One world, one operating system

[imomus]

It's Sunday, so here's a sermon. My message today is something very big and simple. Something about what I perceive to be the general situation in the world today, and how I therefore define my idea of what's "evil". Sorry to sound so theological, but it is a Sunday. Okay, here it is:

The real problem today is not what a few people do, but what everybody does. Evil is not to be found in the "extremist" behaviour of a minority, but deep in the habitus of the majority.

The backdrop to this idea—and we'll see later what huge consequences it has—is the general picture. It's so big we sometimes miss it. There are too many human beings on the planet—6 billion, expected to rise to 9 billion within the next 50 years—and our "success" in sustaining ourselves may in fact turn out to be our biggest failure, destroying not only ourselves but everything on the planet. Half of the earth's land mass has been changed by human activity, and when global warming really hits that figure will rise rapidly towards 100%. Thanks to human "success" 25% of all bird species have been lost, and two-thirds of the major fisheries around the world have been fully exploited or depleted. Almost 1100 species of birds and mammals are currently facing extinction.

Success is failure in the current situation for the same reason it is in economics: unrestrained "success" leads to monopolies. Humans are monopolizing this planet, stripping it of the diversity it needs to survive. It isn't just other species which suffer, it's also human ways of living which are less ruthlessly "efficient". "Success" leads to monoculture. Just as other species of creatures are disappearing thanks to human activity, other less "efficient" ways of being human are being wiped out too. Speciecide is matched by linguicide and culturcide, the erasure of distinctive languages and cultures. The United Nations estimates that half of the world’s current 6,000 languages will disappear in less than a century, while half of the world’s people now use one of just eight languages: Chinese, English, Hindi, Spanish, Russian, Arabic, Portuguese and French.

I visit zoos and museums a lot, and love them as places where difference and diversity are displayed. But both experiences are laced with distinct sadness: museums are the object-records of "failed" cultures wiped out by "successful" ones, and zoos are places where "failed" species are corralled for the one successful species (ourselves) to ogle at. Almost every sign at a modern zoo has a "status" section where the degree of endangerment of the animal we're looking at is rated. All too often that level is "high". And the thing doing the endangering is invariably ourselves, our human monoculture.

In such a context, we need a new definition of "evil". Our politicians tell us that "evil" is summed up best by the behaviour of a small minority of deviants — terrorists, insurgents, extremists, rogue states... those, in short, who think, act, look and live differently from the great majority of us. According to these authorities, one would be more likely to find "evil" in a person dressed in robes and a veil, motivated by religion, than a person dressed in sports shoes, jeans and a black jacket, motivated by money. A sure sign of "evil", to these politicians, is the stubborn resistance to the standards and norms of "the international community". The "axis of evil" is always out there in what they do, never in here in what we do.

But if my assessment of the overall picture is correct, this is completely the wrong message. "Evil" is not divergence but convergence. "Evil" is not difference but unity. "Evil" is monoculture. "Evil" is success and economic growth without thought for the massive erasures it causes, the environmental havoc it wreaks, the biological and cultural diversity it reduces. Evil is, in short, the thing we all do because it's right, efficient and successful. Having children, speaking one of the eight "killer" languages, driving a car, using the dominant computer software (computing too is a culture; Windows currently has 93% of the desktop OS market; Apple, the next biggest, has 2.9%), converging and conforming until our habits of life resemble those of the majority. Want to look "evil"? Dress like everybody else in the monoculture: mesh cap, black jacket, jeans, white shoes.

In the circumstances, virtue also needs to be redefined. In view of the overall picture of monoculture—one world, one operating system—it's a virtue to act, dress, think and feel differently from the "successful", to learn and speak a minority language, to own no car, to have no children, to earn and spend less this year than your earned and spent last year. It's a virtue to try to reverse speciecide, linguicide, culturcide. It's a virtue to immerse yourself in the worlds and ways of thinking of the kind of "failed cultures" you find in museums, to preserve and investigate ways of life currently on the cusp of disappearance. Our "success" may be leading to the mother of all failures, but if we find the courage to embrace and investigate all the ways different peoples and animals have "got it wrong" (in other words, preserved a diversity of co-existing rightnesses) over the millenia, we may still be able to succeed... and survive.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

There's a lot of unspoken assumptions behind this about what we should be aiming for.

If it's to preserve/conserve the earth as long as possible, and to allow other species to flourish, then maybe you'd be better off suggesting that humans are vastly overpopulated and should be reduced?

But who says it's better to go out with a whimper rather than a bang?

Everything falls apart in the end anyway.

[imomus.livejournal.com]

who says it's better to go out with a whimper rather than a bang?

The big bland bang of some arrogant denimclad majority who think "success" means all crossing the finishing line together and delivering the world a happy ending...? Oh spare me! I'd rather be cooked in a pot by a lost tribe of headhunters who at least sang interesting songs in an undocumented language.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

...speaking one of the eight "killer" languages

I hope you're not implying that I or anyone else in the fringes of the linguistic map should go back to not understanding English speakers merely to be interestingly different?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Four generations ago my ancestors spoke Gaelic as their first language. That doesn't mean they didn't understand English, but it does mean they had two ways of looking at the world instead of just one.

[stanleylieber.livejournal.com]

'Want to look "evil"? Dress like everybody else in the monoculture: mesh cap, black jacket, jeans, white shoes.'

What percentage of the American population would you conjecture conforms to this dress code? :)

[imomus.livejournal.com]

Easily 65%, I'd conjecture. Got webcams?

[trufflesniffer.livejournal.com]

If you're suggesting one should adopt a consequentialist, rather than rule-based, definition of 'evil', then I think I agree.
If you're suggesting, however, that monopoly and homogeneity is always, rather than just usually, 'evil', then I'm not sure (because that sounds like a 'rule'!)

Perhaps Microsoft is a good example: Bill Gates is the richest man on the planet, but could well turn out to be its most effective (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3598720) philanthropist (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_id=3599374).
I personally think limited choice of computer operating systems is a price worth paying to stop tens of millions of children from dying of starvation and preventable disease.

[artysmokes.livejournal.com]

If millions of children's lives are saved, then the population can get even bigger and we can fuck the world up even more. Great!
While Gates' philanthropy can only be applauded, I would think that lowering the birth rate in poor countries is a more pressing matter than lowering the death rate.

[spoombung.livejournal.com]

"It's a virtue to try to reverse speciecide, linguicide, culturcide."

Yeh, but there's only so far you can go, though, before you give up on the species, the language, or whatever you're trying to reverse.

The French have really strict rules about their language. They rarely introduce anything new. The English language on the other hand is like a big sponge absorbing and assimulating all the time, with hundreds of words added every year. Some peoplke don't like that, but it evolves quickly. Maybe that's why it's a 'killer' language?I don't think it's evolution or premier position makes it evil.

Anyway, you're usually a critic of museum culture! That kind-of seems to be what you're offering when you talk about 'reversing'

[(Anonymous)]

Hmmm...interesting that this posting is meeting with limited agreement...I think it's the 'sermon' approach which is the problem.

[artysmokes.livejournal.com]

This the anti-globalisation debate again, isn't it?

There's also a bit of James Lovelock's Gaia Theory going on.

I have a lot of sypathy with your viewpoint, but it raises more questions than it answers. (A bit like most religious sermons, if you ask me!)

FWIW, my own view of "evil" is that it is a synonym for "selfishness". I also don't think there is anything we can do about it. Evil, aka selfishness, is written into the DNA of every human that ever existed; survival of the fittest and all that.
Eventually, humans will make the Earth uninhabitable for all but the most priviledged. By merely existing, we are complicit in our eventual downfall. Part of me wishes the apocalypse would arrive sooner rather than later....

[cap-scaleman.livejournal.com]

We have almost successed with the failure, but we have failed to make a success!

Errr...

[(Anonymous)]

The figure is much higher than 1100. According to the IUCN's 2004 Red List, the number of known species (including plants) facing extinction stands at 15,589.

[qscrisp.livejournal.com]

Hello Momus.

I am in almost complete agreement with what you say here. I haven't read all the other comments, I'm afraid, because I don't have time right now, so I apologise if I am repeating anything.

The only thing I have a slight possible disagreement with is the idea that the dominant cultures are efficient. They are efficient at domination, perhaps, but they are generally cultures of waste, and it is waste that is devastating the environment. Economic expansion also relies on waste rather than efficiency.

This is an issue I feel strongly about, and I do agree that the only 'moral' thing we can do - certainly the only way I can feel at all good about my life - is to try and live in and for all that is being wiped out by the monoculture at the moment.

I can't help thinking of the Talking Heads track Listening Wind. There is some diginity in going down with a sinking ship. Not just diginity. It seems like the only thing worth doing.

I recently posted something about this on my blog (http://my.opera.com/quentinscrisp/blog/show.dml/21250). Sorry it's so despairing. I get like that sometimes. But I just feel we have to take a long hard look at what's happening and decide what our values really are.

[henryperri.livejournal.com]

Allow me to also put on the relativist mask here for a second. Human beings were created by the same mother nature that created all the rest of the animals. In other words, if humans are destined to "destroy the planet," as you see it, then that was nature's design from the start. Do you wish to somehow circumvent nature's predestined path?

What is "natural" and what is "unnatural?" We have a tendency to view humans as "unnatural"; that is, the plants and animals were all here on Earth and then we somehow showed up to wreck all things in nature--like some imperialist juggernaut (not surprisingly we also see the application of this model to politics--the "civilized" countries are out to wreck the "natural" ones). Even though Mother Nature ultimately was responsible for creating humanity and all of its creations, we don't see a building getting torn down as nature being ruined.

By the way, the US, Germany, Japan, etc all have aging populations. The fear of overcrowding was the vision of some people in the 70s; and it now looks increasingly less valid.

Also, if the internet had been around in 1880, we might've seen dozens and dozens of articles about "peak coal." Strangely, coal isn't such a big deal anymore. Also surprising is the fact that the great majority of the US is no longer farming. But I can bet the people of the 19th century also viewed the future using some sort of static model only relative to their particular time period.

[din-din-dote.livejournal.com]

"Human beings were created by the same mother nature that created all the rest of the animals. In other words, if humans are destined to "destroy the planet," as you see it, then that was nature's design from the start. Do you wish to somehow circumvent nature's predestined path?"

Our present monoculture did not have to come about. It did. It doesn't work, however, it will come to an abrupt end unless we do something to deal with it. Also, according to your logic, people like Momus realizing we need to do things differently would also be "nature's predestined path", yes? He and his thoughts are natural, yes?

"By the way, the US, Germany, Japan, etc all have aging populations. The fear of overcrowding was the vision of some people in the 70s; and it now looks increasingly less valid."

Overcrowding isn't exactly the issue. Population is at the mercy of food production. Food production (our manner of it) is particularly destructive toward other species, earth itself, etc - we have to produce more food every year to fit an growing population, accordingly the population then increases. Result is serious destruction of biodiversity, a very essential thing for sustaining life on the planet. Am I suggesting we lower the amount of food we produce? Yes. Or begin by producing the same amount of food as we did the year previous.

I don't really have any hope for us though. I don't think we'll accomodate for these challenges. Collapse it is!

[robotar.livejournal.com]

I agree with this entry! However, a few points:
1. I agree that diversity is key, but unity is in fact useful, don't you think? Unity with a capitalist ethos is certainly not positive, but with a realignment of values that you call for, butressed with unity, would prove a powerful force of change, no? Anyway, that's what you seem to be calling for in your final paragraph, anyway.

2. Perhaps dressing alike and looking alike is not the real "evil," but dressing alike in clothing that is damaging to humanity and to the environment. Were we all, instead, to purchase the majority of our clothes from Goodwill, and to, at the same time, create living wages for current workers in place like Indonesia, Mexico, India, etc. and have those factoies use less environmentally-degrative materials and processes, perhaps the lives of people and the planet would be improved.

3. Perhaps adopting is a more beneficial practice than not having children at all, eh?

4. But I think what you are overall calling for, and a point I agree with and wish so much could be brought about, is a return to a hunter-gatherer society (but perhaps with a patch of garden, since I do love fresh home-grown vegetables so!). Individualized cultures, cooperation amongst people, etc etc. Unfortunately as Marx knew and the writer of that novel "Ishmael" knew, we really can't go backwards. Perhaps the collapse of capitalism, which must take place within the next century if we're all to be saved, will bring us to this kind of communistic moment-- but I suppose only the future will tell.

5. The only thing I have to steel myself against despair upon considering these topics is this: humanity will not live infinitely, and this planet has a wonderful and astonishing way of replenishing itself. When we're gone, the flora and the fauna will regrow and rediversify-- I wish I could be around to see it, but that would be against the point, wouldn't it?

[din-din-dote.livejournal.com]

I'm glad to see another Ishy here!

[isomeme.livejournal.com]

You need to read _Collapse_ by Jared Diamond. He examines how several past and present societies have collapsed, and what implications these collapses have for the modern first world. It's the most fascinating book I've read in years.

[jina---.livejournal.com]

totally agree.
I look at people in my job, young people.

why do they go to work everyday?
because they don't have something better to do.

what they do their money?
they make up needs and most of them (i can't accept it but it's true) want to buy a car!!

Why do they want to buy a car?
Because everybody has a car!?
they make me sick...

[butterflyrobert.livejournal.com]

Why do they want to buy a car?
Because everybody has a car!?

This reminds me of the american Television cliche regarding autos. On american TV, getting your driver's license and getting your first car is seen as a rite of passage for teenagers. And so it has become for most american families.

LUV X LUV

[(Anonymous)]

We're simply multiplying, love!
There's never enough in this world...

Re: LUV X LUV

[din-din-dote.livejournal.com]

Well then... love will tear us apart! (again ( :( ))

[(Anonymous)]

it was painted on cave walls: the Spiral: inward or outward.
Self-centered existance is inward, like a blackhole, a circuit of constricting content and devolving quality
Other-centered existance is outward, like self-education, ever-deepening and far-reaching overlapping layers of understanding in concrete/chemical/genetic spheres

[(Anonymous)]

but that image, the Spiral, is still static, encompassing both elements. a yinyang for those minimalist cavemen go not chess

Hummm...

[(Anonymous)]

It proved interested to compare today's entry with this one from way back when...

http://imomus.com/thought200200.html

[(Anonymous)]

One positive feature of the constant drive away from diversity is that it is often creating new diversity in its wake. Yes, traditional Bazombo trance music is probably going to be rolled over by some other culture's music, and the world will be worse for it. But out of this, we are getting groups like Konono no1, a unique style that never would have existed. Cultural diversity has the opportunity to spring up anywhere that two monocultures collide, its constantly being renewed at the edges.

I think you are also underestimating the existing cultural diversity of the world. As Lord Whimsey Himself points out below, the diversity present within the US is surprising. I have lived here my whole life, and am still discovered new distinct cultures here. Its not societies isolated from the world for centuries, but the majority here is not a 2000-era hipster.

The problem I see with this sermon is that there is a real difference between the drive towards a monoculture in culture & language, and the analogous drive in the environment. Cultural non-diverity is usually self-refreshing. English currently dominates internationally, but at the same time English is becoming more and more fractured.

This isn't true of environmental monocultures. Changes from people are happening so quickly that the rest of the world can't hope to keep up. There is no chance for the world to adapt and put humanity in its place.

I agree with you wholeheartedly that embracing some kind of unsuccess may be the only way to save the world as we like it, but I think lumping in cultural and linguistic diversity is an oversimplification. But then again, I guess using oversimplification to get people thinking is the whole point of sitting in a pulpit, no?

[imomus.livejournal.com]

War of the Words (http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,16488,1572550,00.html) in The Observer confirms this entry's success-as-killer theme, this time looking at the book trade in the UK:

"Publishers are held to ever tighter margins: for some Christmas promotions, I was told, Waterstone's is demanding 65-70 per cent discount on all titles, in addition to contributions of £30,000 or more towards marketing costs for each promoted book. Independent publishers, who have generally spent far less than that amount on an advance to their author, are particularly reluctant to take the risk. When you see bigger and bigger piles of fewer and fewer books in your shops this is the reason why."

[robotar.livejournal.com]

Oh, also wanted to point out that by travelling to Japan so much, aren't you both hurting the environment, and homogenizing culture? You yourself are kind of a Berlin-NY-Japan fusion, aren't you?

Algae did it first

[mckibillo.livejournal.com]

I realize I'm late to this as you've already moved on, but anyway here's my what for.

You mentioned that you like to visit museums and zoos for a bit of perspective. You might be interested to know that one of the first mass extinction events on the planet was also brought on by radical success. In this case, of Cyanobacteria, photosynthetic organisms that produce oxygen as a byproduct. They colonized our young planet so successfully they poisoned (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/precambrian/proterostrat.html)their own atmosphere (oxygen is poison to most bacteria). Eventually they adapted and created strategies for surviving, even thriving (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanointro.html)in what is now our oxygen rich atmosphere. Ironically, we can stand on this planet and breathe because of this first cataclysmic event. In an even further irony, most of the oil we're pumping out of the ground is a result of this first mass die off.

In the biological records they are many examples of successful species being too good for their own good. And in our historical records, many, many, many cultures overtaxed their natural resources and broke up in disease and confusion. Our turn will come as well. But perhaps since we're more interconnected economically, culturally, etc. the die off will be greater this time. Of course, they'll always be a few poor slobs left around to pick up the pieces. To echo/refute an earlier comment, it won't end with a bang, because it ALWAYS ends with a whimper.

So basically, I agree with your post. But one thing that bugs me, always has, how do you square your preference for a consumer culture with a global system designed to, in order to satisfy the demands of the consumer, inevitably fail, as it squeezes out the last bit of resource from just the next cheapest place to get it?

[markii187.livejournal.com]

Thought provoking.

Interesting. Thanks.

[heyfatass.livejournal.com]

Because they are not menageries, the function of most zoos now and throughout the latter half of the 20th century is and has been not to "coral" specimens for interspecific amusement, but rather to have available a stock of genetic material from individuals for future breeding programs lest those species should become extinct in the wild. Exhibits are designed for the comfort of multiple animals and to be conducive to sex. We want the animals to breed. Failing that, we want successful artificial insemination, and we want the mother to rear her own offspring (which can be difficult in captivity, especially for female primates who were never given the opportunity to participate in "aunting" behaviors).

The Mauritius Kestrel and California Condor are two examples of effective re-establishment of species teetering on the brink. In the past two decades, marmoset, tamarin and lemur reintroduction has been extensively researched and occasionally performed.

Without charging the public to gape at the animals and say rude things about chimpanzee bottoms, the programs would collapse for lack of money. If it were up to many working in animal management, all breeding programs would be operated from biosphere reserves accessible only to scientists.

While I agree that modern zoos are an unfortunate biproduct of cultural homogenization, I must disagree with your (pessimistically) referring to the animals on exhibit as "failed" species. Granted, they're struggling, but those status signs are posted to encourage older visitors to empty their pockets in the name of conservation and younger visitors to convince their parents to empty their pockets in the name of conservation via six or seven years of school.

As an aside... because of persistent insufficient funding, zoo animal welfare is often compromised to augment the entertainment factor and draw the public in. Appallingly, it seems that a sort of cost/benefit analysis is imposed on most American zoos and breeding programs in which one animal dying of stress-exacerbated conditions in inappropriate exhibits is compensated for by the amount of money visitors will spend returning to the zoo after having gotten to see the animal "so up close".

[qscrisp.livejournal.com]

One race nation (http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=1&id=352312).