|
Evolution in biology means survival of the fittest. It doesn't mean there is some kind of a bottleneck that only the selected few can pass through. Circumstances change all the time. The fittest animals or plants can survive even under changed circumstances.
This is the unique moment for this planet. Perhaps it lasts for more than one human lifetime, but it’s very short in comparison to natural processes. By unique I mean that for the first time ever an animal species can destroy literally everything. Also, some other selection processes not existing before have emerged. In natural selection one way to be the fittest is to be aggressive. The other way is to be collaborative and take care about community. Business as usual forces only one approach: aggressive and careless behaviour. Business as usual concentrated on the dogma of eternal growth isn’t something natural that existed in nature before us. It’s very new even among humans. It equals “the fittest” and “the richest”. The richest often means the most indifferent. Functional communities only make sense if they are good for profit because they can’t be put into numbers. We tend to believe that only those phenomena that can be put into numbers really exist. Good manners cannot be calculated. You can’t measure someone’s happiness. The only way to assess other people’s happiness is to put them into numbers. The environment doesn’t have pay-checks for damage. It’s not just about “human nature” and “survival of the fittest”. Monetary economy is our own invention. Animals have lived for billions years without it.
We are destroying the environment. It’s not something that is spontaneously happening at the moment. It’s the symptom that something is seriously wrong with modern society. Food and water need to be cheap and criminals and aggressive people can earn enormous amounts of money. Our short attention span doesn’t always notice these processes, but we are globally slipping away from sustainability. Above all, those who are at the root of the disease are supposed to be the fittest. For the first time ever in history of living beings the individuals that don’t bring much good to their offspring are supposed to be the fittest.
We should stop with this experiment before it’s too late, but how? First of all, those people that can find good business opportunities or technological innovations mustn’t become billionaires. It sounds like heresy, but it sounds like a fact to me. Modern economy relying on industrialisation, innovations and aggressive global competition is new. It does work sometimes (capitalism vs. communism), but I don’t see it as something that can last for millennia or even more than one human lifetime. Call me stupid if you want, but one can’t expect different outcomes if activities don’t change.
Do the richest people really deserve to be in the front line of the row for salvation? Is being rich (and dangerous) really the only reason for a nation to sell its own vision of justice all around the world? This is how we are prepared for the terrifying scenarios of climate change and natural resources crisis. Mind you, climate crisis and complications with natural resources didn’t exist before. If (or when) business as usual stops working properly, we shall not be able to just reverse the destruction. Human population and destruction of the environment are the biggest ever. We need to keep some components of business and technological and scientific development and get rid of others. Which are which? Don’t look at economic statistics. Economic statistics claim that food production isn’t necessary. We know that it is, but those numbers that we rely on so much (and still call ourselves rational and intelligent beings) don’t.
|
