h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

(Warning: in this posting I might sound like a rabid revolutionary. I'm not! I'm an 'evolutionary'. I'm an idealist. I believe things can improve ... more so I believe they *will* improve. But we must recognise what's wrong first; so ...)

First of all: what Society do I mean?

I mean: modern global technological society.

Not necessarily 'western' society. There is today in the world not much difference between 'east' and 'west' any more ... also no longer the divide between communism and capitalism that used to be there not so long ago ... even the 'Third World' is becoming more and more 'modern' and technological. Here in South Africa you will see people from all walks of life using cell-phones, for instance.

The 'hallmark' of the society I mean is that it is dependent on high technology. In this society there are huge inequalities: the members of the elite have wonderful possessions: cars, computers, big-screen televisions, nice houses ... and in the case of the ultra-elite, even more. The ultra-elite have things like yachts and planes of their own and can go just about anywhere they want anytime they want. Or *almost* any time they want. Certainly there are members of the 'ultra-elite' that work very hard and perhaps do not have much 'free' time. Still, they're members of the elite. They have 'resources' that the vast majority of humans simply don't have.

There are still fairly few billionaires (in terms of US Dollars ... in terms of Zimbabwe dollars, almost everyone's a billionaire!) in the world ... but there's a growing number of millionaires. There's also a large number of people who might be called 'middle class', who have 'spending money' ... they can take care of basic needs such as housing, clothing, food, travel and general energy, and still have something left over to buy what could be considered 'luxuries'.

Now, the society we have all over the world, caters mainly to the needs of the above: the elite, as well as the middle class. But then there are the lower classes ... the people who do *not* even have enough money to cover the 'basics' adequately. And this class is growing the most rapidly of all. This is partly due to the problem that human reproduction is going on too fast (another topic) but also ... the 'society' we have, actually enforces this inequality by the very nature of its institutions.

No, don't worry, I'm not going to go 'marxist' here! I think Marx had some good points but he also made many mistakes. But still ... think of it in these terms: 'society' all over the world, is basically of the rich and for the rich. When we look at images in the media, we see images coming from this upper section of society. Almost every movie that is produced, has characters coming from the more prosperous places in the world, and from the more prosperous sections of the societies of those places. Compare the typical 'heroes' and 'heroines' to the average slum dweller or the average squatter or the average subsistence farmer on a small, dusty patch of land. These people are the majority on this planet; but their lives are dreary and they don't make for exciting and glamorous characters in movies or on TV.

And yet, the number of people in situations like these is growing. People with pretty much no power, and no say. The more cynical people say that our modern technological society needs many people like these ... people who are pretty desperate ... such people feel grateful when they get jobs, and are willing to work for very little pay. So a large number of 'unemployed' helps for making work cheap. And the majority of the work going on in the world, is for the sake of the privileged minority ... making 'products' only they can afford and enjoy.

Our modern society is not about sharing. It is about people accumulating as much as they can: money, which means power, and possessions ... collect as much as you can and keep it for yourself. Keep it away from others. Protect what's yours. We have laws protecting private property. Some people say protecting private property is the primary function of governments. So: governments are there to protect the 'haves' (to a considerable extent, I agree with that statement ...) from the 'have nots'. The 'have nots' after all *want* the same things that the 'haves' have. They're made to want those things, by advertising. But it is a simple and plain fact that in the world, everybody cannot have everything. So we have laws ... we have police forces. So people can 'have' what is there to have, if they can pay the price, and once they have it, to keep it from others who also want it.

And we have armies. War is still what we do against other peoples, to further our own power and to undermine theirs.

We hear it all the time that we live in a competitive world. This 'competition' entails keeping the 'have nots' at bay. Those who have, are able to get even more. They can be 'competitive'. The word 'competitive' seems to imply that those who win, are those who are best ('most competitive'). But in practice, it means, those who can accumulate the most by whatever means possible, and then hold on to those accumulations. There is no way in which this can be said to be 'deserving'. Maybe some of the elite work very hard ... indeed I believe that they do ... but then a robber may also work very hard ... planning and risking life and limb by his ventures ... is that 'deserving'? Those who 'have' have more power including more political power. They have in their service also powers of propaganda ... advertisers, economical theorists ... the priesthood of modern capitalism. Competition ... the haves getting even more (apart from those destroyed by other 'haves' since there's competition *between* them as well) while the 'have nots' have less and less.

And the 'have nots' are controlled by laws, by police ... by 'herding them' together into huge slums and 'informal settlements' ... where there is some 'containment' of the problems they bring so they don't bother the 'haves' too much. Also the 'haves' often throw bones to the 'have nots': occasionally a person can rise from poverty to wealth; there is no absolute barrier to prevent this, so we can say to poor people: "Look, you *have* the opportunities! Anyone can rise to the top! Work hard, and you too can have success!" And there are examples of people who do that. There are lotteries: in my own country, so many poor people 'play the Lotto' because every time they believe they can win lots of money and escape from their situations. So it's as if these poor people are in prison, from which every now and then certain people are allowed to leave, giving those in prison the hope that they may someday be allowed to leave too. In the process forgetting that whether they stay or are 'allowed' to leave - they are controlled by the 'haves'.

But is it true that the 'haves' are doing this deliberately? I contend that they are not. Many of the rich people of the world ... the elite ... believe they are good people and honestly do not think they are oppressing the poor. Many of the ultra-rich people of history have considered themselves humanitarians ... and have been so considered by others as well. They give to various charitable causes ... they set up foundations to help the less fortunate. But not *all* of the less fortunate ... *some* of the less fortunate. They're throwing bones, again.

However you cut it ... they are part of a system of oppression and have achieved their positions thanks to such a system. No matter how kind-hearted they are ... they are part of a rotten system. The oppression is ingrained in the system. Rich people are rich because poor people are poor and poor people are poor so that rich people can be rich. When the rich then give back to the poor, it's like stealing and then returning some of the stolen items to the owner.

This 'system' controls who gets what, who does not get anything, and the relations between haves and have nots. This system has probably not been deliberately designed to do this. And yet, it does so all the same. Even if nobody knows just how it works, it does work, and in a certain way.

The 'system' is simply the result of millennia of human activities ... where some humans have managed to accumulate land, possessions, power, and authority, and have used various means to protect or augment all this, and pass it on to their favoured progeny ... or have it stolen in turn by other powerfuls. The powerful have also justified what they did, in various ways: religions, philosophies, political and economic theories. The 'system' thus has evolved, almost like a living creature evolves. It has grown and mutated and right now in the world in which we live, it has become a monster that threatens to consume everything.

If you're still with me ... if you can see that we have in our world a monstrous situation of inequality ... what is to be done about it?

The communists of old tried to 'revolutionise' the world. They aimed for an overthrow of the 'elite' by the workers and the other lower-class members. This hasn't really worked anywhere. In the Soviet Empire, it simply resulted in a new elite, and the masses remained miserable. Communism fell and left a great gap for new 'haves' to take over. The masses still remained miserable. It doesn't matter much if here or there people can rise up from poverty to take advantage of new opportunities, when the large mass remains excluded.

The 'hope' of communism is gone. The new 'hope' is within a basically capitalist framework: economic growth all over the world must continue; when the level of the whole ocean rises, all boats will float higher; the wealth generated at the 'top' will 'trickle down' to the bottom. Economic growth. More production. More exploitation of resources. Let the 'haves' have more and more, and they will throw more crumbs to the have nots.

This is the only answer offered to us. There are no alternatives! Communism is dead! Why return to something that didn't work, that cannot work?!

But it should be obvious to all right now that we have a problem here. Economic growth is ABSOLUTELY DEPENDENT on the exploitation of what is called natural resources. And we are running out of those. There are absolutely basic things: fuel for energy ... oil, gass and coal. Minerals that we need to mine for. We need this 'stuff' to make the products that we sell on the markets to get the money we need. We need food. We need agricultural land, and we need water for those crops. WE ARE BECOMING MORE. More humans ... already over six billion on this planet. More people need more food, more energy and more 'stuff' just to cover the basic needs. More stuff, and this stuff needs to come from this planet. We don't have another planet available to us. Our food, we need to grow on land here, and with water coming from the rain from the sky. When we need platinum, or copper, or sillicon, or germanium, or whatever we may need for the next bit of technology, it has to come out of the ground and we need to be able to get it out somehow. With machines ... running on fuel ... and those machines themselves having to be made from 'stuff' coming from the earth. From the soil or from the biosphere.

Within the 'frame of reference' of our modern technological society, to raise the standard of living of a person - any person - means to give that person access to more money with which to buy more products. That is what economic growth is based on: making more and more products, for the making of which we need more and more energy and 'stuff' from the Earth. So we cannot raise people's living standards without giving them more products and extracting more stuff and energy from the Earth.

Problem: it is already impossible to give every person on the Earth the sort of middle-class standard of living that is currently considered to be the rock-bottom acceptable way of life. We cannot give everyone a TV set and a car and a nice house ... or even a nice apartment ... and the sort of food and clothes and 'accessories' middle class people would be embarassed to be without. We cannot do this without DESTROYING the natural resources of the Earth ... which would of course from then on leave pretty much everyone having pretty much nothing.

If we go on this road to the very end then this is what WILL happen: the Earth 'all used up' and perpetual misery for the humans that remain ... misery for them and their children and grandchildren until perhaps the extinction of humanity itself in the ruins of what once was a fruitful and beautiful world.

But maybe things will not go this far! And this is perhaps a more ominous possibility. What if ... before we reach this point ... it becomes generally understood and acknowledged that everone on the Earth cannot be a 'have'; that there simply is too little to go round; and that what is considered to be the rock-bottom acceptable lifestyle, can only belong to a small minority ... what then?

This then: the 'minority' that has this minimum (or better) ... in other word the 'haves' ... will now desperately defend this bit that they have ... and at least to themselves they will drop all pretenses. There will be bitter war against the 'have nots'. This war may take the form of actualy physical aggressive campaigns ... the worst possibility is an overt attempt to exterminate the have-nots ... billions of people. Or by force, to curtail the power of the have-nots. Keep them where they are, prevent them from getting out and doing harm. Which is as bad as murdering them ... condemning them to lives of insignificance; they 'do not matter'.

Imagine this war of the haves against the have nots, employing new and exciting technology. I envisage that psychological warfare will be used, a lot. The 'have nots' will be divided, confused and weakened by a myriad of strategies. Unable to act as one, they will be powerless ... despite their numbers ... to rise up and defeat the haves. All dirty tricks ever used in the history of humanity ... and more ... will be used. It will be no-holds-barred: poisons, biological weapons, nuclear weapons ... and new things we cannot yet imagine ... what about 'killer genes' injected into whole populations ... or nano-robots that are programmed to invade people's bodies and kill them ...

We may think the overt murder of billions of people is too ghastly to contemplate; it will not happen, the 'haves' could never become so corrupt and cruel and twisted, they would never do such a thing. But what if it really becomes to them a matter of life or death? A matter of 'them or us'? When the 'haves' enjoy things they believe they simply cannot do without, and giving up these things, to them is as bad as death?

I think they will do what is necessary to protect what they feel they can't do without. This is what people have done throughout history. Are people intrinsically 'better' today?

The coming decades will show.

So here are the options:

1. General ecological collapse - the collapse of our society, all of us, because we used up the resources of the world. We will all fall and fall extremely hard. Billions of people will die ... by famines, by diseases, by fighting amongst themselves. We have become addicted to technology ... even in third-world countries, most people today are utterly dependent on the workings of high technology: high-tech farms for food; high-tech factories for vehicles for transport, for clothes, and for other things; high-tech pharmaceuticals to protect them against diseases. When the resources run out, everything high-tech will grind to a halt. People will be without what they need. Not what they *want*, but what they *need*. AND THEY WILL DIE LIKE FLIES.

So: society collapses. But what of option 2?

2. Society maintains itself as a small elite, against the large mass of miserable have-nots, as in my example, by any and every means possible: psychological warfare, and overt physical warfare using every bit of the technology it has ... and specifically and rabidly working to produce new and better bits of technology to hold the 'barbarians' at bay. Technological society maintains itself ... the privilege of technology remains, even though a very tiny minority of people have access to it. Knowledge remains in private libraries or computer databases and is jealously guarded.

'Society' may survive ... but it will be society that had sacrificed its soul. It will be dependent on the absolutely ruthless oppression if not extermination of those who do not belong to the priveleged elite. No compassion, no mercy ... no soul. What will 'society' then be but an empty husk??

So ... this will also be the downfall of society. Even if this does happen ... if the elite can fight off the masses using all the means at their disposal, with no scruple and no holding back ... it cannot last for very long ... ultimately, despite everything the 'elite' does to try and maintain itself, it too will crumble and collapse in dismal ruin.

Those are two possibilities. Neither of these possibilities is acceptable to me!! Can they be avoided? Is there another possibility?

I think so. I think society can change and survive ... but I honestly think it will have to do so in a 'reduced' form. NOT as a small powerful elite oppressing the rest. Neither in the large mass of 'have nots' ... they will have everything taken away, perhaps even to the point of stripping them of the attributes we think of as 'human'. I think that will happen anyways. No ... the only hope under such circumstances, is for society to persist as small groups hiding themselves away and in some way maintaining some of the knowledge and values that today constitutes the best of what we understand as 'civilisation'.

I really hope that all of this does not happen ... that, SOMEHOW, we can save society, and the world, and our souls as well.

OK ... now to criticise myself!

The above posting does not predict what will *really* happen. Those scenarios are very simplified. What will happen in reality ... nobody can know. Complete ecological collapse is in a way a worst-case scenario; the same with the idea that the 'elite' will declare all-out war on the non-elite. But either of those things may happen! The thing is ... we are headed that way. If we don't change our course, we're going to end up there ... or close.

But there are signs of hope. If we CHANGE our course, we needn't end up there at all. Maybe things are not going to be all that bad. But they may still be quite bad ... *too* bad.

One possibility is that society doesn't collapse all at once, globally. Perhaps *some* societies will collapse catastrophically, while others only decline progressively, while others still manage to maintain themselves. Then there will no longer be a 'global' society like there is now, but lots of 'local' societies.

Remember when I talk of 'global society' I mean the way it is right now, with countries all heavily interdependent because of their reliance on technology and global trade. Hardly any country in the world can 'make it on its own'. That is why economic sanctions, as imposed against South Africa of old, and against Iraq when Saddam was still boss, or against Zimbabwe, are considered a good strategy to 'punish' a country. Most countries get much of what they need from other countries.

So ... it will already be a collapse of global society, if many 'lesser' societies ... for instance single countries like Zimbabwe or Iraq ... 'drop out' of the system. When the whole edifice tumbles down ... we will no longer have a 'global' market or a 'global' economic system or structure. There will then be a number of countries that are self-sufficient ... a number of countries still interdependent in 'lesser' economic structures ... and a lot of countries that are totally out of the system because their economies have completely collapsed.

In my view, the economic collapse of Zimbabwe is a harbinger of things that can happen on a much bigger scale in the world, soon now.

Imagine more and more countries collapsing that way. Here in Africa apart from Zimbabwe we have a number of other states that hardly have economies at all. My own country, South Africa, has experienced a 'minor collapse': basic bits of infrastructure are strained to the limit and basic services in some cases cannot be delivered any more. There is no sign that this strain is going to let up soon.

And let us be clear about the results of such societal collapse: entire countries go *backward*. I mean in the sense of technology as well as economic prosperity. The 'blessings of civilisation' are lost.

Here's an example of slow societal collapse ... we're seeing this in Zimbabwe but also to some degree here at home, but for the sake of the argument imagine the following is happening in some imaginary country:

The economic 'pinch' is felt first. The cost of living escalates ... the lower class grows while the middle class shrinks (though sometimes there is an 'elite' at the top that becomes richer and richer). Soon there is no longer affordable good-quality food in the supermarkets ... only the rich can 'eat well'. There is no longer good drinking water or a dependable supply of electricity. Because of the lack of water and power, industries shut down. Many people lose their jobs.

Hospitals become short of staff, of equipment, of medical technology and pharmaceuticals, in some cases short of beds or rooms to accommodate all the patients. The power goes off in mid-operation. The power goes off in babies' incubators. PEOPLE DIE because they don't get the necessary treatment.

Cities and towns deteriorate as municipal services are not carried out. Potholes multiply in the roads and are not repaired. Garbage accumulates. Public as well as private buildings deteriorate.

Pollution is rampant. The government doesn't do its job to protect the public or the environment against it. Mine wastes pollute water sources; industries pollute the air; it just goes on. It is an ecological crisis but the economical crisis means that we don't have money for clean-up or for ensuring that the few industries and mines that we still have left, that we desperately depend upon, operate environmentally-friendly. We need the jobs and the money first. We think of today, and to hell with tomorrow.

Basic services cannot be delivered. That includes the police. More and more people live in poverty and desperation. Out of need or out of anger or frustration, they commit crime. The police is strained to the bursting point; crime goes up. Many murders are not even investigated. There are not enough jails for the criminals that *are* caught. Jails are dens of anarchy; overcrowded with too few guards; many prisoners, including ones for minor crimes, suffer assault, rape and death at the hands of fellow inmates. At the same time there are many prison escapes, and a lot of corruption as underpaid guards are bribed.

Education goes, to put it mildly, down the drain. Not enough money to keep schools operational at a meaningful standard. Schools do not have enough classrooms, enough teachers, enough teaching materials. Many children come from very strained homes: often, the father is absent; one or both parents have to work almost full-time to gather an income and don't spend time with their children ... or, when out of work, parents are often alcoholics to cope with their misery; children get little guidance from them and at school they're rebellious and uncooperative. Less and less people *want* to be teachers, they just can't handle the challenges of the job.

Finally hardly any effective education happens. People are left unable to better themselves.

As the country goes further down the drain, the better-educated people leave for other countries. Those left, are those who can't leave ... those with lesser means for helping themselves OR others. In the country, a mood of pessimism becomes pervasive.

Disease epidemics erupt; the government can't deal with them.

In fact the government can hardly deal with anything. It 'loses control'. Many politicians 'give up' and stay in politics purely to empower themselves and/or their relatives. Corruption becomes rampant.

Social unrest erupts and spreads. People riot; they vandalise; they start assaulting or even killing other people. The government, strained to bursting point with lots of other problems as well, is unable to respond 'delicately' and hits back with an iron fist.

The rioting masses riot even more violently. The government resorts to even greater violence.

The country descends into civil war; or a revolution breaks out; but neither of these makes things any better. There is fighting and more fighting. There is anarchy. In the midst of this, some people manage to survive and eke out a living somehow, but one can hardly speak of a 'society' any more. What was once a country with a fairly affluent society, now consists of a number of groups fighting against each other, plus a number of groups caught in the middle, and a number of groups on the 'edge' of it all, just trying to stay out of trouble and hanging on from day to day. 'Technological' and economic advances are lost; those who survive, go back to a more 'primitive' lifestyle, subsistence farming, eking out a living from the land ... there may be some small communities with fairly strong rulers that manage to come to some arrangement for their 'people' not to be bothered by others, for a price ... other 'lifestyles' are those of professional criminals or perpetual soldiers fighting for the one or for the other side or changing sides as the need dictates. There would be cults, there would be organised criminal societies, there would be groups for which fleeing from one place to another becomes a permanent 'way of life'.

Throw onto this pile the effects of ecological collapse as well: droughts; floods; the reduction of arable land; pests and plagues of creatures that run wild because of the disruption of the ecological balance between species; lots of extinctions of plant and animal species.

This is societal collapse in one country. Now, imagine this happening in more and more countries all over the world. Which countries would 'hold out' the longest? The current 'top' country in the world is the USA ... but I think that this country is quite vulnerable. I think many people in the USA understands that it is vulnerable, and this escalates levels of fear, and the 'reaction' is often violent and excessive when fear is felt. As the world becomes more and more strained, we might see more wars declared and more 'grabbing' of resources ... PLUS more irresponsible and unsustainable use of resources.

How long would Europe hold out? When countries in Africa and Asia collapse, refugees would stream to Europe. Can Europe take such a strain?

A country like China might soon come to dominate the world economy. Within the economic ideology we have, it makes sense for China to maximise its opportunities, and to grab resources for itself and keep it away from others ... which it is becoming eminently more capable of doing. If China becomes the 'giant' on the world stage, I suspect it will not be a gentle giant. It would gladly witness the collapse of America and of Europe and see that as an opening of even greater opportunity for itself. China will not bother much with things like human rights or environmental awareness. It will be quite willing to use violence, authoritatianism, propaganda and mass control. In a world where the countries considered the bastions of civilisation have collapsed into ruin and anarchy, can we trust that the 'new masters' would be better? When the ideologies of 'human rights' and liberalism have dismally failed, what new ideologies would take their place, and would these ideologies be people- and planet-friendly?

But ... if China ends up holding out the longest of all ... would it be able to hold out forever? When the ecology of the *whole planet* is collapsing? Will it be able to use force to keep all the other countries in check? It will be 'barbarians at the gates' again, and the barbarians would by far outnumber the Chinese. Would a new 'wall' be built, a wall using deadly technology perhaps? And would social unrest inside the country be kept in check? And ... if as I suspect, brutal methods are used to ensure stability against internal and external threats ... what hope for a 'civilised' civilisation to be established?

Ponder these possibilities!

Consider things like the collapse of the Roman Empire as well as other collapses of empires throughout history. Look at 'failed' countries, and how they collapsed and the effects of such collapse. Consider what it would be like if such collapse afflict countries we considered as being prosperous and 'safe'. It would be nasty, truly nasty! It can happen! I wouldn't have written all of this if I wasn't concerned that our current society and civilisation is extremely vulnerable to this kind of collapse. I'm seeing early symptoms of such collapse in my own country, and I don't WANT it to happen to any others! But it probably will. It really is the case that our world is under great strain right now, and this strain is set to become worse. The symptoms are there for all to see. We must not just treat the symptoms, but also look at the underlying cause!