To: anyanswers@bbc.co.uk |
|||
,
Jonathon Porritt
was wrong when he suggested in yesterday
evening's Any Questions that the Bush Administration
is not in denial about the implications of
global warming, but being cynical and deliberately
immoral. President Bush and most of his Administration have
children and grandchildren (or hope to have them) and I am
quite sure that their attitude towards global warming (and
sustainability in general) would be very different if they
realised how they will be thought of as parents and
grandparents in 10 or 20 years time.
I think the Bush
administration understands better
than most what the implications of
countering global warming and achieving
sustainability would be, if admitted to,
for the American economy and way of life:
namely that both
are fundamentally unsustainable. Now that really is difficult to
face up to, and virtually no one, including Jonathon Porritt,
is doing so. He has deceived himself into believing that
free-market capitalism and the grossly materialistic
lifestyles (and lifestyle aspirations) it engenders and
depends upon, can somehow be made sustainable. But he is
wrong. In this respect, Jonathon Porritt is
as much in denial as everyone else. As part of the
establishment, he's allowed to rock the boat a little, but
not to point out that it is sinking.
The way things look at
the moment, we will NOT meet the challenge of global warming
and the more general problem of achieving sustainability
will be solved for us - by a ruthless mother nature, who
WILL take the necessary measures. Only they won't be the
ones that we would choose. She is not at all squeamish: if
it entails reducing human numbers by several billion, or
even eliminating our species entirely, that is what she will
do.
There is not a lot of
time left, but a little, for some of us, at least, to come
out of denial and face up to the reality of the inherent
non-sustainability of our economy and way of life, and to
create an alternative. But it will involve
making radical
changes to some of the values, attitudes and aspirations
on which much of our existing socio-economic order is based.
Unsurprisingly, in view of what Charles Darwin is supposed to have taught us about
human origins, these are rooted in our "more animal than human" nature.
Link: BBC Radio 4
Any Questions |