Dear Sir/Madam,

In response to "Apes of war... is it in our genes?" in last Wednesday's Telegraph: Of course human aggression is programmed into our genes, and manifestly males (men) are more aggressive than females (women). Having had almost 150 years to consider the implications of Darwin's Origin of Species, including Homo sapiens, this should come as no great surprise to us. Although apparently it does. 

However, it is not just man's aggressive behaviour which is rooted in his animal nature; virtually ALL our behaviour is. Which has profound, but barely recognised, implications for human societies, including modern western society and, most importantly and urgently - if we are to achieve economic and ecological sustainability and ensure the prosperity and survival of coming generations - its economy.

Blinded by perfectly natural anthropocentricism, and religious teachings, we continue to reject, or grossly neglect and underestimate, the animal nature of human behaviour.

We like to see ourselves as independent, rational and objective observers of the world we live in, but nothing - judging from our behaviour - could be further from the truth. In fact, the biggest threat to our survival is the mistaken belief in this illusion, which perpetuates our blindness to just how irrational and subjective (animal-like) our behaviour and the forces which determine it are.

The biggest and most immediate threat is posed by our effective blindness to the fact that we are quite literally plundering our planet, disrupting its climate, decimating its biodiversity, and moving ever closer to exceeding its limited carrying capacity, thus threatening, not just the prosperity of coming generations, but the very survival of our species.

True, there is some recognition of the threat, but it has had very little effect on overall human behaviour or on the general course we are steering towards disaster. While a small and ineffectual part of the human psyche is applying its rational faculties to achieving sustainability, a far larger and more effective part is using them to rationalise the "insanities of normality" which underlie our non-sustainable economy and lifestyles.

As a society we can be likened to an individual addicted to smoking or alcohol and still struggling with them self (so far, with little success) against the forces of denial.

We have such a long way to go, and so little time to get there, before irreparable damage is done. Again, society can be likened to an individual addict, who needs, first to recognise and accept, and then to overcome his addiction, before it does irreparable damage and kills him. 

It is no wonder that life in the modern world is often referred to as a "rat race", when we spend so much of our time behaving like rats, i.e. following our more animal than human nature.

As individuals, we are naturally inclined to do so, of course. The trouble is that our animal nature is also built into the fabric and structure of society and the economy, which makes it even more difficult for us to change our behaviour.

We are caught in a (hopefully not terminal) double-bind, driven by primitive (animal) fears and desires which our economy is designed (has evolved) to exploit, on which it (and we) depend: fear of the depreciation or loss of our jobs or investments (source of income) and of slipping down the socio-economic hierarchy; the desire for power and material gain (money), and for maintaining or improving our position in the socio-economic hierarchy.

As individuals we no longer struggle to survive and prosper in the natural environment (that is taken care of at a higher, alienated level of social organisation*), but in the socio-economic environment, on which we seem to depend entirely. Our ultimate dependency on nature, the environment, and our planet's ability to support us, is known to us, but it is not in our blood. What is in our blood is prospering and surviving in the socio-economic environment, with little or no regard for anything else. It is what is driving us towards catastrophe.

Man's insatiable (animal) desires, promoted and harnessed by the existing socio-economic order, are placing an ever increasing, non-sustainable drain and strain on our planet's limited natural resources and finite carrying capacity.

Either we create an alternative, sustainable socio-economic order, or we will perish.

"Alternative", because it will not be possible to change the existing order in the time available. The resistance of vested interests (and we all have them) would be far too great. Politically, we cannot agree even on very small changes, let alone on the truly radical changes necessary to achieve sustainability.

We have to create an alternative, sustainable society (and economy) within existing society. The beginnings, although rudimentary, already exist: organic farming; recycling materials; renewable energy production; fair trade; moral investment funds; sustainable provision of products and services by democratically organised cooperatives with fair and proportionate wage differentials etc. But instead of forming a fringe component of the existing economic order, as they do now, they must organise themselves into a distinct, clearly recognisable, cohesive, and increasingly independent alternative. As this alternative, sustainable society and its economy grows within existing, non-sustainable society, the more enlightened among us will transfer more and more of our social and economic activities and dependencies from one to the other. Everyone at their own pace, for the time being, at least; but the quicker the better, of course, since time is running short.

The values, attitudes and aspirations which form the basis  of existing, non-sustainable society and its economy are rooted in man's more animal than human nature (and short-sighted self-interest). In contrast, the basis of an alternative, sustainable society and its economy will be man's higher, more human nature (and more enlightened self-interest). 

 

*Farmers produce food primarily because they are paid money to do so (just as car-makers are paid to produce cars), not because we would starve without it.