Sustainable Futures
By Ashok Agrwaal
12 January, 2008
Countercurrents.org
When
we talk about unsustainability, we should be clear that not only is
the future unsustainable but the present also. And, therefore, the
past was also unsustainable. In fact here lies the difficulty about
all the efforts at building an "alternate" world view. We
are all intent on salvaging the present (and the past). This is not
possible and, will not result in any meaningful outcome. I know it
is very difficult to persuade people to give up their present. It
sounds/ seems as if one is asking them to discorporate, dissolve,
die. But that is not the case. To give up the present (and the past)
in this context means to acknowledge/ recognise that in many significant
ways the last few hundred years of human life have moved along a path
that is a dead end. It did not lead to "progress", "growth",
"development" (and many other words), etc.
In fact, the European notion of expansion, growth, etc, along a linear path was wholly misconceived. This does not negate everything that they thought and did during this period. But it is not possible to make a selection from out of the millions of ideas that emerged from their mindset. The rejection has to be wholesale. The rejection is of linearity, which continues to rule the roost as a paradigm of thought and action despite the development of ideas negating it during the 20 th century, from within the European mind itself. The fact that linearity continues to rule despite it having been discredited is proof, if any was needed, that the rejection has to be wholesale. Linearity imbues everything; even that which will survive this "wholesale" rejection. However, this need not concern us for the moment.
This linear, non-contextual reality that we are in the grips of must be replaced with a non-linear, context sensitive world view; which is what the non-western people of the world have lived with for thousands of years and, which is now getting destroyed by "development", "growth" and "progress". Ideas like the WSF or other struggles against the global order will falter/ fail unless they identify this as the difference between the 'mainstream' and the 'alternate', and work to accentuate this difference by their thoughts and actions.
The stance of the 'mainstream' is logical and, understandable. They must assume that they will have to give up their positions of privilege under the "new" dispensation. Therefore, it makes sense to gamble on the perpetuation of the existing order for a little longer rather than lose everything now. Notwithstanding all the planning for the future (insurance, savings, etc) that the current world order has engendered, it is essentially a culture based on short term thinking. Thus, even the "long term" thinkers among us rarely think of the future beyond the life of our children till their middle age. Therefore, so long as it seems to them that the current world order can be perpetuated for another 50 years or so there is no (or very little) incentive to abandon it.
Countless
debates (and actions) on a host of issues, including, global warming,
the mid east conflict, ecological degradation, peak oil, all reflect
this mindset. Each of them (debates) ultimately centres around the
problem of how to "manage" the perceived crisis. Of course,
the overt assumption is that technology will come up with a solution
in the meanwhile: solar power, wind energy, hydroponic farming, genetic
engineering, and so on. However, it is increasingly obvious that this
assumption is fallacious. It is also obvious that even assuming that
we will be able to carry on for another 100-200 years by adopting
these methods, the price that the inhabitants of this earth (I don't
mean humans only) will pay for this perpetuation will be horrendous
and, from my point of view, unacceptable.
All civilisational elites (those who benefit from the existing order)
have invariably thought like this. In the past, "local"
civilisations that did nothing to "save" themselves and,
ultimately, "drowned", did not cause much more than a ripple
on the global scale. The process of regeneration was easily picked
up by the vast hinterland, giving rise to a new "civilisation"
after a suitable interregnum. The problem that we confront, however,
is that the current "civilisation" is global. It global
footprint means that its demise will result in a tsunami of catastrophic
proportions. In other words, for the first time those who survive
the "drowning" will be greatly hampered in salvaging the
meaningful aspects of the past from the driftwood that washes to the
shores of the future. Be that as it may, it is very unlikely that
"life" itself will be destroyed. So, the question is only
of continuity. How much of our past – the collective past rather
than the European one – do we wish to carry forward into future?
I certainly
sound doomsday-ish. So be it. I am not actually so. That which I speak
of is true and real. The defects lie in my expression For that I beg
pardon. After all, I am only an egg.
I am a Lawyer, based in Delhi, India. Besides doing what lawyers usually do, I have worked extensively on human rights issues, particularly those concerning the violation of the right to life and, the impunity that invariably accompanies such violation. Out of my involvements I have developed a criticality about law and rule of law, on developing which I now spend a considerable amount of time. From law to global order is a very small leap. Thus, I also think and write on other issues, such as the present piece. Some of my writings, including that based on empirical research on right to life/ impunity can be downloaded from my website - http://works.bepress.com/ashokagrwaal/. I can be contacted at [email protected].