Climate change: Karl Marx, Charles Darwin and the Koch brothers.

OK, what do these guys have to do with climate change?  Well, when I thought about it – quite a bit. First, let’s quickly say it and move on: climate change is a FACT, it’s happening, it’s getting really serious and I don’t have time to argue that one anymore. I’ll just refer to former US President Jimmy Carter who in a recent speech referred to climate-change deniers as “nutcases”. I agree sir. 

Our CO2 production is out of control. The levels in the atmosphere started to climb with industrialization which has brought us the modern world. As a result I’m sitting in a warm house typing this on my computer, and looking forward to driving to my mother-in-law’s for Thanksgiving. All those things are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, except perhaps for a small fraction of my electricity that comes from nuclear and/or wind power. This growing CO2 production is basic to our modern society but is at odds with our survivability. I’m daring to suggest that the solution will need to go far deeper than whether we increase the gas tax or stop the Keystone pipeline. Good first steps but nowhere near addressing the fundamental issue which is the way we run our modern societies and how that simply doesn’t fit either with human nature or the way the planet works. 

I had already begun to think in this radical way (in some parts of this country they’d use a stronger word about me) when, in the December 4^th issue of the New York Review of Books, a review by Elizabeth Kolbert of a new book by Naomi Klein caught my eye. Ms Kolbert’s review was entitled Can Climate Change Cure Capitalism?, and Klein’s new book is This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate. So far I’ve only read the review, but this certainly got me thinking.

For decades, particularly in America since WWII, the argument has been ‘Yeah, OK, so some of these big capitalists can be a bit ruthless at times but the wealth they create will keep trickling down and eventually we will all benefit.’  And for a while perhaps it did work fairly well. But now the excess of greed, and the use of these billions to basically buy elections led a recent Princeton University study to declare that the USA now no longer qualifies as a fully democratic society! And there’s been very little trickle down during the last few years of economic recovery while a bunch of billionaires have hugely grown their wealth. And meanwhile, Congress does nothing to curb greenhouse gases. I wonder why?

It used to be said that what was good for General Motors was good for America. At least they make cars for the general public’s use and employ people at fairly reasonable salaries thanks to the UAW. Now it’s what’s good for the Koch brothers who own a large share of the filthy Alberta tar sands, or the Walmart family who pay outrageously low wages.

Put simply: I do not think unfettered capitalism, which is what we have in America now, is sustainable. Not for a democracy where ordinary people need to feel they’re getting a fair deal, and not if we are to avoid a climate disaster, and all that that involves including agricultural collapse in some important regions of this country and other parts of the world. We live on a ball with limited resources, and simple logic should point to the fact that we cannot continue to increase in population and consumption. There is a limit. We need a political and economic system that will work within these constraints, and work because it better fits our human natures, the way we naturally, genetically, are created to relate with one another.

I went on the website capitalism.org and the first thing it presented to me, front and center, was this quote from Ayn Rand: “The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve ‘the common good.’ The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature.”  Wrong again lady.

Before you think I’m about to sing the praises of Karl Marx – he got it doubly wrong. Karl bought into the pre-Darwinian, Lamarckian idea that creatures, including humans, were molded by their environment, plus he assumed that pre-civilization people were all well-behaved and we’d only been made brutal by feudalism and then capitalism. To be fair the Communist Manifesto was published eleven years before On the Origin of Species (1859). Karl never read Charles’ book. His colleague Friedrich Engels did and wrote Marx basically saying: ‘We’ve got a problem’. Put simply, Marxist philosophy is unscientific and is out of step with how human nature works.  Not too surprisingly therefore the two great communist (or former communist) countries, Russia and China have nothing to offer in terms of tackling climate change. China has now become the world’s largest polluter constantly building more and more coal-run power-stations, because they have the coal. And dear old Russia, now the second most polluted country, is getting what foreign currency it can from exporting oil and gas. Great! So no solution there.

The industrialists who developed modern capitalism in the late 19^th, early 20^th centuries latched onto the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’, (which does not come from Darwin and which promotes a distortion of Darwin’s theory), in effect saying ‘we’re endowed with more smarts than the masses, (have less foibles about ripping others off), and so we’re ‘fitter’ and therefore deserve a larger portion of the pie’.  This is at least closer to what human nature can be like, but there are some flaws and oversimplifications in this approach as well.

We have to remember that what we’re looking for is a system that is in sync with human nature, and is sustainable both on the large scale – i.e. globally – and on the long term; for several centuries, not just decades, into the future. We can get insights as to how our bodies and minds work best by studying how humans lived for thousands of years in the past. Why? Because we have evolved to fit that environment and we evolve very slowly. Here we learn not only how to live healthily in terms of food and exercise, but how we have learned to live with our neighbors. It’s a good news, bad news story. We can have a tendency to mistrust the stranger, even fear him, because for thousands of years our ancestors lived in relatively small groups, not sure about the strange people the other side of the mountain. But the corollary of this is that humans are intensely social creatures. We love our families, we help our neighbors, we donate blood and even organs, and some even sacrifice their lives for others. This is not that common amongst animals. Altruism is not just a good idea, it is literally in our genes. Ayn Rand was doubly wrong because she claimed that humans were rational and pooh-poohed altruism. We’re not overly rational but we can be altruistic. And this is the good news.

We need to build societies that are sustainable over the long run in terms of consumption, and we need to base them on social systems that encourage the best in us towards each other, that encourages that built-in altruism, working with the way we’re built.  I’m an agnostic, but in each of the religious traditions around the globe there are teachings and communities that bring out the best in people. In the political and economic realm I hesitate to put words to it but ‘social democracy’ or ‘democratic socialism’ come to my mind, and countries such as Denmark which has the least super rich and the least poor of any nation have my interest. We surely can and must find a way of caring for each other and for the planet, and for the future generations. 

Happy Thanksgiving ! 

Designer Jeans from designer genes? 

On October 30^th this year Britain opened a national sperm bank. Its purpose is to aid those wishing to have babies and where the traditional delivery route of the sperm is for some reason not an option. Another reason for a national sperm bank is to help meet the demand which has outstripped supply the report said.

Many of these sperm donations will be used in in vitro fertilization or IVF which again was pioneered by the Brits when in 1978 the first so-called ‘test-tube’ baby was born, although it must be quickly clarified that Louise Brown spent almost all of her nine months developing as an embryo in her mother’s womb just like any other baby, and not in some large glass jar. It is just that for some reason Louise could not be conceived in the old-fashioned way; but by bringing her parents’ egg and sperm together in vitro as the Latin goes – in a glass container – and then putting the fertilized egg – after it has shown itself viable as a ball of cells called a blastocyst – into the mother’s womb. Since 1978 millions of babies around the world have found life in this way. After the initial shock and inevitable condemnation from ultra-conservatives, such a procedure is now generally viewed as just another way in which modern medical science can help bring life and happiness to grateful mothers and couples. 

Since 1978, and particularly the last fifteen years, advances in human genetics have brought a new dimension to the story, and further moral dilemmas. Once the fertilized egg has reached the blastocyst stage, and before it is inserted into the mother-to-be, it is safely possible to extract one cell from the ball of cells and to study the cell’s chromosomes. A common reason for such screening is this: if the technician can see in the cell that there are three copies of chromosome 21, instead of the normal two, this means with certainty that the child will suffer from Down’s syndrome.  Many will simply opt not to use this blastocyst. Other genetically based diseases can be detected.

I drive a twenty year old Honda. My ire is sometimes roused when a guy cuts in front of me in his brand new Mercedes or Cadillac. But in my calmer moments I do not advocate that fancier cars not be made simply because I can’t afford them. I admire their beauty and performance, and also know that these top-end cars pull up the engineering in our less expensive cars. But cars are not human beings so what’s my point. The human body is not a perfect design either, but it’s pretty darned good, and we evolved into this condition surprisingly fast. That means only one thing: evolutionary pressure, which is a euphemistic phrase for a very high death rate amongst our ancestors – culling in a ruthless way the not-so-fast, the not-so-strong, the not-so-smart etc.  

But this cruel mechanism of nature no longer applies to us humans thank goodness. Modern medicine achieves greater and greater miracles all the time, even giving sight and hearing to otherwise blind or deaf children, and curing all sorts of diseases and ailments that afflict many of us. Most of us knew someone who died of cancer. We cry out for a cure as if there can be an all-cancer vaccine or something. For some forms there are genetic predilections for these cancers. Why not nip them in the bud? 

Despite being well made, our bodies are not perfect, and that goes for the genes that control the blueprint. Too many people suffer from imperfections they did not choose, and their parents had no idea they were passing on to us. If wild nature’s ‘survival of the fittest’ technique is no longer an option, then medical science should continue to look for ways of curing at the source and not just treating the problem later.  

Improvements in the human race in future could well be through genetic selection and modification. It sounds pretty scary right now perhaps. At present straightforward IVF is still expensive, let alone genetic work on top, and therefore in the near future only rich people will be able to order healthier, even better-looking and more intelligent ‘enhanced children’. Perhaps it sends shudders down your spine. This left-leaning liberal democrat is going to play devil’s advocate here and ask - is it really so much different from the rich person who can buy a better-looking, better performing, even safer automobile? And house and lifestyle? If it sounds unfair and elitist, remember that just over a hundred years ago only rich people could afford cars; now most of us have one. Just maybe, genetically improved babies will become not so unusual a century from now, and therefore in time, as these better genes spread, improve the general health of the population, as evolutionary pressure did in earlier times.