The Trifecta of Imperialism

 

AVID Audio Course Description (Conservation Biology)

 

 

Latest Peer-Reviewed Journal Article:

McPherson, Guy R., Beril Sirmack, and Ricardo Vinuesa. March 2022. Environmental thresholds for mass-extinction events. Results in Engineering (2022), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2022.100342.

 

Draft script:

If happiness is a goal, and if that happiness extends beyond the mere alleviation of suffering, how to we evaluate happiness? In short, what is the cost of happiness? If our own happiness comes at the expense of another, how do we justify our gain? Equally importantly, but rarely considered, is the converse question: If our suffering brings happiness to another, how do we justify the personal pain? Is our own suffering less important than that of another?

 

How do we minimize suffering? Is such a quest restricted to humans, or are other organisms included? What is the temporal frame of the quest? Does it extend beyond the moment, perhaps to months or years? Does it extend beyond the personal to include other individuals?

 

We could minimize suffering to humans and other animals by playing solitaire in the woods. But even that seemingly humble act takes life. Tacking on the seemingly simple acquisition of water, food, clothing, and shelter for a single human being in the industrialized world brings horrific suffering to humans and other animals. Attending to the needs of the more than eight billion humans currently inhabiting Earth comes at tremendous cost to the water, soils, and non-human species on the planet. Contemplating the desires of an increasing number of people on an overpopulated globe is enough to drive a thinking person to despair.

 

There is nothing inherently wrong with happiness, or pleasure, yet the Greek word for “pleasure” forms the root of the English word “hedonism.” According to my pals Merriam and Webster, hedonism propounds that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life. When stated in this manner, pleasure seems to have been taken a step too far. But drawing the line between personal pleasure and hedonism is no mean feat. Even less often considered is the line we draw between personal suffering and the attendant happiness of others.

 

Lest we take that step too far into hedonism, we should remember that the idea of hedonism some 2,500 years ago when Socrates was haunting the Mediterranean region was a bit different than the contemporary definition. In the days of Socrates, humans comprised a tiny drop in the large bucket known as Earth. The quest for personal pleasure and happiness at that time would have had essentially zero impact on the natural world compared to the impact of today’s quest for gratification by more than 8 billion people on an this ever-shrinking and rapidly depleted orb.

 

When my happiness requires the suffering of another, is my happiness warranted? When the pleasure of another requires my suffering, is the suffering warranted? Does failing to contemplate questions about our needs and desires commit us to nihilism? Does merely surviving within the Age of Industry, hence participating in untold horrors to humans and other organisms, violate the Socratic notion of good? And, to take the next obvious step, what about imperialism?

 

American Empire is merely the most lethal manifestation of industrial civilization, hence any civilization. Because this culture is inextricably interconnected with this civilization, I have concluded that contemporary culture is worthy of our individual and collective condemnation. Walking away from empire is necessary but insufficient to terminate this horrific culture. And don’t get me started on the loss of aerosol masking that would result from too many people abandoning industrialized life for another path.

 

As nearly as I can determine, maintaining American Empire—or any empire, for that matter—requires three fundamental elements: obedience at home, oppression abroad, and destruction of the living planet. Unpacking these three attributes seems a worthy exercise, even acknowledging Voltaire’s observation: “It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.”

 

Obedience at home means capitulating to culture and the federal government. It means abandoning a culture of resistance in favor of the nanny state. It means allowing the government to control the people instead of the other way around. It means giving up responsibility for oneself and one’s neighbors and expecting the government to deal with all issues of import. Considering the excellent record of the government in transferring wealth from the poor to the rich while promoting an economy rooted in war, I’ve no idea why the people with whom I interact are fans of this republic. And, yes, this government is and always has been a republic, not a democracy.

 

Oppression abroad is obvious to anybody paying attention to American foreign policy during the last 200 years. The government of the United States of Absurdity extracts taxes from the citizenry to build the most lethal killing force in the history of the world. This military, supported by cultural messages and therefore most of the consumer-oriented citizenry, is then used to extract materials such as fossil fuels from other countries. The resulting “riches” enjoyed by Americans serve to pacify the masses, embolden the government, and enrich the corporations that exert strong influence over both the media and the government.

 

Destruction of the living planet is imperative if we are to support eight billion people on the planet, many of whom want “their” baubles. Are we not entitled to transport ourselves around the world, dine at fancy restaurants for a few hours’ work at minimum wage, entertain ourselves with music and movies, and all the rest on an essentially limitless list? Where do the materials originate for each of these endeavors? Are we so filled with hubris that we believe driving hundreds of species to extinction every single day is our right? Do we lack the humility—and even the conscience—to treat non-human species with respect?

 

Each of these three broad elements—obedience at home, oppression abroad, and destruction of the living planet—serves a subset of humans at the expense of others. Although obedience to culture prevents us from being viewed as “odd” to our straitjacketed acquaintances, it also serves the oppressors. Giving up on radicalism—i.e., getting to the root—fails to serve our needs while lessening our humanity. But it nicely serves those who pull the levers of industry.

 

Perhaps it is time we heed the words of deceased American social critic Christopher Hitchens in his 17 October 2001 book, Letters to a Young Contrarian: “To be in opposition is not to be a nihilist. And there is no decent or charted way of making a living at it. It is something you are, and not something you do.”