Those who do care about coming generations

Dear Sir/Madam,

Reading Richard North's article, "A big chill will heat up energy debate", in last Thursday's Telegraph sent a "chill" and shiver down my spine.

I spent many years puzzling over how people as intelligent and well educated as he presumably is, could have such a misconceived view of the world. I used to think that perhaps it was me who was mistaken, but no longer.

The key to understanding the situation lies in an appreciation of what Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins and evolution. We are not the rational beings that we generally suppose ourselves to be (Homo sapiens, indeed!), but still very much a stupid animal.

Understandably, this is not something any of us find easy to face up to, especially the more intelligent and better educated among us, who occupy positions of power and authority. Admitting (even to themselves) their blindness and stupidity would disqualify them from their highly desired and privileged niches in the socio-economic environment and hierarchy. You cannot blame them for not wanting to do that. On the other hand, I do blame them for forcefully assuming the role of leadership or opinion maker, when they themselves are so blind.

I can see, at least a little better than most, but what I see, no one wants to hear about, i.e. that our growth-dependent economy and grossly materialistic way of life are fundamentally unsustainable and thus leading us towards catastrophe. Richard North pooh-poohs any such suggestion, not least because he doesn't care about coming generations; certainly that is the impression he gives on his homepage where he writes:

"It is not clear what obligation we have to future generations, or how we could possibly fulfil it. They will not need the things we need, or find insoluble what we find problematic. And how much do we really care? "

"They will not need the things we need " Really? Like a healthy environment?, a stable climate, abundant resources, biodiversity?

We should care about coming generations, just as previous generations cared about us, and whose efforts and sacrifices helped provide the quality of life we now enjoy. What most people are missing is the necessary perspective, because evolution did not equip us to be concerned about coming generations - only about the one we are actually bringing up at the moment. That today's children are going to be in very serious trouble when they reach their 50's, because of the blind irresponsibility with which WE are plundering and spoiling the planet, barely concerns us. Why should it? Most of us will be dead and gone by then (Richard North's apparent attitude).

A part of most of us IS concerned for coming generations (certainly about how our own children and grandchildren will be faring 50 years from now). These concerns are associated with our more enlightened human nature, but they are so easily overruled by the demands of our primitive, more animal than human nature, particularly when coupled, as they usually are, with the demands of an economy that is rooted in our animal nature.

We have to create an alternative economy(s) and ways of life that are sustainable for 7-9 billion people on our finite and vulnerable planet, Spaceship Earth, before a ruthless mother nature does it for us - by reducing the population by several billion, if not eliminating us entirely.

The sooner we come out of denial and face up to this reality the better. It is going to be a bumpy ride now, anyway, having put it off for so long, but the longer we leave it the rougher it is going to be. If we leave it too long, as I say, a ruthless mother nature will do the whole job for us.

The thought of giving up what is comfortable and familiar for something that we are still unsure of is frightening. It requires courage to face up to it. In 1940 our forbears stood up to an overmighty Adolph Hitler. Now it is our turn to stand up, not to an external enemy, but to our own fears and demons, or rather, our animal nature, and the unsustainable socio-economic order it has created.

Animals are not concerned for future generations of their species, but are preoccupied with the present. It is the same with us. Our present may extend a few years into the future, but that is as far as it goes. If we, i.e. the more enlightened, human part of us, really care about coming generations, we have to transcend our primitive animal nature and put our better part in the driving seat. However, there is little point in doing that if the vehicle (i.e. the economy) is designed (i.e. developed) to accommodate and exploit our more primitive, animal nature (this is what well-meaning reformers have wasted so much time doing).

Those of us who have come out of denial and realise what is at stake (for our children and coming generations) have to create a real alternative to the existing economy (not just a market segment within it) even while we are still dependent on it. As the alternative grows and develops, we will be able to transfer more and more of our activities and dependencies to it, each when they are ready and at their own pace (no need for coercion, which would be counterproductive anyway), not that there is time for complacency. The alternative cannot be restricted to just the economy, either, but must comprise the entire socio-economic order. This is going to be a real revolution - the biggest and most important in human history, and with the political left, right and centre doing things in their own ways, but pulling together, instead of squabbling, for the common cause.

In some ways it will parallel the Copernican Revolution, but needs to proceed a lot faster. We find it hard to understand how the idea of a Sun-centred universe (rather than an Earth-centred one) could have met with such resistance, particularly from those who were well educated. A main reason was because they strongly identified with an Earth-centred universe. It was what they knew and understood, and what they taught others. To undermine it was to undermine their own status and authority.

It is not an Earth-centred universe that we are hung up on now, but an economy and way of life (the artificial socio-economic environment which has effectively replaced the natural environment) that are deeply rooted in and dependent on our primitive, animal nature. The idea of an alternative, rooted in our more enlightened, human nature seems as absurd and outrageous as Copernicus's Sun-centred universe once did - besides which it undermines the positions of those in power and authority, just as Copernicus did. It also undermines the jobs, sources of income and way of life of 100's of millions of ordinary people.

I know, at the Telegraph you are all confirmed Ptolemaists - not a shadow of doubt that the economy (the household of man) rather than ecology (the household of our planet) belongs at the centre of human interests and endeavours. But you too, I hope, will soon see the light. Our children's future depends on it.

To: dtletters@telegraph.co.uk Re: Those who do care about coming generations Date: Tuesday 29 November 05


Dear Sir/Madam, Reading Richard North's article, "A big chill will heat up energy debate", in last Thursday's Telegraph sent a "chill" and shiver down my spine. I spent many years puzzling over how people as intelligent and well educated as he presumably is, could have such a misconceived view of the world. I used to think that perhaps it was me who was mistaken, but no longer. The key to understanding the situation lies in an appreciation of what Darwin is supposed to have taught us about human origins and evolution. We are not the rational beings that we generally suppose ourselves to be (Homo sapiens, indeed!), but still very much a stupid animal. Understandably, this is not something any of us find easy to face up to, especially the more intelligent and better educated among us, who occupy positions of power and authority. Admitting (even to themselves) their blindness and stupidity would disqualify them from their highly desired and privileged niches in the socio-economic environment and hierarchy. You cannot blame them for not wanting to do that. On the other hand, I do blame them for forcefully assuming the role of leadership or opinion maker, when they themselves are so blind. I can see, at least a little better than most, but what I see, no one wants to hear about, i.e. that our growth-dependent economy and grossly materialistic way of life are fundamentally unsustainable and thus leading us towards catastrophe. Richard North pooh-poohs any such suggestion, not least because he doesn't care about coming generations; certainly that is the impression he gives on his homepage where he writes: "It is not clear what obligation we have to future generations, or how we could possibly fulfil it. They will not need the things we need, or find insoluble what we find problematic. And how much do we really care? " "They will not need the things we need " Really? Like a healthy environment?, a stable climate, abundant resources, biodiversity? We should care about coming generations, just as previous generations cared about us, and whose efforts and sacrifices helped provide the quality of life we now enjoy. What most people are missing is the necessary perspective, because evolution did not equip us to be concerned about coming generations - only about the one we are actually bringing up at the moment. That today's children are going to be in very serious trouble when they reach their 50's, because of the blind irresponsibility with which WE are plundering and spoiling the planet, barely concerns us. Why should it? Most of us will be dead and gone by then (Richard North's apparent attitude). A part of most of us IS concerned for coming generations (certainly about how our own children and grandchildren will be faring 50 years from now). These concerns are associated with our more enlightened human nature, but they are so easily overruled by the demands of our primitive, more animal than human nature, particularly when coupled, as they usually are, with the demands of an economy that is rooted in our animal nature. We have to create an alternative economy(s) and ways of life that are sustainable for 7-9 billion people on our finite and vulnerable planet, Spaceship Earth, before a ruthless mother nature does it for us - by reducing the population by several billion, if not eliminating us entirely. The sooner we come out of denial and face up to this reality the better. It is going to be a bumpy ride now, anyway, having put it off for so long, but the longer we leave it the rougher it is going to be. If we leave it too long, as I say, a ruthless mother nature will do the whole job for us. The thought of giving up what is comfortable and familiar for something that we are still unsure of is frightening. It requires courage to face up to it. In 1940 our forbears stood up to an overmighty Adolph Hitler. Now it is our turn to stand up, not to an external enemy, but to our own fears and demons, or rather, our animal nature, and the unsustainable socio-economic order it has created. Animals are not concerned for future generations of their species, but are preoccupied with the present. It is the same with us. Our present may extend a few years into the future, but that is as far as it goes. If we, i.e. the more enlightened, human part of us, really care about coming generations, we have to transcend our primitive animal nature and put our better part in the driving seat. However, there is little point in doing that if the vehicle (i.e. the economy) is designed (i.e. developed) to accommodate and exploit our more primitive, animal nature (this is what well-meaning reformers have wasted so much time doing). Those of us who have come out of denial and realise what is at stake (for our children and coming generations) have to create a real alternative to the existing economy (not just a market segment within it) even while we are still dependent on it. As the alternative grows and develops, we will be able to transfer more and more of our activities and dependencies to it, each when they are ready and at their own pace (no need for coercion, which would be counterproductive anyway), not that there is time for complacency. The alternative cannot be restricted to just the economy, either, but must comprise the entire socio-economic order. This is going to be a real revolution - the biggest and most important in human history, and with the political left, right and centre doing things in their own ways, but pulling together, instead of squabbling, for the common cause. In some ways it will parallel the Copernican Revolution, but needs to proceed a lot faster. We find it hard to understand how the idea of a Sun-centred universe (rather than an Earth-centred one) could have met with such resistance, particularly from those who were well educated. A main reason was because they strongly identified with an Earth-centred universe. It was what they knew and understood, and what they taught others. To undermine it was to undermine their own status and authority. It is not an Earth-centred universe that we are hung up on now, but an economy and way of life (the artificial socio-economic environment which has effectively replaced the natural environment) that are deeply rooted in and dependent on our primitive, animal nature. The idea of an alternative, rooted in our more enlightened, human nature seems as absurd and outrageous as Copernicus's Sun-centred universe once did - besides which it undermines the positions of those in power and authority, just as Copernicus did. It also undermines the jobs, sources of income and way of life of 100's of millions of ordinary people. I know, at the Telegraph you are all confirmed Ptolemaists - not a shadow of doubt that the economy (the household of man) rather than ecology (the household of our planet) belongs at the centre of human interests and endeavours. But you too, I hope, will soon see the light. Our children's future depends on it. www.spaceship-earth.org