[DEBATE] : Re: Confronting the New Misanthropy

[Mandi Smallhorne]

Yes, but... we are dealing with leaders such as Bush and his followers who
genuinely do believe that humans are different from and superior to the rest
of the natural world, and act on that belief, so speciesism is hardly
mainstream, no matter what this writer thinks. Perhaps a little nastiness
about humanity in print is a necessary corrective. Also, good grief, it is
so wrong to conflate 'panics about Satanism' with environmentalists
justifiably saying that humans are to blame for degradation of the
environment.
Mandi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Russell" <grinker at mweb.co.za>
To: "Debate" <Debate at lists.kabissa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:15 PM
Subject: [DEBATE] : Confronting the New Misanthropy


> Essay18 April 2006
> Confronting the New Misanthropy
> The big question today is not whether humans will survive the twenty-first
> century, but whether our faith in humanity will survive it.
> by Frank Furedi
>
>
> Discussions about the future increasingly tend to focus on whether humans
> will survive. According to green author and Gaia theorist James Lovelock,
> 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding
> pairs of people that survive will be kept in the Arctic where the climate
> remains tolerable' (1).
>
>
> More and more books predict there will be an unavoidable global
catastrophe;
> there is James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency: Surviving the
> Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century, Jared Diamond's
> Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive, and Eugene Linden's The
> Winds of Change: Weather and the Destruction of Civilisations. Kunstler's
> book warns that 'this is a much darker time than 1938, the eve of World
War
> II' (2). In the media there are alarming stories about a mass 'die-off' in
> the near future and of cities engulfed by rising oceans as a consequence
of
> climate change.
>
>
> Today we don't just have Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse but an entire
> cavalry regiment of doom-mongers. It is like a secular version of St
John's
> Revelations, except it is even worse - apparently there is no future for
> humanity after this predicted apocalypse. Instead of being redeemed, human
> beings will, it seems, disappear without a trace.
>
>
> Anxieties about human survival are as old as human history itself. Through
> catastrophes such as the Deluge or Sodom and Gomorrah, the religious
> imagination fantasised about the end of the world. More recently,
> apocalyptic ideas once rooted in magic and theology have been recast as
> allegedly scientific statements about human destructiveness and
> irresponsibility. Elbowing aside the mystical St John, Lovelock poses as a
> prophet-scientist when he states: 'I take my profession seriously, and now
> I, too, have to bring bad news..' (3) Today, the future of the Earth is
said
> to be jeopardised by human consumption, technological development or by
'man
> playing God'. And instead of original sin leading to the Fall of Man, we
> fear the degradation of Nature by an apparently malevolent human species.
>
>
> All of today's various doomsday scenarios - whether it's the millennium
bug,
> oil depletion, global warming, avian flu or the destruction of
> biodiversity - emphasise human culpability. Their premise is that the
human
> species is essentially destructive and morally bankrupt. 'With
breathtaking
> insolence', warns Lovelock in his book The Revenge of Gaia, 'humans have
> taken the stores of carbon that Gaia buried to keep oxygen at its proper
> level and burnt them'.
>
>
> Human activity is continually blamed for threatening the Earth's
existence.
> Scare stories about the scale of human destruction appear in the media and
> are promoted by advocacy groups and politicians. For example, it was
> recently claimed that human activity has reduced the number of birds and
> fish species by 35 per cent over the past 30 years. That story was
> circulated by the environmentalist news service Planet Ark and picked up
by
> the mainstream media, and widely cited as evidence that human action
causes
> ecological destruction. Our engagement with nature is frequently described
> as 'ecocide', the heedless and deliberate destruction of the environment.
In
> short, humanity's attempt to domesticate nature is discussed as something
> akin to genocide or the Holocaust. The title of Franz Broswimmer's polemic
> Ecocide: A Short History of the Mass Extinction of Species captures this
> sense of loathing towards humanity. According to Jared Diamond, 'ecocide
has
> now come to overshadow nuclear war and emerging diseases as the threat to
> global civilisations' (4).
>
>
> Increasingly, the term 'human impact' is associated with pollution, wanton
> destruction and the stripping bare of the Earth's assets. Former US vice
> president Al Gore is concerned that the 'power of technologies now at our
> disposal vastly magnifies the impact each individual can have on the
natural
> world', causing a 'violent destructive collision between our civilisation
> and the Earth' (5). Over the past 400 years, the human impact on the
world,
> which led to the humanisation of nature, was celebrated by Western
culture -
> these days, human ingenuity is regarded ambiguously or even suspiciously.
>
>
> Indeed, the very idea of civilisation is presented as a force for
ecological
> destruction. 'Civilisations have been destroying the living systems of the
> Earth for at least 5,000 years', says one misanthrophic account (6).
> According to some environmentalists, humans are a 'foreign negative
> element', even a 'cancer on the environment' (7). For radical
> environmentalists, the degradation of nature stems from our species'
belief
> in its unique qualities. Such a belief - dubbed 'anthropocentrism' - is
> openly denounced for endangering the planet. Human-centred ideology, which
> views nature from the perspective of its utility for people, is said to be
> destroying the environment. And this tendency to depict humans as
parasites
> on the planet is not confined to any small circle of cultural pessimists.
> Michael Meacher, Britain's former minister for the environment, has
referred
> to humans as 'the virus' infecting the Earth's body.
>
>
> Western culture's estrangement from its humanity
>
>
> The rising popularity of a term like 'ecological footprint' shows how much
> resonance the association of normal human activity with destruction has
> today. This term, which implies that having an impact on the environment
is
> necessarily a bad thing, is rarely criticised for its misanthropic
> assumptions. On TV and in film and popular culture, the development of
> civilisation, and particularly the advance of science and technology, is
> depicted as the source of environmental destruction and social
> disintegration. The idea that civilisation is responsible for the perils
we
> face today depicts the human species as the problem, rather than as the
> maker of solutions. And the most striking manifestation of this
> anti-humanism is the belief that, if the Earth is to survive, there will
> have to be a significant reduction in the number of human beings.
>
>
> The Malthusian objective of reducing populations is alive and kicking. For
> deep ecologists, the issue is straightforward - their starting point, as
> spelled out by leading ecologists Arne Naess and George Sessions in 1984,
is
> that a 'substantial reduction in human population is needed for the
> flourishing of non-human life'. Numerous commentators embrace these
> Malthusian sentiments. 'The current world population of 6.5 billion has no
> hope whatsoever of sustaining itself at current levels, and the
fundamental
> conditions of life on Earth are about to force the issue', warns Kunstler
> (8). The Australian academic David McNight has tried to reconcile
> neo-Malthusianism with his version of 'new humanism', arguing that
'creating
> a sustainable society based on human values will necessitate stopping the
> growth of human population and accepting limits on human material desire'
> (9).
>
>
> If anything, today's neo-Malthusian thinking is far more dismal and
> misanthropic than the original thing. For all his intellectual pessimism
and
> lack of imagination, Thomas Malthus believed in humanity far more than his
> contemporary followers do. He argued, in his book On The Principle of
> Population, that although 'our future prospects respecting the mitigation
of
> the evils arising from the principle of population may not be so bright as
> we could wish.they are far from being entirely disheartening, and by no
> means preclude that gradual and progressive improvement in human society,
> which before the late wild speculations on this subject, was the object of
> rational expectation' (10). Malthus' reservations about the human
potential
> were influenced by a hostility to the optimistic humanism of his
> intellectual opponents, including Condorcet and Godwin. Nevertheless,
> despite his pessimistic account of population growth, he said 'it is hoped
> that the general result of the inquiry is not such as not to make us give
up
> the improvement of human society in despair' (11).
>
>
> Over the past two centuries, Malthus' followers often disparaged people
who
> came from the 'wrong classes' or the 'wrong races' - but despite their
> prejudices they affirmed the special status of the human species. In some
> instances, such as the eugenic movement, rabid prejudice against so-called
> racial inferiors combined with a belief in human progress (12). Today's
> neo-Malthusians share the old prejudices, but in addition they harbour a
> powerful sense of loathing against the human species itself.
>
>
> It's worth recalling that Malthus justified ringing the alarm bells about
> demographic growth on the basis that the human race lacked the capacity
and
> ingenuity to feed itself. Today, the anti-natalist lobby decries the fact
> that humanity has become all too successful at reproducing itself - and
> human ingenuity and development are depicted as the greatest threat to the
> wellbeing of the planet.
>
>
> The loss of faith in humanity is strikingly expressed in the stigma
attached
> to speciesism. Speciesism is the sin of elevating humanity above other
> species. Those who invented this Orwellian-sounding word think humans do
not
> possess any morally unique qualities and people are no better than other
> lifeforms. They argue that those who claim a special or a higher status
for
> humans are no better than those who talk about racial or male superiority.
> Animal rights activist Peter Singer defines speciesism as 'a prejudice or
> attitude of bias towards the interests of members of one's own species and
> against those of members of other species'. Although speciesism has not
yet
> entered the vernacular, the assumption that it is wrong to prioritise
humans
> over animals has become mainstream. Animal experimentation is increasingly
> seen as a crime and the boundary dividing humans from animals has become
> more and more porous. As Josie Appleton has pointed out on spiked, many
> people take DNA as 'their measure of moral value' (13). And since studies
> indicate that people share some 98.4 per cent of their DNA with
chimpanzees,
> they claim that as proof of moral equivalence between humans and apes.
>
>
> The new misanthropy
>
>
> Our declining faith in humanity might be most clearly expressed in
> apocalyptic thinking about the environment, but it pervades everyday life.
> So it is frequently assumed that people have emotional deficits. We are
> described as having addictive personalities, or we're seen as 'damaged' or
> 'scarred for life'. Human relations come with health warnings. We don't
> simply pollute the environment, it seems, but also one another. We talk
> about 'toxic relationships', 'toxic parents' and 'toxic families'. Indeed,
> scare stories about the risks of human relationships are often very
similar
> to discussions about the environment.
>
>
> Susan Forward, author of Toxic Parents, compares the effects of bad
> parenting to 'invisible weeds that invaded your life in ways you never
> dreamed of'. Apparently parents emit poisonous substances which
contaminate
> their kids in much the same way that humans pollute the environment. There
> is virtually a new genre of literature on the apparently poisonous nature
of
> human relationships. There are books titled Toxic Bachelors, Toxic People:
> 10 Ways of Dealing with People Who Make Your Life Miserable, Toxic
> Relationships And How To Change Them, Toxic Friends, Toxic Coworkers: How
To
> Deal With Dysfunctional People On The Job and Toxic Stress - all of which
> send the same misanthropic message about relationships as neo-Malthusians
> spread about population and the environment. And the metaphor is not
> confined to relationships. Public institutions also come with the
> toxic-warning label; consider these book titles: Toxic Churches:
Restoration
> from Spiritual Abuse, Toxic Work, The Allure of Toxic Leaders and Toxic
> Psychiatry.
>
>
> This reinterpretation of human relations as toxic is driven by a
moralising
> impulse. Pollution traditionally involved an act of defilement and
> desecration; in previous times, to pollute was to profane, to stain, to
> sully, to corrupt. But when moral defilement is anticipated and depicted
as
> being normal, pollution becomes a routine form of behaviour - with
important
> implications for how we view humans.
>
>
> Misanthropy has a profound influence on public policy and political
debate.
> Back in the Fifties sociological research found that there was a clear
> correlation between how society viewed people and the prevailing political
> attitudes. One study of individuals' views of human nature suggested they
> were shaped by political attitudes in general (14). So attitudes towards
the
> democratic ideal of free speech are directly influenced by whether we
> believe people are capable of making an intelligent choice between
competing
> views. 'The advocate of freedom of speech is likely to believe that most
men
> are not easily deceived, are not swayed by uncontrolled emotions, and are
> capable of sound judgement', noted this 1950s study. This implied a high
> level of faith in humanity. In contrast, 'the individual with low faith in
> people tends to believe in suppression of weak, deviant, or dangerous
> groups'. The study concluded that the 'individual's view of human nature
> would appear to have significant implications for the doctrine of
political
> liberty' (15). People who viewed human nature positively tended to be more
> tolerant towards free speech and social experimentation. People who saw
> humans as being driven by narrow self-interest, greed and other
destructive
> passions were inclined to support measures that curbed freedom.
>
>
> Today, the growth of censorship, the criminalisation of thought by the
> enactment of so-called hate crimes legislation and speech codes, and the
> widespread frowning upon causing offence to individuals and groups is
> underpinned by the idea that people cannot be trusted to make up their
minds
> about controversial subjects. Today's censorious imperative is driven by a
> paternalistic and negative view of human nature, and by a lack of faith in
> people's capacity to discriminate between right and wrong.
>
>
> Not since the Dark Ages has there been so much concern about the
malevolent
> passions that afflict humanity. Panics about Satanic abuse have erupted on
> both sides of the Atlantic, and throughout the Western world there is a
> morbid expectation that virtually every home contains a potential abuser.
> Predatory monsters are seen everywhere. People regard others with a
> suspicion that would have been rare just a few decades ago. Parents wonder
> whether the daycare centre workers looking after their children can be
> trusted; in schools, children with bruises arouse teachers' suspicion
about
> their parents' behaviour, while parents wonder whether any physical
contact
> between their child and his or her teacher is permissible. In Britain, any
> adult employee who might come into contact with children has to undergo a
> police check, and sections of the child protection industry believe this
> police vetting should be extended to the university sector, too.
>
>
> The obsession with abuse is not confined to relationships between adults
and
> children. All interactions that involve emotions, physicality or sexuality
> are labelled as potentially abusive. 'Peer abuse' is seen as one of the
key
> problems of our time; others demand action against 'elder abuse'; and for
> good measure alarms have been raised about 'pet abuse' and 'chicken
abuse'.
>
>
> Renewing our faith in people
>
>
> How we view humanity really matters. If we insist on seeing humans as
> morally degraded parasites, then every significant technical problem from
> the millennium bug to the avian flu will be feared as a potential
> catastrophe beyond our control. Today's intellectual pessimism and
cultural
> disorientation distracts the human imagination from confronting challenges
> that lie ahead. All the talk about human survival expresses a crisis of
> belief in humanity - and that is why the real question today is not
whether
> humanity will survive the twenty-first century, but whether our belief in
> humanity can survive it.
>
>
> Despite Western culture's profound sense of estrangement from its human
> sensibilities, individuals possess an unprecedented potential for
> influencing the way they live their lives. It is only now that significant
> sections of the public have real, meaningful choice and control. We must
> reinvigorate the belief in autonomy and self-determination, and recognise
> that we have moved from the Stone Age to a time when people's
transformative
> potential is a remarkable force.
>
>
> We also know that history does not issue any guarantees. Purposeful change
> is a risky enterprise. But whether we like it or not, taking risks in
order
> to transform our lives and ourselves is one of our most distinct human
> qualities. That is why, instead of worrying about our 'ecological
> footprint', we should take all the steps necessary for moving towards a
> better future.
>
>
> Misanthropy threatens to envelop us in a new Dark Age of prejudice where
we
> become scared of ourselves. In such conditions, we have two choices: we
can
> renounce the human qualities that have helped to transform the world and
> resign ourselves to the culture of fatalism that prevails; or we can do
the
> opposite. Instead of abandoning faith in humanity we can turn our creative
> energies towards taking control of our futures. Instead of being
preoccupied
> with 'what will happen to us' we should search for answers to the
question:
> 'What needs to be done to humanise the future?'
>
>
> Human beings are not angels; on a bad day they are capable of evil deeds.
> But the very fact that we can designate certain acts as evil shows that we
> are capable of rectifying acts of injustice. And on balance we aspire to
do
> good. Contrary to the fantasies of romantic primitivism, civilisation and
> development have made our species more knowledgeable and sensitive about
the
> workings of nature. The aspiration to improve the conditions of life - the
> most basic motive of people throughout the ages - is one that has driven
> humanity from the Stone Age through to the twenty-first century.
>
>
> If believing in the human potential is today labelled 'anthropocentrism'
and
> 'speciesism', then I wholeheartedly plead guilty to subscribing to both of
> those views.
>
>
> Frank Furedi is author of Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right (buy
this
> book from Amazon (UK) or Amazon (USA)).
>
> Visit his website here.
>
>
> (1) James Lovelock 'The Earth Is About To Catch A Morbid Fever That May
Last
> As Long As 1000 Years', Independent, 16 January 2006
>
>
> (2) James Howard Kunstler (2005) The Long Emergency; Surviving The
> Converging Catastrophes Of The Twenty-First Century, Atlantic Books:
London,
> p.61.
>
>
> (3) James Lovelock 'The Earth Is About To Catch A Morbid Fever That May
Last
> As Long As 1000 Years', Independent, 16 January 2006
>
>
> (4) Jared Diamond (2004) Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or
Survive,
> Allen Lane: London
>
>
> (5) Al Gore, The time to act is now - The climate crisis and the need for
> leadership, 5 March 2006
>
>
> (6) Thomas Lough 'Energy, Agriculture, Patriarchy and Ecocide', Human
> Ecology Review, vol.6, no.2 1999
>
>
> (7) See Einarrson, N. (1993) 'All animals are equal but some are
cetaceans',
> in Milton, K. (1993) Environmentalism: The View from Anthropology,
> Routledge: London
>
>
> (8) Kuntsler, op.cit., p.61.
>
>
> (9) McNight, D. (2005) Beyond Right And Left: New Politics And The Culture
> Wars, (Allen & Unwin : Crows Nest), p.249.
>
>
> (10) T.R.Malthus (undated) On The Principle of Population, vol.2
(Everyman's
> Library: London), p.261.
>
>
> (11) ibid.p.262.
>
>
> (12) For a discussion of different forms of Malthusianism see Frank Furedi
> (1997) Population and Development; A Critical Introduction, Polity Press.
>
>
> (13) See Josie Appleton, Speciesism; a beastly concept
>
>
> (14) Morris Rosenberg 'Misanthropy and Political Ideology', American
> Sociological Review, vol.21, no.6, 1956.
>
>
> (15) Ibid.p.694
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Reprinted from : http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CB021.htm
>
>