On the End of the World As We Know It

A fellow named Bruce Sterling wishes us to panic.

Not everyone sees the end of civilisation as a bad thing. Elberry speaks regularly of "when the War comes and society disintegrates". He looks forward to it. So do I, at times; society sometimes seems worthless and corrupt and not worth saving, an endless generative force of stupidity and worthless bureaucrats grinding the lowly beneath the jackboot of well-intentioned political correctness.

On the other hand, society is also all those people you know, all those comforts you enjoy, all the culture at your fingertips. Music and cinema and good things. Human beings always generate a System. This System will always have something wrong with it. This is what is known in theology as Original Sin, and its cure required the Son of God to be nailed to a cross, and requires us to take up our cross and follow him. Fundamental change in this matter isn't going to happen between now and the end of the world.

Back to Bruce, who gives many excellent reasons to panic. Being a scientist, the only ones I can really muster an opinion about are the first and last, and I think on both he'd be well-served to drop the 'zOMG the stoopid fundy plebs are ruining the planet for all us sensible people' stuff, but then, I've heard more of that than I can stand.


CHICKENS, DISPENSE OF YOUR HEADS #1: The climate. People still behave as if it's okay. Every scientist in the world who isn't the late Michael Crichton knows that it's not. The climate is in terrible shape; something's gone wrong with the sky. The bone-chilling implications haven't soaked into the populace, even though Al Gore put together a PowerPoint about it that won him a Nobel. Al was soft-peddling the problem.

It's become an item of fundamentalist faith to maintain that the climate crisis is a weird leftist hoax. Yet, since the rain falls on the just and the unjust alike, an honest fear of the consequences will prove hard to repress. Since the fear has been methodically obscured, its emergence from the mists of superstition will be all the more powerful. Unlike mere shibboleths of finance, this is a situation that's objectively terrifying and likely to remain so indefinitely.

Um. Wut.

It is an item of faith, or rather opinion, for these "fundamentalists" (whose numbers include such interesting people as Mencius Moldbug, atheist Jacobite, Alexander Cockburn, hard-core left-winger, and Freeman Dyson, who is generally awesome) that the human contribution to global climate change has been vastly exaggerated and/or that there's a lot of hysteria involved.

Otherwise, there is real reason to panic, because climate is very variable regardless of human influence. There have been droughts, cold spells, hurricanes, volcanoes (not caused by climate, obviously, but an influence on it) &c. throughout human history, and there will continue to be; the possibility of disastrous climatic events was around before we started burning fossil fuels, and hasn't gone away. If you're looking for reason to panic about the climate, anthropogenic global warming does not need to be brought into the equation.

JUST START RIOTING NOW AND BEAT THE RUSH #2: Intellectual property. More specifically, the fiat declaration that properties that are easy to reproduce shouldn't be reproduced.

Declaring that "information wants to be free" is an ideological stance. A real-world situation where information can't be anything but free, where digital information cannot be monetized, is bizarre and deeply scary. No banker or economist anywhere has the ghost of clue what to do under such conditions... If it becomes easy to copy a million movies with one single button-push, this vast economic superstructure is reduced to rags... our society is also built on the supposed monetary worth of unreal estate. In fact, the planet's most advanced economies are optimized to create pretty much nothing else.

True. Also overstatement, I think. Cinemas will not be affected much by property rights. CD sales might be. Digital downloads are working as a viable revenue stream these days, as far as I can tell; more communist (small-c) models might also take off, such as voluntary donations - a lot of webcomics work on this principle.

Actually, this is something I seriously look forward to. If Mr. Sterling is right here, then in 30 years a far larger fraction of the money in music will be in live performances. Boy bands and girl bands and Britney Spears are manufactured to sell CDs; the erosion of property rights will see to their end - and considering how the industry has chewed up and spat out folks like Ms. Spears, there are reasons beyond the aesthetic to hope for this. Further: more local music, more variety, less uniformity - under the current state of affairs, it makes sense for large music companies to push some of their most marketable stars to superstar status and flog their stuff around the world; think Madonna, Robbie Williams - the result being that pop music is more uniform across countries and continents than is really healthy.

THE WORLD ENDS TOMORROW. PLEASE EXCUSE MY STEALING YOUR LAWNMOWER #3: National currencies. What do these odd numismatic relics have to do with today's roiling global economy? There is no national currency remotely strong enough to resist persecution by speculators. They're all potential bubbles — panics in the making.

There is an alternative to this, and it is called the Gold Standard. I understand this also has drawbacks, but not being an economist I don't know what they are. Of course, if the Gold Standard actually worked, then this might just precipitate all the other currencies crashing like a supersonic ming vase against the rocky foothills of the Himalayas.

An aside: two old ladies are sitting in an airplane when suddenly, they hear a huge bang. Shortly after, the captain addresses the passengers.

"Ladies and gentlemen! I'm afraid one of our engines just exploded. Please do not panic - we can fly on three engines. But it will take us longer to reach our destination. We expect to arrive at New York in seven hours, rather than 5."

The old ladies return to their knitting. A few minutes later, another bang sounds. Again, the captain seeks to reassure his passengers.

"Ladies and gentlemen! I'm afraid another one of our engines just exploded. Please do not panic - we can fly on two engines. But it will now take ten hours to arrive in New York."

The old ladies sigh and return to discussing the lack of manners of the modern youth. A few minutes later, there is yet another bang. The captain again tries to keep his passengers from panic.

"Ladies and gentlemen! I'm afraid a third engine just exploded. I'm very sorry to announce that it will now take us thirteen hours to get to New York."

One of the little old ladies sighs, and says to the other: "I really hope the last engine doesn't go, or we'll be up here all day!"

MAN I FEEL STOOPID SHELLING OUT FOR ALL THAT HOUSE INSURANCE #4: Insurance and building codes. Every year, insurance rates soar from mounting "natural" catastrophes, obscuring the fact that the planet's coasts are increasingly uninsurable.

Maybe. Though the Japanese get earthquakes all the time, and they seem to do OK.

NOW YOU WILL NEVER FINISH YOUR MATCHSTICK MODEL OF THE EIFFEL TOWER #5: The elderly. There's nothing so entirely predictable as demographic change. Obviously we're facing enormous booming hordes of elderly. Yet no one is confronting that issue. People remain in denial. They're hoping a miracle will turn up, like, for instance, the sudden disinterest of a demographic majority who always vote.

Don't worry, kids. This is why euthanasia's so great! We can convince all the oldsters to off themselves and feel fluffy and self-righteous at the same time! Death with Dignity! Right to Die! Yeah!

...but yes. This will be a serious problem, and no-one wants to even talk about it on the highest political levels. Interesting times.

The elderly, supposedly the calm, serene, seasoned elements in our society, have every right to panic. They will not go gentle into that good night.

Damn straight they won't, and more power to 'em. Sadly, I suspect human nature will not be up to the challenge of treating our elderly with care and dignity when resources run low. (See: Original Sin.)

YOUR HONOUR, WE HAVE SEVEN HOURS TO LIVE. NO, I DO NOT REGRET JAYWALKING #6: The Westphalian system. Why are so many great military powers losing a war in Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn't even a nation-state, yet it's defeating all comers. Why do we even pretend to have nations these days? Hollow states, failed states, non-states... The European post-state!

No flag, no currency... People no longer have to believe in these effigies. Why do they persist? The benefits of believing in nations are slim. The planetary slum-dwellers of failed states may find the rollicking life of a Somali pirate far more attractive than the hard work of state-building. The nation-state is torn from both above and below. The global guerrilla and the Davos globe-hopper are cousins.

This is a good point. Except for the bit about Afghanistan. I do not believe the Treaty of Westphalia included a clause about how all nation states are null and void if unable to pacify insurgents in mountainous countries thousands of miles away.

This will also, probably, change when the oil starts running low and globe-hopping becomes less feasible.

IT'S OUR LAST NIGHT ON EARTH, BABY, IT AIN'T NO TIME TO SLEEP ALONE #7: Science. To be a creationist president is not a problem. A suicide cult is the most effective political actor in the world today. Clearly the millions of people embracing fundamentalism like to make up their own facts.

I do not believe America is liable to elect a Creationist president anytime soon. Unless by "Creationism" one means "Intelligent Design", which is a lot harder to get worked up about. This is why Bruce Sterling does not write "a president who's sympathetic to Intelligent Design is not a problem". I assume "suicide cult" means Islam; real suicide cults are thin on the ground, for obvious Darwinian reasons. I assume "fundamentalism" here means actual fundamentalism (rather than its use in point #1), unless Bruce Sterling meant "Intelligent Design" when he wrote "Creationism" (which would also invalidate that "make up your own facts" stuff - Creationists may do that, but ID is a God-of-the-Gaps thing).

Standards of scientific proof and evidence no longer compel political and social allegiance. This is not a return to the bedrock of faith — it's an algorithm for ontological anarchy. By attacking empiricism, the world is discarding all of the good reasons to believe that anything is real.

One paragraph, the problem is there's too many religious types rejecting science to cling to the bedrock of faith. Now, the problem is people aren't rejecting science to cling to the bedrock of faith, just rejecting science for the hell of it, and this is bad, and leads to the thousand flowers of ontological anarchy blooming. This guy could stand to make up his own mind, I think. ("Think for yourself and question authority" is also an algorithm for ontological anarchy, as is multiculturalism.)

Also, empiricism is not a "good reason" to believe that anything is real anyway. It is an assumption that anything is real.

If science is discredited, why should mere politics have any intellectual rigor? Just cobble together a crazy-quilt mix-and-match ideology, like Venezuelan Bolivarism or Russia's peculiar mix of spies, oil, and Orthodoxy. Go from the gut — all tactics, no strategy — making up the state of the world as you go along! Stampede wildly from one panic crisis to the next. Believe whatever is whispered. Hide and conceal whatever you can. Spy on the phone calls, emails, and web browsing of those who might actually know something.

Like you need to reject Science to do any of that?

If that leads you to a miserable end-state, huddling with the children in a fall-out shelter [because, you know, science had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, they're all the fault of Creationists and Vladimir Putin] clutching silver bullion, then you can congratulate yourself as the vanguard of civilization.

Yeah baby yeah.

--

The article also has a companion in which Mr. Sterling pretends to be an Italian and writes about how wonderful European attitudes are. His alter ego is significantly more worthless than his main personality, so I'm going to succumb to the temptation to do some straightforward fisking.

Here in Europe, we employ terms rarely heard across the Atlantic. Translated into English, these terms are "solidarity" and "precarity." The year 2009 will be about these issues. Their time has come.

I hope it has. I also hope people stop hijacking these terms as cover for unlimited government power and meddlesome beaurocracy. Sadly, this is unlikely to happen.

The American response to such an affront would likely be to retain counsel and sue. Europe is not a litigious or constitutional society. "Solidarity" is our native response.

I never realised my home continent was such a wonderful place! All that soft and fluffy solidarity! How did I ever overlook it?

...ok, I concede Americans are more litigious. But this stuff is just painful.

(Also: Europeans have traditionally had major limitations on showing solidarity with, say, Jews - a problem which hasn't gone away.)

The year 2009 will brim over with senseless affronts toward decent people who have done their best and obeyed all the rules. Well-connected, well-educated, capable people who are pillars of the community will be ruined.

Reader exercise #1: from whence will come these affronts that ruin decent people? Big companies? Violent gangs? Or arms of government? (Easy.)

Reader exercise #2: how do we reduce their power to cause senseless affront? (A tad harder.)

It follows that 2009 will be a global banner year for European solidarity.

Erm, no.

Then, some stuff about Italian physicists joining student protests after being screwed over by government. I wouldn't claim that this is good for Italian science — about six thousand Italian scientists flee Italy every year. It is, however, a tribute to Italian social cohesion.

Where do European scientists typically flee? What country is most likely to offer them HUGE QUANTITIES OF MONEY to come and work there? If Italian social cohesion is so great, why are have so many scientists been running away even before this incident?

If you can't react to the misfortunes of the best people in your society

"Best people". That RIGHT THERE, ladies and gentlemen, is one big explanatory chunk of reason-to-panic #7 earlier on.

then, when do you plan to take action? What further excuse do you require to put aside your personal selfishness and learn to think politically?

I would echo this sentiment if I didn't fear that "thinking politically" often leads voting in people whose idea of "solutions" is widening the power and responsibilities of the State, thus creating more opportunities for small-minded government employees to offer senseless affronts to decent people.

"Precarity" has much to do with the need for a steady income, for predictable hours of work, for a humane respect from one's employer and a need not to be unjustly fired. Below this thin shell of labor-management relations is the deeper, more primal nature of European precarity. It is found in our time-honored European predilection for abject misery, political extremism, totalitarian violence against the dignity of the individual, and world wars.

1st sentence: Right on. The rest? Mr. Sterling confessing our sins for us is even worse than him praising our virtues. Also, he has somehow failed to notice the collectivist nature of European totalitarianism over the last 100 years or so. Socialism was for solidarity over precarity. National Socialism was for solidarity (at least, with the Volk) over the precarity caused by the enemies of the Fatherland (including Big Business, insofar as it was owned by Jews). Fascism was for solidarity with the State over the precarity caused by (international) Socialism threatening to uproot everything. Thinking "politically" about "solidarity" leads to nothing good. Thinking about "solidarity" like some kind of damn HUMAN BEING for once and not trying to get your government to do the solidarising for you? That I could get behind.

There then follows some stuff about how Science is awesome, particularly the blasting of satellites into space to look at the moons of Saturn. In this, Mr. Sterling is completely correct, and nothing worth fisking appears for another two or three paragraphs or so.

In a world so redolent with wonder, how can we allow ourselves to conduct our daily lives with so little insight, such absence of dignity?

Speak for yourself, Mr. Sterling.

A guaranteed annual income would be a good start. Shorter work weeks give us the chance to rejoin civil society, to re-establish trust with neighbors turned strangers to engage in some convivial joie de vivre over healthy, genuine cuisine, instead of ridiculous cardboard-packaged fast food.

France has shorter work weeks. It is not an earthly paradise. Also, "healthy cuisine instead of cardboard-packaged fast food"? You're forgetting you're supposed to be an Italian and not an American here, Mr. Sterling.

Nevertheless, we return to agreement in the final paragraphs:

After 1989 we enjoyed a strange interregnum where "history ended." Everyone ran up a credit-card bill at the global supermarket. The adventure ended badly, in crisis. Still, let us be of good heart. In cold fact, a financial crisis is one of the kindest and mildest sorts of crisis a civilization can have. Compared to typical Italian catastrophes like wars, epidemics, earthquakes, volcanoes, endemic political collapse — a financial crisis is a problem for schoolchildren.

The year to come is best approached as a learning opportunity. It offers a golden chance to bury our dead prejudices and learn how to properly feed the living. Once we stop shaking all over and scolding Americans, we will recognize the tremendous potential this new century offers the people of the world. The sun still shines, the grass still grows, we are still human. If we stopped pretending to be puppets of an invisible hand, we would not fret over the loss of the 20th century's strings. We might see that life is sweet.

Amen to that.