Chomsky: Humanity Imperiled - The Path to Disaster

[limpyhobbler]

Humanity Imperiled
The Path to Disaster
By Noam Chomsky

What is the future likely to bring? A reasonable stance might be to try to look at the human species from the outside. So imagine that you’re an extraterrestrial observer who is trying to figure out what’s happening here or, for that matter, imagine you’re an historian 100 years from now -- assuming there are any historians 100 years from now, which is not obvious -- and you’re looking back at what’s happening today. You’d see something quite remarkable.

For the first time in the history of the human species, we have clearly developed the capacity to destroy ourselves. That’s been true since 1945. It’s now being finally recognized that there are more long-term processes like environmental destruction leading in the same direction, maybe not to total destruction, but at least to the destruction of the capacity for a decent existence.

And there are other dangers like pandemics, which have to do with globalization and interaction. So there are processes underway and institutions right in place, like nuclear weapons systems, which could lead to a serious blow to, or maybe the termination of, an organized existence.

How to Destroy a Planet Without Really Trying

The question is: What are people doing about it? None of this is a secret. It’s all perfectly open. In fact, you have to make an effort not to see it.
...

complete piece: http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175707/tomgram%3A_noam_chomsky%2C_the_eve_of_destruction/

[darkangel218]

1. What are people doing about it?

Absolutely nothing.



Not that Mr Chomsky didn't know the answer.

[marmar]

2. K & R

[chervilant]

3. Chomsky nails it yet again:

So Kennedy was willing to accept a very high risk of massive destruction in order to establish the principle that we -- and only we -- have the right to offensive missiles beyond our borders, in fact anywhere we like, no matter what the risk to others -- and to ourselves, if matters fall out of control. We have that right, but no one else does.

The arrogance of the uber wealthy corporate megalomaniacs--who've usurped our media, our politics, AND our global economy--has been a constant in our nation's history. Like stubborn little bullies in the global sandbox, we gather all the toys into our corner, and stomp our widdle feets because we don't want to share.

I cannot imagine how we'll survive our narcissistic hedonism...

[AverageJoe90]

4. Good article, but too much gloom-and-doom(and I'm not quite an optimist, either).

As bad as 5, 6, or 7 degrees of climate change, or worse, at least limited intercontinental nuclear war would be, neither of these two things would be enough to destroy humanity, or the planet for that matter. Civilization would potentially be in a lot of danger(especially in the long term for the former and the short term for the latter), but we would still survive; even a full-blown nuclear war wouldn't be able to quite take us all out, and that, frankly, that would make seven degrees of global warming look like a fucking cakewalk(I am seriously not joking, btw. BTW, You thought average high temperatures in the mid to upper 90s, instead of today's high 80s, low 90s in July would be bad for crops? It certainly would.....but the sun being blocked out for a whole year, maybe two, alone, would be even worse. And let's not mention what radioactive fallout would do to anything it touches, especially closest to the blast sites.).

Fighting climate change is good. So was(and still is!) the disarmament of nukes. But we can't afford to go too far into gloom-and-doom, especially not with the former....because it just doesn't work, no matter what some people out there may claim and/or believe.