These themes are developed in the following adapted extracts from an essay entitled 'A troubleshooter's analysis of the human predicament', by Don Chisholm of the Gaia Preservation Coalition, which appeared in Futures journal (April '95; Subs. £95; editor Colin Blackman, 13 High St, Cottenham, Cambridge CB4 4SA, tel 01954 206236; fax 01954 206237; e-mail: <crblackman@CityScape.co.uk>).
Human extinction is a possibility. This scenario is repeatedly illustrated by those who create computer models of the future based on projections of the integration of historical trends and anticipated changes.
Unfortunately, today this pragmatic analysis cannot be accepted by most people. Well known psychological characteristics of Homo sapiens prevent people from conscious acknowledgement of data which affect them personally but are repugnant to such a degree that they are too far outside their sphere of comfortable information. Information such as the possibility of impending human extinction will be denied or ignored, blocking the expression of alarm appropriate to an uninhibited view of the future we inherit and bequeath.
Exposure to evidence of denial can cause anger. Sometimes the denied information causes anxiety relief through activity in other areas. This whole process of denial, ignoring, deflection, cognitive dissonance etc can be referred to as 'the sacred cow syndrome'.
Nature's guideline, survival of the fittest, demands any measure necessary to ensure survival of the species. Western culture teaches us to consider measures such as infanticide to be repugnant. Fortunately today's birth-limiting technology make it unnecessary. But if the cultures, morals and presumed rights of modern humans inhibit us from limiting our numbers to what is sustainable within Gaia, then indeed we have become an unfit species, and nature will extinguish us. Since we have birth limiting technology available it seems irresponsible to not use it. If an individual made a voluntary action which would lead to our extinction, most cultures would consider that person to be immoral, but we proceed beyond our limits as a group, each of us afraid to question another's rights to reproduce. Does group participation alleviate guilt and moral violation? The sacred cow syndrome prevents most of us from speculating in this field of thought.
Immigration, too, must end; otherwise Canada's own self-imposed birth limiting will be eclipsed. To the argument, 'We have a moral obligation to take in immigrants and to help poor countries,' we will counter, 'There is nothing we can do which could have lasting consequences. The long-term view indicates that our most significant contribution toward sustaining our species will be to shatter global denial and the illusion of well-being.'
The following philosophical concept are offered to individuals as possible root beginnings of a common survival paradigm. These points do not conflict with most existing belief structures.
Principle two: To recognise that humans suffer individually and collectively from foibles which may blind our objectivity regarding an unpleasant reality. By interacting with fellow humans we can help each other recognise, acknowledge, and hold clear in our minds these weaknesses so that unpleasant reality can be dealt with.
Principle three: To modify our personal expectations in life from expectations based on the past, to expectations consistent with a sustainable future.
Principle four: To assume responsibility for personal change because in a free society no government or worldwide organisation can force on us the required behavioural and attitude changes. Personal long-lasting freedom requires personal responsibility and compromise.
Principle five: To be undaunted by the enormity of the task at hand and to work around problems that cannot be dealt with effectively and immediately.
Principle six: To establish 'the common good' as the highest priority, while preserving individual human freedom and rights where possible. The long-term well-being of Gaia will be the primary consideration.
Principle seven: To work towards living within our global means with regard to energy usage and to recycle consumer goods rather than extract non-renewable resources from Earth.
Principle eight: To work towards the elimination of human-made barriers of classification that have historically caused conflict between groups of humans.
Principle nine: To work for the maintenance of the democratic process in countries where the democratic process is functional, and to bring about change within the rule of law.
Principle 10: To recognise that humans must become stewards of the planet, but that stewardship does not make humans superior to other life forms .
Principle 11: To lobby governments to assess all planned action considering the full dimension of time, including life on earth in the distant future.
Principle 12: To accept personal responsibility, and to help in your own way toward communication of the Gaia principles, either individually or collectively, to others both at home and abroad.
Don Chisholm, Gaia Preservation Coalition, PO Box 43051, 4841 Yonge Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2N 6N1 (tel 416 484 6225; fax 416 484 0841; e-mail: <donchism@io.org>).
Previous / Next / Table of Contents