Consumption Junction - Too Much is Never Enough

8/3/2019 Consumption Junction - Too Much is Never Enough

1/20

Consumption Junction: Too Much is Never

Enough

We are have seen weird Times in this country before, but the year[2005] is beginning to look super weird. This time there really is nobodyflying the plane We are living in dangerously weird times now. Smartpeople just shrug and admit theyre dazed and confused. The only onesleft with any confidence at all are the New Dumb. It is the beginning ofthe end of our world as we knew it. Doom is the operative ethic.

Hunter S. Thompson

Fear. Thats exactly what I feel on this rotten night. Its 8:55 PM

on Thursday and the President just finished up his long overdue press

conference. Forty-eight minutes of nonsense spouting out of that

brainless toad; couldve gone the full hour but didnt want to take up

television time from the sponsors for the sake of the economy.

Todays topics were rising oil prices and Social Security reform. He

spent four minutes discussing oil prices, claimed we need to address

the root causes that are driving up gas prices, and concluded that we

need to maximize oil production to meet the growing demand for

fossil fuels. Then he spent the rest of the time drilling home the Social

Security plan with the same old stump speech he has been kicking

around for the last sixty days. Social Security worked fine over the last

century, but the math has changed Dubya knows about math?


2/20

You ask, What the hell does this have to do with Hans Jonas The

Imperative of Responsibility? To which I reply, What doesnt this

have to do with The Imperative of Responsibility? Allow me to

explain: The underlying message of President Bushs speech exemplifies

everything that is wrong and evil with America and moreover the

Administrations failure to address the root of our problems.

Shortsightedness and utter disregard for the quality of life on earth is an

ominous position for any citizen to take in this wretched year, 2005.

[Authors Note] I planned on taking a different approach to Jonas,

but I never expected the Presidents speech to be the catalyst. The

timing worked out perfectly. After several times over, I realized that

The Imperative of Responsibility dovetails perfectly with the current

condition of planet earth and his words scream off the page now more

than ever. Therefore, Jonas philosophy of responsibility is much too

poignant, prescient, and crucial for life on this planet to bastardize with

complex and esoteric philosophical jargon. Of course, this is always an

option. But, I find a down-to-earth approach more conducive to

unlocking the message in this wonderful and prophetic text. Keep in

mind that Jonas wrote this text as a warning to people about the

dangers of neglecting to take responsibility for generations to come

and for sustaining the quality of life. The warning call was eventually

taken up by the increasingly popular fields of environmental ethics, eco-

philosophy, and deep-ecology. Unfortunately, some scientists think


3/20

they were too late. Planet Earth stands on the cusp of disaster and

people should no longer take it for granted that their children and

grandchildren will survive in the environmentally degraded world of the

21st century.1 This is not alarmist propaganda it was reported by

1,300 scientists in 95 countries. We are doomed.

President Bush made the case that we must maximize oil

production to meet growing demand because it is the most effective

way to lower gas prices, and moreover, less intrusive to the economy

than the environmentally sound alternatives. There is a red thread that

runs throughout the administrations global strategy: The Bush

Corporation is more concerned with meeting demand and maximizing

output, instead of reducing consumption. At this very moment,

population numbers are spinning out of control. This in turn is causing

an unprecedented rise in consumption. Between 1960 and 2000, the

world population doubled from three billion to six billion. At the same

time, the global economy increased more than six-fold and the

production of food and the supply of drinking water more than doubled,

with the consumption of timber products increasing by more than half.

Planet Earth can only bring forth a limited amount of natural resources

without eventually leading to a complete global environmental attack.

The failure to perceive earth as something finite and vulnerable is

one of the key problems that developed from all previous ethics. In this

regard, Kant is one of Jonas favorite victims. Jonas felt that an

1 Steve Connor. The Independent, 30 March 2005.


4/20

individualistic ethics necessarily leads one to assume a position of

independence from nature. No matter what, the balance between man

and nature always remained in tact. From this point of view, human

action was considered not to have any crucial effect on Nature. This is

where technology comes into play.

Modern technology has taken mankind to a level where his actions

are directly intrusive to nature, changing her every step of the way. We

now know - Nature is no longer impermeable to our raping and looting.

The range of our action has swelled in size and now man is in a position

of dominance in nature. There is no longer any balance. What could

have led to the ideology that nature is in a position of complete power,

immutable, and unchangeable? After all, the earliest of civilizations

treated Nature as a sanctuary, a place of worship. There are many

guilty parties to blame for this crime against nature. Poets and

philosophers are just two of the guilty parties. Nature was treated like

an idea, rather than a home, or a sanctuary. What went wrong? How

did this cataract upon our vision transform the way we live in the world?

Some say capitalism or imperialism. Jonas says, the city.

Early on, man viewed his intrusions into nature as harmless and

superfluous to the grand scheme of things. The space created by these

intrusions was called the city. Jonas claims that the city was originally

intended to enclose rather than expand the nature of things. This

upset the natural order and lead to a new balance within the whole.


5/20

The city created a buffer zone that separated man from nature. The

separation from nature also created a division between human actions

and its effect on the universe. City life remained contained within the

city walls. The city as an artificial construct was permeable to change;

history is marked with the rise and fall of prominent cities. Throughout

the rise and fall of cities, one thing remained the same human action.

Humanity was marked as impotent, with little or any control of nature.

Natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions

were considered acts of divine intervention. Mans reach was relatively

small and the consequences of his actions remained confined within the

city walls. The link to nature was severed. Outside the city walls, the

world of nature maintained stable despite the actions within the city

walls. Humans were divorced from nature and so were their ethical

concerns.

This schism created the impression that anything part of the non-

human world is ethically neutral. Jonas says:

All dealing with the non-human world, that is, the whole realm of

techne, was ethically neutral - in respect both of the object and the

subject of such action: in respect of the object, because it is impinged

but little on the self-sustaining nature of things, and thus raised no

question of permanent injury to the integrity of its object, the natural

order as a whole; and in respect of the agent subject it was ethically

neutral because techne as an activity conceived itself as an activity


6/20

conceived itself as a determinate tribute to necessity and not as an

indefinite, self-validating advance to mankinds major goal, claiming in

its pursuit mans ultimate effort and concern.

The non-human world took on a supplementary role in relation to

nature. Lets examine the role shelter has taken throughout our

history. Primitive man was content with pitching a tent. The materials

were simple: sticks (quantity depended on the size of the tent) and

animal skins... Now, compare this to a $16,000,000 home. The

materials are not as simple to list: Steel, clay, sand, limestone, gravel, a

forests worth of timber, fiberglass, plastic, glass (ash, sand, water)

The list goes on and on. Imagine both of these constructs and compare

the effect they each have on their design space. The tent was

harmless, and conservative. The mansion, on the other hand, is made

possible through massive amounts of energy consumption and an

exorbitant amount of natural and synthetic resources. Its safe to say

that the earliest forms of residential housing were practically harmless

to nature. The modern home, on the other hand, violates and perverts

nature along every step of the way. Dont forget; corporations and

businesses need homes. I wont even begin to list the materials used to

construct a skyscraper. Skyscrapers are generally considered phallic

symbols of potency and fecundity. There is a lot of truth to this claim

and the metaphor is more accurate than most people care to admit. If it

is a phallic symbol, then by the very nature of anatomy, the land it sits


7/20

upon is a companion to the skyscraper and represents the real source of

fecundity. Earth. Design space is no longer neutral

This is just one way that Jonas characterized previous ethics. The

neutrality of techne led man to exclude the non-human realm from any

ethical responsibility. Ethics was and still is anthropocentric. In the

simplest of terms, Man has a moral obligation to other people, but not to

anything else. Even this watered down version of ethics has its

problems. Jonas states, Ethical significance belonged to the direct

dealing of man with man, including dealing with himself: all tradition

ethics is anthropocentric. This shortsightedness led to a narrowing

down of ethics to the present and near future. The range of action

was seen in the here and now. In traditional ethics, long-range

consequences were not demanded in the moral decision-making

process.

However, modern technology broadened the range of human

actions. The narrow scope of traditional ethics is rendered virtually

impotent in the modern world. Our reach transcends space. Satellite

technology immediately comes to mind. The technological advances in

this field make it possible for some square-head Pentagoon in

Washington to launch a missile across space to intercept another

missile. Sounds logical, right a missile whizzing across space could

prevent a nuclear attack. Thats if everything works according to plan.

We are beginning to learn that SMART weapons are not so smart.


8/20

What happens if the space-based missile fails to intercept the incoming

target? Would we send another missile to intercept the missile that

went awry, and then another missile to intercept the original incoming

missile? And if so, which missile would we send first the one intended

to intercept the failed missile or the incoming missile? Do we save an

innocent country from getting blasted because of the failed attempt or

do we save our own asses? Wellthis poses a problem. Jonas was

aware of this technology and I am sure that he wouldnt be surprised to

learn that the Bush Administration signed a bill giving the U.S. Missile

Defense Agency the green light for a test run of the space-based kinetic

energy kill vehicles (KKVs) in 2008. The implications of this weaponry

are disastrous.

The advances of modern technology have bequeathed upon man

a new realm of responsibility. The effects of human action are no longer

limited to the present moment. The lines dividing the doer, deed, and

effect are blurred. Oil consumption is a perfect example of the shift

from an individualistic to collective dynamic. While walking along 6th

avenue the other day, I noticed a bumper-sticker on this huge S.U.V MY

S.U.VISDESTROYINGTHEENVIRONMENT needless to say, I wanted to wait and see

what type of viscous beast owned this land-yacht. This person is

obviously wrapped up in their own world and fails to see the collective

side to fossil fuel emission. For argument sake, this one particular truck

is not changing the environment. However, the millions of other


9/20

vehicles, thousands of ships streaming across the ocean, thousands of

planes whizzing around, and the thousands of commercial trucks

operating on a daily basis are destroying the environment. Some

people still believe that Nature is free from our wraith. Ecologists dont

feel this way. In fact, they are keenly aware of the stranglehold man

has on nature.

On of the first signs marking the departure from the traditional

viewpoint was the realization that despite what the popular majority

says Nature is not infinitely sustainable and impervious to human

action. This discovery, Jonas states, whose shock led to the nascent

science of ecology, alters the very concept of ourselves as a causal

agency in the larger scheme of things. It brings to light, through the

effects, that the nature of human action has de facto changed and that

an object of an entirely new order no less than the biosphere of the

planet has been added to what we must be responsible for because of

our power of it. The range of our moral responsibility has expanded so

as to include nature.

How are things different in a technological world? In Jonas

language, technology has eliminated containment of nearness and

contemporaneity. More importantly, according to traditional

philosophical thought, the cause of an action was seen to be equal to

the effect. This is no longer the case. The people of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki are still getting over the effects of the atom bomb. Another


10/20

angle from which to view the transition is that technology is continually

growing more and more advanced so as to form an interconnected web

of effects. One particular event could ignite a host of effects dispersed

across the globe. For instance, the effects caused by greenhouse gas

emissions are not limited to one isolated zone.

The new role of responsibility in turn introduced knowledge into

ethics. Its up to us to use our knowledge to the best of our ability to

examine the effects our actions have on the delicate structure of life on

this earth. In fact, it is our duty to examine the effects. Unfortunately,

this doesnt appear to be the direction that society is going in. Theory

and practice are two different things. Whats the point of deep-ecology

and environmental ethics if the administration running the show is

seemingly blind to the effects of actions? Back to the Presidents speech

Rising oil prices are commonplace to the news media. News networks

are always mentioning gas prices: where to find cheap gas, how high

are prices going to go, will they come back down They neglect to ask

the most important question: Why are prices so high? Two words: Peak

Oil. Years ago, Marion King Hubbert devised a formula to measure oil

depletion: Hubbert Peak-Oil Curve. The formula represents the bell-

curve of oil production. The Bush Administration and the media seem

blind to Hubberts formula and so therefore, Peak Oil is disregarded as

posing a serious threat. The Presidents most recent speech exemplifies

this intentional oversight. The reality of the situation is that the world


11/20

has used more than half of all the hydrocarbons created over millions of

years all in the matter of 100 years.

The Middle East has more than half of the worlds reserves,

followed by Eurasia, and Latin America. Saudi Arabia leads the Middle

East in reserves, with Iraq and Iran running a close second. However,

Saudi Arabia is currently at peak production. This means that

production is reaching the downward part of the curve. The reality of

peak oil is compounded by increasing oil consumption, not just in

America, but on a global level. This is why China poses such a threat to

the United States. So, when the President talks about getting to the

root of this problem I get a bit skeptical of his plan to boost production

rather than curb consumption. Moreover, how could he talk about oil-

prices without mentioning overpopulation? Consumption and

overpopulation go hand-in-hand.

Are we using our knowledge to peer into the future and foresee

the effects of our actions? Absolutely. The EPA, Sierra Club, and the

rapidly growing field of eco-philosophy are but three examples of how

some people are using knowledge to peer into the future.

Unfortunately, knowledge is not enough; we need action. Its hard to

get any sort of footing when the administration controlling the fate of

America and the world is directly opposed to anything that might

jeopardize the economy. There is a direct conflict between those people

that put the environment first and those that put the economy first. In


12/20

short, the gap between the ability to foresee future effects and the

power to act creates a moral problem. Despite all the uncertainty, one

thing remains clear: technological advances have introduced a host of

problems.

These problems have shattered the traditional anthropocentric

vision of ethics. Our responsibility extends beyond anthropocentric

confinement and into the biosphere as a whole and in its parts. We

need to examine the extent of our actions against the backdrop of

nature. These domains are now subject to our power thus becoming

a human trust, which has a moral claim on us not only for our ulterior

sake but for its own and in its own right. In opposition to my claim,

Jonas assumes that science has done a lousy job in preparing us for this

expanding role of responsibility by deeming nature as something

subordinate to man. Science has neutralized nature and consequently

mankind.

How did we get in this precarious position? Technology was

originally used as a means to provide and guarantee the necessities to

sustain the quality of life, a means with a finite measure of adequacy

to well-defined proximate ends. This is no longer the case.

Technology is now used to dominate and control the natural order. The

goal to dominate has resulted in the dwarfing of the natural world by a

continually growing artificial environment. Consequently, man now is

evermore the maker of what he has made and the doer of what he can


13/20

do, and most of all the preparer of what he will be able to do next. This

quote gets to the heart of the matter. Nature is not invulnerable to our

technological rampage. We must take a position of stewardship in our

intrusions into nature. Jonas makes the case clear that stewardship is

not a matter of individual action, but rather a call upon the impersonal

massification of humanity, as a collective whole. How does this

massification of humanity hold up against the political world?

Jonas reply to this question is that any distinction between the

social/economic order and the political world is unjustified. He defines

politics as making art. The very nature of political art is to produce and

create, whether it is a new law or agency. Society and politics are

inextricably linked. Technology has even shaped the political realm.

Politicians are responsible for guaranteeing the quality of life in the

future despite the faceless and nameless nature of the future

generations. Its tough to get a vote from someone that doesnt even

exist. This led Jonas to believe that political action could not be based

upon contractual lines because one of the parties will always remain

impotent and unable to act. Action is the key that turns all the locks.

Yet, our actions should be shaped by their potential effects. The main

obstacle in using the future, as the backdrop to test our actions is the

basic uncertainty in performing an act in regards to something that has

not yet happened.


14/20

Jonas figured there ought to be two constants maintained

throughout existence: 1. A world fit for human habitation 2. The world

should be inhabited by humankind worthy of the human name. It is our

responsibility to make sure that these two themes are not violated.

Previous forms of ethics took for granted the sustainability of nature and

failed to factor in the possibility of finitude. Keep in mind that Nature

was viewed as impenetrable. Jonas reformulates Kants imperative:

Do not compromise the conditions for an indefinite continuation of

humanity on earth. In your present choices, include the future

wholeness of Humanity among the objects of your will. This change

allows for an individual to incorporate the future generations into their

ethical system. In short, the present quality of life should never

jeopardize the quality of life in the future. Todays weal should never

compensate for tomorrows woe.

Where does Jonas imperative draw its power to shape and control

human action? The nonreciprocity of our duty to the future generations

goes against the grain of most if not all of the previous ethical systems.

One cannot help but to question the motivating factor underlying this

new form of ethics. Jonas expected reluctance to take his word at face

value. At the outset it must be realized that what we require of our

principle is not supplied by the traditional idea of rights and duties the

idea grounded upon reciprocity, according to which my duty is the

counterpart of anothers right, which in turn is seen as the like of my


15/20

own right: once certain rights of another are established, then my

corresponding duty to respect them and where possible to future them

is also established. The very fact of existing is enough of a demand to

put man in a position of responsibility. The claim to existence begins

only with existence. The circle of life cancels out any questions

regarding the purpose and meaning underlying our duty to prosperity.

Jonas describes what he considers a paradigm model of this

nonreciprocal duty: a parents obligation to care for a newborn baby.

The world would be a different place if only we could apply this

unconditional dedication to all aspects of our life. Imagine living in a

world where everyone treats nature with the same love they share with

a newborn baby. Jonas states, This is the only class of fully selfless

behavior supplied by nature; and indeed, it is in this one-way

relationship to dependent progeny, given with the biological facts of

procreation, and not in the mutual relationship between independent

adultsthat one should look for the origin of the idea of responsibility in

general; and its constantly demanding sphere of action is the original

site of its practice. More importantly, [this] is the archetype of all

responsible action, which fortunately requires no deduction from a

principle, because it is powerfully implanted in us by nature I cant

help but to think about the metaphor, Mother Nature. This implies

that nature is in a position to take care of humanity, whereas the

viewpoint Jonas presents reserves the nurturing role for humanity.


16/20

Jonas drills the message home that we must expand our ethics to

include care for the future. However, what factors lead one to designate

care for nature into their ethical system. From a certain angle, it

appears that nature is merely a tool to procure future generations and

therefore regulating care for nature to secondary importance. This is

not the case. For Jonas, nature shouldnt be cared for merely in relation

to the future generations. Nature should be cared for in itself. To care

for nature means to promote self-actualization and the fulfillment of

purpose. Anything that impedes against the fulfillment of purpose goes

against the grain of the natural order. I imagine natural-selection

played an important role in shaping this portion of Jonas philosophy. I

just hope he didnt lose sight of the fact that evolution by natural-

selection is a blind, mechanical, and algorithmic process. Discussion of

purpose in relationship to evolution is a tricky business. This is Daniel

Dennetts department, not mine. Regardless of the confusion

surrounding this subject matter, there is one thing that remains

completely clear: human beings should never obstruct the fulfillment of

purpose. I can find no argument with this claim and Im inclined to

believe that the environment would be in better shape if we listened to

his message. The failure to allow for fulfillment of purpose has led to six

tipping points that could lead to disaster. First, population growth and

the rising cost of real estate cause man to move their living space into

the forest. This retreat into the forest brings a number of problems such


17/20

as epidemics, and new diseases, i.e., Sars, and bird flu. Diseases that

were limited to animals are now being transferred to humans. Second,

ecosystems are being destroyed by invasive species. Zebra mussels

introduced into North America led to the extinction of native clams and

the comb jellyfish caused havoc in 26 major species in the Black Sea.

Three, the accumulation of man-made nutrients alters the point when

algae blooms. These man-made nutrients destroy the oxygen and

create toxic substances in the drinking water. Four, coral reefs are

being taken over by algae which in turn alters nutrient levels. Five, over

fishing is causing the fishing industry to approach a complete and total

collapse. There are too few adults to maintain the fish population. Six,

temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate. This causes

fluctuations of rainfall, which in turn changes both vegetation and land

cover.

Allowing for the fulfillment of purpose doesnt sound like a bad

idea after all. However, Jonas foundation of responsibility is not without

criticism. Discourse ethics poses a straightforward problem. How does

Jonas deal without someone who can care less about nature? Are the

bonds of responsibility strong enough to control and bridle human

action? Proponents of discourse ethics assume that Jonas failed to

address this problem. But they have an answer to the problem: use

community as a forum to discuss the foundations of responsibility, in

this case, Jonas example of the newborn baby. If this foundation gets


18/20

approved by the popular consensus, then as a result, an individual

would feel an obligation to act according to responsibility. Any choice to

renege on the deal would be contradictory to both the community and

person. This contradiction is apparently enough proof to urge man to

act responsibly. Im more inclined to side with Jonas. Discourse ethics

tries to substitute intuition with communication. First of all, I dont

understand why intuition and communication have to be separated.

Are there any other factors aside from responsibility that could

shape and control human action? Certainly. One of the most effective

forces that shapes human action is fear or as Jonas describes it,

heuristics of fear. From this point of view, fear is powerful enough to

control human action. To prove this point Jonas refers to the atom

bomb. The decision to use an atom bomb is based on arbitrary

choice. Certain acts of certain actors can bring about the catastrophe

but they could also remain undone. Fear is one of the factors shaping

the decision to refrain from such a catastrophe. Of course, this is not

completely foolproof and it depends on a certain amount of luck. As

the opening quote might have suggested, I have a different outlook on

the heuristics of fear. I look at apocalyptic fear as an important tool

used by the current to administration to brainwash American citizens

into buying into the War on Terror. Fear was the major selling point

used to rube the American people into accepting the notion that the

preemptive strike and the Patriot Act are tactics to secure our


19/20

freedom. Moreover, fear is more likely to cause an attack rather than

prevent an attack. The Administrations primer on Fear is outlined in

the mission statement for the Washington based think-tank, The Project

for the New American Century (PNAC). The world changed after

September 11th Fear is not an option; its the norm the President will

do anything to maintain this level of fear. Fear is no longer a deterrent,

but rather, its an excuse for mass-murder.

There is one particular aspect of Jonas heuristics of fear that I

feel captures the climate of the times. His main fear was not sudden

nuclear attack but rather the slow and irreversible changes caused by

over-population. As I previously stated, overpopulation is one of the

most dangerous threats facing the world at this moment. Therefore,

with all respect for the threat of sudden destruction by the atom bomb, I

put the threat of the slow incremental opposite, overpopulation and all

the other too much in the forefront of my fears. Warnings such as

this cause Jonas message to scream across generations.

What could we do to heed his call? Its very difficult to follow

Jonas lead when the country is being run as a business, instead of a

democracy. Economists and Oil tycoons dont usually dally with long-

term projections. The real power in America is held by a fast-emerging

new Oligarchy of pimps and preachers who see no need for Democracy

or fairness or even trees, except maybe the ones in their own yards, and

they dont mind admitting it. They worship money and power and


20/20

death. Their ideal solution to all the nations problems would be another

100 Year War. This accounts for the desire to meet demand instead of

cutting back on consumption. Lets drill in the Arctic regardless of the

long-term effects nobody lives there anyway. Lets build bigger trucks

with more horsepower its not like theres an oil crisis. Lets keep

having babies without any means to support them after all, all these

extra people will come in handy for the Draft. Lets continue to rape

and loot nature after all, this is the Consumption Junction.

Consumption Junction - Too Much is Never Enough

Documents

Transcript of Consumption Junction - Too Much is Never Enough