Terracide and the Terrarists Destroying the Planet for Record Profits

[unhappycamper]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Engelhardt-The-Biggest-Cr-by-Tom-Engelhardt-130523-725.html



Terracide and the Terrarists Destroying the Planet for Record Profits
By Tom Engelhardt

We have a word for the conscious slaughter of a racial or ethnic group: genocide. And one for the conscious destruction of aspects of the environment: ecocide. But we don't have a word for the conscious act of destroying the planet we live on, the world as humanity had known it until, historically speaking, late last night. A possibility might be "terracide" from the Latin word for earth. It has the right ring, given its similarity to the commonplace danger word of our era: terrorist.

The truth is, whatever we call them, it's time to talk bluntly about the terrarists of our world. Yes, I know, 9/11 was horrific. Almost 3,000 dead, massive towers down, apocalyptic scenes. And yes, when it comes to terror attacks, the Boston Marathon bombings weren't pretty either. But in both cases, those who committed the acts paid for or will pay for their crimes.

In the case of the terrarists -- and here I'm referring in particular to the men who run what may be the most profitable corporations on the planet, giant energy companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and Shell -- you're the one who's going to pay, especially your children and grandchildren. You can take one thing for granted: not a single terrarist will ever go to jail, and yet they certainly knew what they were doing.

It wasn't that complicated. In recent years, the companies they run have been extracting fossil fuels from the Earth in ever more frenetic and ingenious ways. The burning of those fossil fuels, in turn, has put record amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere. Only this month, the CO2 level reached 400 parts per million for the first time in human history. A consensus of scientists has long concluded that the process was warming the world and that, if the average planetary temperature rose more than two degrees Celsius, all sorts of dangers could ensue, including seas rising high enough to inundate coastal cities, increasingly intense heat waves, droughts, floods, ever more extreme storm systems, and so on.

[dixiegrrrrl]

1. Terrarists....good word. n/t

[life long demo]

2. Terracide is happening every day and not enough

people are paying attention. People trying to save the earth are called the terrorists.

[JackN415]

3. Wonder when these words will be in Oxford E Dict.?

[n2doc]

4. They are likely to be the greatest mass murderers in human history

Billions will die, from climate change, lack of water/food, and the wars that result. And the article is right, not a one will be punished. They actually stand a good chance of being survivors, having amassed enough loot to buy themselves a place at the few remaining moderate climate areas, and enough hired guns to keep them safe.

[limpyhobbler]

8. good summary.

The people making the decisions are the ones most isolated from the effects of the decisions. Not a good set up.

[GliderGuider]

5. I wonder where this leaves people like me?

All those evil CEOs of all those evil corporations? I really, honestly, don't think they are monsters. I really think they are largely normal people. At least as normal, on average, as any of us. They love their wives and children, and they are doing what the system is asking of them, using the tools they have available. Their circumstances give them a different view of what is possible and desirable. Yes, their views have been warped by their situation, and in turn their views help shape the situation - but who among us can say we don't do the same thing, though on a smaller scale?

If we marched them all to the guillotine, the system would simply ensure that others stepped forward to fill their vacated roles. And the system is not composed of men and women - it's composed of processes. The individuals are largely inconsequential.

The motivation of the system is not murder, its motivation is the increase in material well-being for all. It's what "we" wanted. The consequences suck, but we should have thought of that before we asked for cheaper gasoline, electricity in every wall socket and heat on demand in the winter.

So, what does this position make me? A fellow traveler, an apologist for "terraism"? Or a realist who knows we've been fucked by circumstances rather than men?

[limpyhobbler]

7. Let's put your theory to the test.

Attempt to change the system and see if it's possible.

Anyways I guess you agree it's too late to avert systemic change. To a large extent changes are going to be forced upon us by circumstances. Maybe the real question at this point is who controls, who has power to shape the future? Will society adapt relatively more peacefully, or will it be relatively more brutal? Will the future be relatively more democratic and free, or less so?

We should work for a relatively smooth transition to a sustainable, free and democratic society. People who profit from fossil fuels are rat bastards. That's a slogan, not really a systemic analysis. It recognizes the role played by the powerful elite groups who benefit from our current forms of energy and social organization. We should push them out of the way right now so we can create the kind of changes we want.

[GliderGuider]

9. No, the system can't be changed.

IMO this is because the system and its operation are both shaped by a little-appreciated aspect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, like gravity, is kind of unidirectional. That law mandates ongoing growth in open systems until they encounter some external limit. Our brains have evolved to be the best limit-removers yet known. As a result I expect the the continuing growth of civilization in size, energy use and hierarchic complexity, as well the entropy it creates in the environment, until we hit a limit we can't defeat.

In this view it doesn't really matter if the system components are seen as evil or benign. It also means that we can't simply introduce arbitrary changes into the system and have them work - especially not if they go against the inherent tendency towards growth. This isn't a political or moral or even a practical position, it's one based on systems science and thermodynamics. It also means we can't limit the system's overall growth from the inside, as much as we might wish we could or fantasize that we can. We can hobble pieces of it - maybe - but not the whole thing.

As well, there can be no transition to a sustainable system, because in presence of free energy and the absence of external limits to growth there is no such thing.

[limpyhobbler]

10. Do you see any harm in people organizing for system change?

[GliderGuider]

11. None at all.

We each have to do whatever we think is called for. I would just caution against pinning our hopes onto the expectation of fundamental change - unless one has a fail fetish, of course. Otherwise, yes, we each do what we want and make whatever small changes we can.

[pscot]

6. Add Terracide to the Urban Dictionary

We're going to need a new vocabulary to talk about what's coming.