Militant: “Aggressive or vigorous, especially in the support of a cause.”
Radical: “Of, relating to, or characteristic of the basic or inherent constitution of a person or thing; fundamental: a radical fault...concerned with or tending to concentrate on fundamental aspects of a matter: searching or thoroughgoing thought....favouring or tending to produce extreme or fundamental changes in political, economic, or social conditions, institutions, etc.”
Collins Concise Dictionary
Heroic Posturing vs. Getting The Job Done
There is some confusion about militants and radicals. The terms are frequently and wrongly conflated.
Being militant is one thing, but being radical is quite another. One is a posture while another is diagnosis.
Being militant is an attitude, a tactic, a signal of determination. But one can be militant in the pursuit of a moderate, tangential or relatively inconsequential goal, and passive in the face of more fundamental choices.
A radical, however, is one who addresses the root cause, not the symptoms of a malaise. He may indeed adopt a militant stance, but more often than not, he is a conformist in every way that does not provoke needless antipathy. Radicals are not in business to make fashion statements or attract attention. As Thomas Jefferson advised, in matters of principle, stand firm as a rock, but in matters of fashion, swim with the current. True revolutionaries are typically careful not to offend every sensibility so that their ideas can find a hearing. True revolutionaries often wear suits and ties, carry brief cases, are well mannered, gracious, and articulate without need of profanity. Martin Luther King Jr.[1] was a case in point. Such men---and women--- make their ideas all the more conspicuous by their civility. A dishevelled, poorly groomed man blockading a logging truck or camping a top an old growth Douglas Fir or tossing a paint bomb outside a G8 summit may be quite militant, but not radical. His exhibitionism may testify to his commitment or frame of mind but it does not testify to his radicalism. His antics may earn celebrity or notoriety but they do not address the root cause. Martyrdom can bring self-righteous satisfaction, but radical change is not about feeling good about oneself but effecting positive results. The object of confronting the power structure is not personal therapy but our collective release from its grip.
What Is The Root Cause?
The root cause of our predicament is economic growth. And economic growth is not about personal consumer choices nor per capita consumption levels, it is about the sum total of those per capitas. It is about our total human footprint, not what given individuals do or do not do. Mother nature is not running a contest to see which among us can be the most frugal or the most exemplary. It is a matter of complete indifference to nature that you felt good about replacing your light bulbs or recycled your garbage. Her scorecard only records the impact of our species.
Soft Green 'Solutions' Are Growth-Enablers
Stabilizing growth will not do the trick. We need de-growth. But de-growth must involve progressively lower population levels. We are facing a rapidly contracting resource pie, and reducing our per capita slices ad infinitum will not permit even a subsistence living for 7 billion people for very long. Rapid population growth, then, is a crucial necessity. Without it, all bets are off and all other achievements Pyrrhic victories. Technological efficiencies, smart growth strategies, park preservation, green living habits are in truth, growth-enablers, for in the context of an economic system based on growth, they only create more room for growth to continue. In the absence of growth controls, treading more lightly to offset the number of “treaders” or squeezing tighter to make room for more consumers is only an invitation for more expansion. Frontiers beckon us to go forth and multiply, but walls present humanity with valuable feedback information. "Sorry, there is no more room at the Ecological Inn----stop adding to your family." Open borders may be the dream of capitalists and socialists alike, but they are a nightmare for Mother Nature, who is already groaning under our weight. Migration offers irresponsible governments a safety valve, a disincentive to achieve sustainable population levels, and has served as a de-facto fertility stimulant. Is it any wonder that the Filipino parliament would reject the distribution of free condoms to those who need them? Remittance money from the Philippine Diaspora has become so lucrative that emigration is encouraged.
Time To Ignore Distractions
Let’s get down to business. Let’s focus on the major task at hand.
All activities that do not serve to reduce our total human footprint are distractions, not solutions.
Excluding oil tankers from a coastline may redirect traffic but it does not stop the industrial system which that relies on fossil fuels for its sustenance.
Saving a marsh or a lake or a valley from development or a poster child species from extinction does not defeat the economic imperatives that demand constant human expansion and habitat destruction.
Women's rights, gay rights, workers’ rights, rights for the disabled, rights for seniors, civil rights or human rights do not suffice to achieve sustainability.
Achieving social justice, or socialism, or any institutional arrangement that reduces discord or iniquity between humans but does not redress the imbalance between humanity and nature is a sideshow. Social and economic equality does not affect our total footprint. Redistributing the rations on an overloaded lifeboat according to some egalitarian prescription may buy peace and harmony but it will not make the vessel seaworthy, and if the rations will not last before it reaches shore, then conflict between passengers will return with a vengeance.
Here’s a tip. If you have some spare time to fight the good fight for the right cause, read Mother Nature’s Help-Wanted Ad.
She doesn’t need more green exhibitionists and "eco" warriors, she needs radicals.
We need more advocates for rapid population decline, starting yesterday. We need to shrink the demographic pie to a sustainable size so that the slices are large enough to afford a decent living standard for future generations, and keep it that way.
Tim Murray
January 18, 2011
Footnotes
1. Thanks, Tim, for giving the example of Martin Luther King, articles about whom feature on this site. If King was alive today, I have no doubt that the establishment newsmedia, particularly the ABC's Jon Faine, and many of those who claim to oppose the established order, including most of the 'left', would now be dismissing him as naive or even a "conspiracy nut". I have to admit that, for decades, I, myself, wrongly presumed King to be a conservative, because his presentation did not match the style of the supposedly ultra-radical activists of his time. In fact, King was truly more genuinely opposed to the wealthy elites than most of the "ultra-radicals" I had compared him so unfavourably with and, because of that, King was murdered in 1968 by a conspiracy involving army snipers as a civil trial jury trial found in 1999. He was particularly outspoken against the Vietnam War as well as for those other causes so demonised by today's 'ultra-radicals' - opposition to population growth and opposition high immigration. - Editor
Add comment