave a speech recently, making the case for a 3rd Labour term of government (Text of Tony Blair's speech). Significantly, it didn't contain a single reference to the environment or sustainability, but began with the following sentence: 

"I want to talk today about the central purpose of New Labour - which is to increase personal prosperity and well-being, not just for a few but for all." (The underlined italics are mine). 

 

"Personal prosperity and well-being" is a catch-all phrase which everyone can put their own interpretation on and agree with. Most people will, I'm sure, assume it to mean material prosperity of the kind that can only be provided by continued economic growth: more cars, more flights to holidays in the Sun, etc, etc. 

When just a few (million) people owned cars and were frequent flyers our planet, aptly named Spaceship Earth, could just shrug it off (You remember the "jet set", when only the wealthy could afford to fly off to the sun for their holidays?). It was unjust, but it was sustainable. But times have changed and there are now 100's of millions who own cars and can afford to fly away on holiday. And there are billions more people eagerly awaiting the time when they too will be able to afford such things. It will be more just, but unfortunately, utterly unsustainable.

In other speeches, Tony Blair has come out strongly in support of sustainability, combating global warming etc. He seems to understand their importance, as well as, if not better than most. But Like most people, he fails to appreciate just how important, or how rapid and radical the changes need to achieve it will have to be.

There is no point bailing out a boat into which water is gushing through a dozen open hatches. What few people understand is that unless we give absolute priority to sustainability, the future (for our children and coming generations) is bleak indeed; the catastrophes of the 20th century will pale in comparison with those that await us in the 21st century.

There is a general failure - even amongst many dedicated environmentalists - to recognise that our economy and lifestyles, along with many of the values, attitudes and aspirations on which they are based, are fundamentally unsustainable.

Politicians, of course, are keen to sell us a political fix, scientists and engineers a technological fix. But in reality, no amount of environmental legislation or technology will enable us to achieve sustainability. Not unless we create an alternative socio-economic order, based on more enlightened, more humane, far less materialistic, and of course, sustainable, values, attitudes and aspirations (individual car ownership and frequent air travel are two prime examples unsustainable aspirations - but no one wants to face up to it).

Britain has always prided itself, with some justification, for managing to achieve necessary political change without revolution. However, in the present circumstances, REVOLUTION (i.e. rapid radical change towards sustainability) is all that will save us. First we have to come out of denial and face up to the challenge. If we do, and manage to bring it off - and it have to be global, of course - it will be a "glorious revolution " indeed.

Now, how am I to convince you of the correctness of my view?

In twenty years time, it will be obvious, I'm sure, to everyone. But unless we have come a very long way by then, it will be too late. It is already 10 past rather than 5 to midnight. We (or at least, our children and coming generations) are in for a very rough ride, because instead of facing up to "The Limits of Growth" , Earth's finite carrying capacity, and the "demands of sustainability" (rather than the demands of consumers and the economy) when they first entered public awareness in the early 1970's we went into denial. You may remember a book of the same title published by the Club of Rome.

Despite all the rhetoric, which in response to mounting evidence of climate change, environmental degradation, etc., is getting louder and louder, we are still effectively in denial. The longer we remain so the more hopeless our situation will become. If we leave it too long it will mean the complete downfall of our civilisation, possibly even the extinction of our species. That is how serious and urgent the situation is.

There are good reasons why we went into denial and are finding it so difficult to come out: massive financial and economic interests (not just big business, but little business too, and the interests of each and everyone of us: our jobs, investments, lifestyles and material aspirations, all conspiring to deny the obvious, rationalise the irrational, and insisting that I, and those like me, are being alarmist, if not complete crackpots.

But I'm neither. Nor am I a prophet of doom. Doom is where we are heading. I have plans - not perfect, but what is? - for avoiding it, if anyone will listen.

When Copernicus published his heliocentric view of the world about 450 years ago he was well aware and fearful of the derision that he knew would be heaped upon him. Everyone knew (and could confirm with their own senses) that the Earth was stationary at the centre of the universe. To suggest that it was a wandering star (i.e. a planet), like Mar or Venus, for example, which orbited the Sun while revolving on its axis was outrageous. More than 60 years later Galileo was hauled before the inquisition and forced to retract his support for the idea. But as unlikely and outrageous as it seemed at the time, the idea turned out to be correct. Now it is difficult to understand why it met such resistance and took so long to be accepted.

Many (perhaps all) of the great advances in human understanding occurred when what was considered to be common sense was overturned by "uncommon sense". 

We should keep that in mind when politicians and others appeal to our "common sense", because we are in a similar situation today with respect to understanding, not the physical environment, but the socio-economic environment and the way in which it has come to replace the physical environment as the place where we now struggle for survival and advantage.

450 years ago mankind could afford to go on believing in an Earth-centred universe for as long as he wanted (he'd spent the previous millennia doing so and come to no serious harm through it). We are not so fortunate. We have to achieve sustainability as quickly as possibly (within the next two or three decades). And in order to do so, we need a much better understanding of man's more animal than human nature and the socio-economic environment it has created, on which we depend, and which we are so reluctant to change, just as 400 years ago people were reluctant to change from an Earth-centred to a Sun-centred universe, even though it hardly affected their day-to-day lives. The church resisted the change of view because it undermined its authority, just as my contention that our economy and lifestyles are fundamentally unsustainable (because rooted in our "more animal than human " nature) undermines the authority of politicians, economists, business leaders etc.,  added to which are the financial and lifestyle interests of millions of ordinary people it also undermines. Only when people recognise just what is at stake (which is their own children's and grandchildren's very survival) will they be prepared to make the necessary changes.

What I have just said about our economy and lifestyles (i.e. our whole  socio-economic order) being rooted in our "more animal than human " nature, lies at the core of my view of the world. Despite general acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution and what it teaches us about man's animal origins, we have not yet faced up to the full implications for human behaviour and society. 

 

Our large brain, language and social behaviour evolved over several million years to serve the survival and advantage of individual humans and their small family groups in the natural environment. There has been no time for them to adapt to the much larger social units associated with the human civilisations, which began to appear just a few thousand years ago. 

 

The same behavioural programming which evolved to serve our struggle for survival and advantage in the natural environment, now serves the same purpose in the "socio-economic environment ". 

 

This largely unrecognised fact is of fundamental importance (so I'll repeat it); it is as central to my view of the world as "class struggle" was to Marx - with the important difference (hopefully) that I am much closer to the truth.

 

Our capitalist, free-market economy has been adapted to exploit our animal nature (fear, greed, competitiveness, the desire for a free or cheap lunch, for power and social status), which is why in many respects it works so well.

 

Whether as individuals, groups, companies or governments, we are so preoccupied with the struggle for survival and advantage in the socio-economic environment (i.e. the local, national or global economy), which largely boils down to making money, that we fail to recognise our ultimate dependency on the natural environment.

 

This complete shift in the focus from the natural to the socio-economic environment has resulted in us giving a higher priority to the economy (i.e. the household of man) than to ecology (which is the household of nature). This is not without a certain logic: everything we want, including protecting the environment and achieving sustainability, costs money - which is provided by the economy. Making money thus appears to be the most important thing in the world. Whether it's personal luxuries we want, schools and hospitals, or a better environment, we have to pay for them with money.

 

New Labour - with the best intentions, I'm sure - has embraced the imperative of giving absolute priority to the economy, the idea being to cream off much of the wealth created and use it pay for better social services etc. (including protecting the environment). In effect, they are trying to finance Socialism and environmentalism with capitalist cash.

 

It cannot work, of course (although I'm one of the few who seems to realise it), because it relies on an economy rooted in man's "more animal than human " nature, which is causing us, quite literally, to plunder our planet. To be sure, we are now busily trying to repair and contain some of the damage, but it is a hopeless endeavour, so long as making money is our top priority (I'm not being entirely original, I know: the danger of worshiping, i.e. giving top priority to, mammon is referred to in the Bible).

 

If we are to achieve sustainability (and avoid extinction) it has to be our absolute priority, which means creating an alternative socio-economic order based, not on our "more animal than human "nature, as at present, but on our more enlightened, human nature.

 

Where to start?

 

By thinking, discussing and arguing about what I have said this evening, and perhaps taking a look at my homepage  at www.spaceship-earth.org, which is still "under construction" as they say, but hopefully - despite the scaffolding and unfinished parts - still has something to offer.