The current special issue of Scientific American
"Energy's Future Beyond Carbon," September, 2006
informs us that if certain steps are taken immediately our planet may not kill us off. What the article does not examine is how likely these steps are to be taken.
They don't seem very likely. What seems more likely is a solution not specifically described in any of the articles, but there in relief, like a quiet place in jazz, silently screaming at us: reduce human superfluity. A final solution, that is to say. Of course who's superfluous may be more problematic than the Neocons imagine. Unfortunately, they don't seem to know this.
Current Administration, Bushco, policies clearly indicate that it is not its goal to cope with the predictable consequences of Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations view of the world - but to make certain that it comes to pass. In Bushco's sick view, killing off much of the world is both Calvanistically justifiable, and feasible. Unfortunately, it is probably neither.
While Bushco cannot be expected to offer this insight, surely its opponents can be. But this is not occurring. The major criticisms of Bushco from both the Left and the moderate Right include it's being unethical, immoral, opportunistic, fascist, and clumsy. But not potentially suicidal taking us all down with it.
Is this because most U.S. citizens -- we still call ourselves Americans as though our continental bretheren are irrelevant -- assume deep in our pragmatic souls that Buschco can pull it off? However awful the consequences, Bushco can kill off a goodly portion of humankind without undue consequence? In which case life in the U.S. may not change much, at least not materially? In short, do most of us deep down entertain the un-admitted, un-acknowledged, compartmentalized hope that maybe Bushco can make it all alright?
If so, this is illusion, and we'd better wake up. Hezbollah is telling us in no uncertain terms that dirt poor Arabs, and probably Africans and South Americans and Indians and Chinese and on and on and on do may not embrace superfluity. What is more, they may dis-embrace it quite effectively.
What the Scientific American writers describe is hard core reality. We need to figure out how to deal with it. Getting rid of Bushco will not be sufficient, but it is necessary.