...is a common argument when it comes to democracy. It has also been used with regards to nuclear power and our current capitalist, growth-centered regime. The problem, however, is that the comparison halters.
If democracy isn't perfect, but just "the best we've got at the moment", we have the possibility of gradually changing our system of governance at some future point. Democracy is unlikely to be the end of human existence (barring a possible nuclear holocaust resulting from a third or fourth world war, but such a nuclear holocaust would more likely be the result of non-democratic practises).
The problem is that while, like democracy, nuclear power and our current capitalist, growth-centered regimes are ultimately and directly detrimental to the survival of the human species (possibly of life as we know it, in the long run).
Nuclear power is a bad energy source. Some argue that we need to keep it because otherwise we wouldn't be able to maintain our current way and quality of life. But what these people fail to realise is that nuclear power is still, despite the fact that we might need it to maintain our way and quality of life, ecologically unsustainable. The fact (if it is indeed a fact) that "we have no alternative" just isn't a good argument. If getting rid of nuclear power (and any other non-sustainable, non-renewable sources of energy) means we must lower our current way and quality of life, then that is the difficult truth we need to face.
And that is one of the alternatives, of course. The other is to seriously pursue sustainable and renewable sources of energy. But as long as we don't have a set dead-line on nuclear power, such a shift is going to be very difficult. As a collective, the human species like any other species (or aggregate of individuals), seem to follow the path of least resistance. In several other cases, we've seen previously "impossible" things become possible once there was no longer any choice. Humans are very resourceful and adaptable that way.
The same holds true for the general, capitalist and growth-centered regime. It is fundamentally unsustainable, but the cost is continuously pushed forward and away. To future generations and poorer parts of the world. And again, the argument that "well, we have no choice if we are to continue living the way we do" is just plain retarded. The problem is that we cannot continue living the way we do.
You said in your text "Humans are very resourceful and adaptable.."
ReplyDeleteThis is true, but is it the sense of responsibility, sense of a common goal that we're lacking? Or is it just the fact that when the "leaders" tell us that we need to give up of something we just automatically try to avoid it. I have noticed in my own life and in other people around me also that we "the people" are not that simple. We have the ability to enjoy of less, if it's well based and argumented.
I think this is a marketing strategy to simplify the question to the point "all or nothing". The alternative is just too vague at the moment but once it's clear, it's easy to adopt. Just like Big Mac ;)
Haha, yeah, "My momma always said to me - life is like a Big Mac..." ;)
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I agree, "the people" is a very complex thing. I think what I'm getting at is that individual persons can certainly chose a lesser thing now in order to think more long-term - but as an aggregate of several individual persons, the mass of people, or humanity as a whole, does not have the same kind of (self-)reflexive thinking.
That looked kinda fuzzy. But it's like, the "collective organism" composed of a lot of people, don't follow the same logic as individuals. Which is not to say that one should focus either just on individuals or collectives, but that they act according to different logics.
If you'll excuse a slightly tangential train of thought (it does come together in the end):
ReplyDeleteThere is a further problem with the argument you are criticising, as well as with many others relating to the present form of goverment, and it is this:
Democracy is not an absolute. It is, like socialism, an ongoing struggle. The moment you stop pushing forward, you start losing ground... and man, have we lost a lot of ground.
Furthermore, the present form of "Western Democracy" is only partially democratic. In fact, if one were so inclined, one could argue that it is more oligarchic than it is democratic. It has been proven again and again that corporate power and elite interests carry a great deal more weight in government decision-making than public opinion and democratic influence.
The way "it's the best we have" is used today most often seems to mean "it's the best we can manage", which is downright fatalistic and quite frankly wrong. This is not the best of all worlds. Society is never motionless. It is just a question of where we are going -- and the way we are going looks ominous, indeed.
On a more basic level, though, I think that the main problem with politics today is that it is perceived sort of as a sport -- a game for elite players, and that few of these players are at all interested in having an honest discussion. It is all for show, as it were -- all for the short-term convincer rather than the lasting argument.
The only way of forwarding democracy -- and in the extension, promoting honest, conscious attitudes towards the environment -- I can see in this political climate is to focus on raising public consciousness -- to try to bring the idea of shaping our collective surroundings and affecting what affects us back into view for all parts of society, as well as -- as you have pointed out in other posts -- to forward respect, humility and empathy. Democracy is, after all, utterly dependent on solidarity.