Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

It's the end of the world (as we know it)

By Richard Castles - posted Monday, 11 August 2008


In times of social upheaval, there seem to be three dominant myths that are called upon.

The first is the one that has sustained humankind for millennia: God in his various guises, omnipotent, unchanging and infinite. Just keep your hands inside the vehicle and put your faith in Him.

The other two do not necessarily negate the first, but are in greater competition. They are the progressive “Futurama” myth of reason, science and technology, that has us soaring onwards and upwards to infinity and beyond, versus a belief that we have already gone too far, that we need to return to some imagined Eden.

Advertisement

The tension between these two seems to hinge, at least in part, on the question of whether humans, and all that we do, are viewed as part of nature, or somehow outside it. When the apes started using tools, was it the first step out of the garden that lead us inexorably to the stars, as suggested in 2001: A Space Odyssey? Or are we just a very successful animal?

Ventura believes we are part of nature:

We’re not these nature aliens fucking up nature, we are something that’s happening … To nature as a whole there’s no big difference if the catastrophic changes come through ice or an asteroid or humanity. … It’s when you mistake the end of the culture for the end of the story that you get incredibly depressed. “Everything is ending.” But everything isn’t ending, it’s just this civilization that’s ending. Nature isn’t ending either. Even in a worst-case scenario, nature is changing one balance for another, and it’s unlikely that balance won’t include humanity.

Ironically, this view takes a bigger picture of nature and balance than James Lovelock’s theoretical Gaia, which is more anthropocentric in placing humankind outside the picture as the disruptive species that must correct its own imbalance. Gaia seems to ignore the power of nature, as it is manifested in the human unconscious, a power that is attributed varying force over human behaviour according to theoretical perspective. Freud, essentially, saw it as all but absolute.

When it comes to nature as a whole, he might have suggested that while global warming may be a reality, anthropogenic global warming represents a fantasy that we are in control of it, just as a crying baby may believe it controls its mother’s breast. In terms of object relations, we may not be giving “Mother” the respect she deserves. If the earth’s estimated 4.5 billion year existence were represented by a journey from Melbourne to Sydney, the human species is a hitchhiker picked up in the last 30 metres or so; our century of global warming spans the better part of two centimetres. Is it really Mother Earth who is vulnerable? Or is it more a case, as is sometimes argued, of Western culture prolonging our infancy, an age when tyranny and omnipotent delusions are more than evident to parents and psychologists alike.

If apocalyptic global warming is a myth about the end of a story, what culture is coming to an end?

Advertisement

Certainly not the Christian one, if attention to the Pope’s recent visit is anything to go by. And it’s not the end of hi-story itself, as uttered by Francis Fukuyama, though it would be nice if more attention were paid to it. No, it would seem to be something more subtle and intrinsic: a constant “endingness” that is embedded in the heart of our progressive culture, and not just in so-called “planned obsolescence”.

For the pace of change in our world, compared to the relatively stable long-term civilisations of the past, can make it seem like the world as we know it is ending almost daily. It seems like just yesterday that Australia was the world’s sheep paddock, lucky but cringe-worthy, idly enjoying the pleasures of backyard barbecues and Tether Tennis. Now we have Wii, and are almost as likely to be chatting to someone on the other side of the globe as the other side of the fence.

Historically, cultural change has arrived mostly with the seismic clash of empires. Now we hardly have time to notice and grieve the passing of history. The biggest changes are occurring through the dissolution of boundaries in the global economy and the rapid pace of technological development in human communication. Significantly, the “tipping point” of these can both be flagged to events of late last century that coincided with the emergence of the spectre of global warming, namely the fall of the Berlin Wall and the wiring of the “global village”.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

13 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Richard Castles is a Melbourne writer.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Richard Castles

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy