Submitted by Ant in collapse

The idea of Progress was central to the modern Western paradigm and the presumption that the entire world was moving ever onwards to a better future was dominant. The idea of the inevitability or possibility of a global libertarian future originates from that belief.
In many ways Anarchism was/is the libertarian extreme of the European Enlightenment — against god and the state. In some countries such as turn of the Twentieth Century Spain it was the Enlightenment — its militantly pro-science anti-clericism being as much an attraction as its anti-capitalism. Yet the rubbish of history is not so easily discarded and ‘progressive’ revolutionary movements have often been, in essence, form and aim, the continuation of religion by other means. As an example, the belief that universal peace and beauty would be reached through apocalyptic tumults of blood and fire (revolution/the millennium/the collapse) indicates firmly that as an enlightenment ideology, Anarchism has been heavily burdened by its Euro-Christian origins. John Gray was talking about Marxism when he said it was a “…a radical version of the enlightenment belief in progress — itself a mutation of Christian hopes… [Following] Judaism and Christianity in seeing history as a moral drama, that’s last act is salvation.” While some anarchists never fell for such bunkum, many did, and some still do. These days Progress itself is increasingly questioned both by anarchists and across society. I have yet to meet anyone today who still believes in the inevitability of a global anarchist future. However the idea of a global movement, confronting a global present and creating a global future has many apostles. Some of these are even libertarians and look hopefully to the possibility of global anarchist revolution.
The illusory triumph of capitalism following the destruction of the Berlin Wall lead to the proclamation — more utopian than real — of a New World Order — a global capitalist system. The reaction of many to globalisation was to posit one from below, and this was only re-enforced by the near simultaneous public emergence of the Zapatistas and the invention of the Web. The subsequent international action days, often coinciding with summits, became the focus for the supposedly global anti-capitalist ‘movement of movements’. The excitement on the streets enabled many to forestall seeing the spectre by looking in the direction of the ‘global movement’. But there never was a global movement against capitalism, then, or ever, just as capitalism itself was never truly global. There are many, many places where capitalist relations are not the dominant practice, and even more where anti-capitalist (nevermind anarchist) movements simply don’t exist.
Amidst the jolly unreality of this period of ‘Global Resistance’ some could get really carried away: “We have no interest in reforming the World Bank or the IMF; we want it abolished as part of an international anarchist revolution.” Such statements are understandable if written in the drunk-like exuberance one can sometimes feel on having defeated the police, but they are found more commonly. The self-description of one Anarchist Federation reads: “As the capitalist system rules the whole world, its destruction must be complete and worldwide”.
The illusion of a singular world capitalist present is mirrored by the illusion of a singular world anarchist future.


Neither we, nor anyone else, can create a libertarian and ecological global future society by expanding social movements. Further, there is no reason to think that in the absence of such a vast expansion, a global social transformation congruent with our desires will ever happen. As anarchists we are not the seed of the future society in the shell of the old, but merely one ofmany elements from which the future is forming. That’s ok; when faced with such scale and complexity, there is a value in non-servile humility — even for insurgents.
To give up hope for global anarchist revolution is not to resign oneself to anarchy remaining an eternal protest. Seaweed puts it well:

Revolution is not everywhere or nowhere. Any bioregion can be liberated through a succession of events and strategies based on the conditions unique to it, mostly as the grip of civilisation in that area weakens through its own volition or through the efforts of its inhabitants… Civilisation didn’t succeed everywhere at once, and so it’s undoing might only occur to varying degrees in different places at different times.


[T]he reality both within ecosystems generally and peoples stomachs in particular is that there is no global singular future and no imaginary community, either of states or ‘multitudes’ (or both a la Cochabamba) can stop climate change. Given our obvious inability to re-make the entire world the way we might like it to be, some replace the myth of ‘global revolution’ with a belief in imminent ‘global collapse’ — these days usually some mix of climate change and peak oil. As we shall see later (both in the next chapters and our future years) global heating will severely challenge civilisation in some areas and prob- ably vanquish it in others. Yet in some regions it will likely open up possibilities for the spread of civilisations rule. Some lands may remain (relatively) temperate — climatically and socially. As for civilisation, so for anarchy and anarchists — severely challenged, sometimes vanquished; possibilities for liberty and wildness opening up, possibilities for liberty and wildness closing. The unevenness of the present will be made more so. There is no global future.


readdesert.org

9

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ziq wrote (edited )

This is only true to an extent. Eventually, the damage to the climate will destroy all above ground human habitats. Humans and other mammals simply can't survive the temperature / humidity combo we're going to reach; eventually even in the arctic (which is already on fire every summer).

Even before then, the mass immigration to the pockets of the Earth that will still be habitable will stretch those ecosystems beyond their ability to sustain their populations. Which will lead to further warming, and mass starvation.

The latest science points to a warming chain reaction already set off that we won't be able to stop even if we ended all industrial activity. Right now we're only feeling the effects of industrial activity from 40 years ago - back when industry wasn't nearly as large scale as today.

The planet will do what it's always done and save itself by wiping out the lifeform that did the damage (us).

There have been periods on Earth where the temperatures / carbon in the atmosphere were higher than they are now, and the life that lived here then was much different - mainly reptilian. The planet will go on, but life as we know it won't.

Historically collapse can indeed be worldwide, which every ice age we've had proves. But in the short term, the collapses will happen in hot climates first, while the cold climates will become the new hot climates, and then eventually they'll become so hot that they'll collapse too.

The science that's been coming out in the last few years is far worse than anything we could have expected just 10 years ago

8

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Humans and other mammals simply can't survive the temperature / humidity combo we're going to reach; eventually even in the arctic (which is already on fire every summer).

I would love to learn more about this.
Separately, but related, if this is the case then presumably the rich who are busy making plans to survive the collapse are also aware of this? It makes their actions less sensible.

The planet will go on, but life as we know it won't.

If reptiles will be able to survive, I imagine that humans will have the ingenuity to survive somehow. Life as it is now this will change, I'm sure. Oddly I think we'd more than likely be better off if we died out.

Either way, I think what is important for the no-future nihilist crowd is more the reminder that global political things are multiple and segmented and different from each other, that there will be space to liberate bioregions and make meaningful anarchy as collapse goes down even as in other places authoritarianism clamps down on life.

2

ziq wrote (edited )

The rich can survive underground as long as they have LEDs to grow food and can tap into deep aquifers for water. In remote countries undiminished by industry (especially fracking, which renders the water toxic). The bunkers they're building now in new zealand are pretty primitive in comparison to the underground cities they'll have to build to stay alive for multiple generations tho.

Humidity may prove breaking point for some areas as temperatures rise, says study:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171222090302.htm

What Are the Limits of Human Survival:

https://www.livescience.com/34128-limits-human-survival.html

Most humans will suffer hyperthermia after 10 minutes in extremely humid, 140-degree-Fahrenheit (60-degrees-Celsius) heat. Death by cold is harder to delimit. A person usually expires when their body temperature drops to 70 degrees F (21 degrees C), but how long this takes to happen depends on how "used to the cold" a person is, and whether a mysterious, latent form of hibernation sets in, which has been known to happen.

The boundaries of survival are better established for long-term comfort. According to a 1958 NASA report, people can live indefinitely in environments that range between roughly 40 degrees F and 95 degrees F (4 and 35 degrees C), if the latter temperature occurs at no more than 50 percent relative humidity. The maximum temperature pushes upward when it's less humid, because lower water content in the air makes it easier to sweat, and thus, keep cool.

The Deadly Combination of Heat and Humidity:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/sunday/the-deadly-combination-of-heat-and-humidity.html

If CO2 Levels Continue to Rise "Humid Heatwaves" Will Start to Kill Healthy People within Hours in the next Decades as Climate Scientists Say the Wet Bulb Temperature Survivability Threshold may be Beached Sooner than Projected:

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/8/e1603322.full

Asia Soon To Be Too Hot & Humid To Live In = 800 million new refugees:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/17/climate/india-heat-wave-summer.html

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/02082017/heatwaves-deadly-heat-humidity-wet-bulb-human-survivability-threshold

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/8/e1603322.full

2

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

Thanks, this is useful.

2

ziq wrote

The rich think theyre invicible cuz until now they have been. Ego is powerful. They think they can buy themselves out of anything.

2

An_Old_Big_Tree wrote

If we do end up disagreeing with the writer of Desert and presumably most of the nihilists, it would be worthwhile to flesh that out and try to engage them about it, and also have that critique handy when promoting Desert, which we do quite a bit around here.

Especially if it means that we should be acting differently.
For example, how Bellamy and I'm guessing the Desert writer approach attack; which is to say they think it's not so worthwhile most of the time, because it's just a tiny scratch on Leviathan that is more just so we can feel good about doing something than because we're actually doing something.
Thinking about whether it affects whether we want to desert or not is interesting for me.

And if going out guns blazing is desirable, why is it? And what are the other options?

2

ziq wrote (edited )

I've pretty much already deserted. I don't think there's any way to stop what's coming at this point, even if most people gave a shit, which they don't. But I can't just stop being affected by fucked up shit that happens, even tho I know full well I have no control over it. I still have the need to spread awareness about what's coming and why it's happening and who is doing it. I still want others to know everything that has been taken from us. I want them to know who did this and what we've lost. Even if it's all under the sea in a century, I want the skeletons to know.

the rich are preparing for a world after collapse. at some point climate change will spook them so bad that they'll start killing the poor off in a desperate attempt to slow down the collapses. millions of climate refugees trying to get north will be slaughtered en-route. these are things we have to prepare for.

2