More
than a year ago I stumbled upon the Dark
Mountain Project, a British social and literary movement to alert the world
about Humankind’s threat to itself and Earth. DMP disturbed me. Most of what
its founders and members had written rang true with my own thinking about the negative
cultural evolutionary direction of Humankind over the past five centuries, and
our rapid degradation of Earth along the way. But was DMP’s solution of a total
abandonment of the Western, now global, approach to economics, politics and
ecology justifiable, and would DMP’s suggestion for doing something different
work?
These
were questions I could not answer. So, in December 2017 I made an email
proposal to my fellow participants in the Owl & Ibis Confluence of Minds
hoping to answer them. The full text of that email is here.
Here is an extract of the proposal itself:
I propose a close look at DMP by Owl
& Ibis over the course of several meetings in 2018. This would require an
O&I team approach that would investigate and make presentations on various
topics contained in the following questions:
Is the DMP prediction of the collapse of
the world system likely to take place, totally or in part? To find out I
propose O&I compare DMP’s reasoning and evidence to that supporting the
mythic-story-turned-truth standard version of civilization in the three notions
presented above - Humankind’s dominance relationship with nature; trust in
religion, progress and science for continuing survival and ever greater
economic prosperity and social flourishing; and that current unending
capitalistic economic growth and consumption is the only system that is
productive and sustainable.
If we decide DMP is correct, that the
current world system and vision is uncontrollable, destructive and therefore
unsustainable, what are our options - damage control and contingency planning
and measures? What might these be like?
Is DMP’s call for an exclusively
humanities response, especially “uncivilized” writing, to ameliorate the
collapse of civilization, along with a complete discard of current political,
economic and scientific/technological methods, and religious approaches,
sufficient?
I propose that we discuss the DMP
Manifesto at the scheduled O&I meeting on Tuesday, Dec 26, 2017. If at the
meeting we decide to look into DMP more deeply in 2018 as proposed here, we
could then come up with a framework for an approach at the meeting.
Beginning
in January 2018, a small but determined group of us, most of O&I’s regular
attendees, spent six months examining and discussing the DMP with the hope of
answering two questions: Is Humankind’s current heading leading to, as DMP
claims, the destruction of civilization and an unsustainable planet? If so, what
should our proper heading be and how might we redirect to and stay on a better
course?
We
sought answers by examining in detail the Dark Mountain Project’s premises and
arguments. DMP’s assumptions and arguments may be found in three of their major
publications: The Dark Mountain Manifesto; The Eight Principles of
Uncivilization; and Confessions of a Recovering Environmentalist. An abridged
compilation of these assumptions and arguments may be found here.
Of all these works the Eight Principles of Uncivilization gives the best summary
of DMP’s full message. Below we will look at the O&I group’s conclusions
regarding each of the eight principles.
Here’s
how we decided to assess the DMP. The Owl and Ibis core agreed that each would
take a pertinent area or sector of concern addressed by DMP, research it and
make a presentation to the group. Under the general title “Current Worldviews
and Visions of the Future” the following multi-media presentations were made:
Art,
Judith Moore, June 12, 2018
Again,
the over-arching goal was to find out what is currently going on in these areas
and where do they seem to be heading with reference to DMP’s catastrophic forecast.
It was not easy to sum up or find consensus among the five of us who tried to collectively
shine a light on the Dark Mountain Project. But some trends and general
similarities did emerge. The following is a summary of my recollections of what
the group concluded about the premises and assumptions of the Eight Principles
of Uncivilization.
I
kindly ask John, Judith, Richard and Steve to comment on this post as to the
accuracy of my summing up under each principle. I am certain I have made errors
of commission and omission. All others are also welcome to comment, of course.
1.
We live in a
time of social, economic and ecological unravelling. All around us are signs
that our whole way of living is already passing into history. We will face this
reality honestly and learn how to live with it. All members of
the group agreed with this declaration. One suggested a slight change in the
wording of the last sentence so that it would read: “We will must face this
reality and learn how to live with it.” All of us were not as confident to use “will”
as was DMP.
2.
We reject the
faith which holds that the converging crises of our times can be reduced to a
set of ‘problems’ in need of technological or political ‘solutions’. The group was
mixed on this view. Some partly agreed but were skeptical that scientific,
technological and political solutions were the best path to a survivable and
sustainable future for Humankind and Earth. Others argued we have no choice but
regard the future as a set of problems solvable though science, technology and
politics. Most were willing to concede that this approach alone was
insufficient unless it was coupled with a radically new “story” of Humankind’s
place in Nature, a reworking and refocusing of our various moral systems, and a
re-commitment to the scientific truths about the deterioration of the
survivability, livability and sustainability of the biosphere due to unbridled capitalistic
human ecology.
3.
We believe that
the roots of these crises lie in the stories we have been telling ourselves. We
intend to challenge the stories which underpin our civilisation: the myth of
progress, the myth of human centrality, and the myth of our separation from
‘nature’. These myths are more dangerous for the fact that we have forgotten
they are myths.
The group as a whole accepted this as an accurate statement about the worldview of
most, not all, of Earth’s wealthiest and most powerful people, corporations,
and governments. We also accepted that the mythic story Humankind has come up
with about its self-exalted place in Nature and the Cosmos is delusional. That is,
the story of our supremacy over all earthly life and belief in our ability to make progress in the direction of
individual and societal perfection has become falsely regarded as an absolute
truth by most of Humankind. That this story turned truth is a very dangerous
delusion.
4.
We will reassert
the role of storytelling as more than mere entertainment. It is through stories
that we weave reality. The group agreed, we are a species that survives
and thrives by our wits and the stories our imagination and reasoning create
about how to survive and prosper. We certainly weren’t likely to otherwise survive
during the early period of hominin evolution with our relatively under-sized
canine teeth, weak musculature, long postnatal childcare, and slow foot speed
compared to the predators we lived among during the East African Pleistocene.
Language, social cooperation and accumulative cultural transmission over
generations form a structure, an adaptive strategy, in which we place and improve upon
ideas for surviving and flourishing. We were likely to become a minor footnote
to the evolution of Life on Earth without this strategy and the stories, the
life-ways, we packed into it and built upon. But stories are meant to be, must
be, continuously thought about and questioned as they are retold through the generations.
Environments change and the challenges they present require that humans come up
with better stories, better ways of thinking about what we are, how we should
relate to each other, and how we should treat all other life forms and the
Earth itself. The story of human supremacy, unbridled capitalistic
exploitation, and inter-national Darwinism is not proving best for our species,
now and in the foreseeable short and long term future. The cost in human
suffering and planet degradation the current story exacts is unacceptably high.
Yes, we need a new and better story. Now.
5.
Humans are not
the point and purpose of the planet. Our art will begin with the attempt to
step outside the human bubble. By careful attention, we will reengage with the
non-human world. All
members of the group agreed. We must adjust our view of our place in Nature. In doing we might succeed in redefining the “point” of Humankind’s existence and our “purpose”
for being. The hard question is: How?
6.
We will
celebrate writing and art which is grounded in a sense of place and of time.
Our literature has been dominated for too long by those who inhabit the
cosmopolitan citadels. This is the point where the O&I group’s
respective points of view showed the greatest disagreement. Essentially, the
group was divided, with some overlap, in terms of holding one of the following three
positions regarding DMP’s claim of the primacy of art and literature in writing
a new story for Humankind:
A.
Science,
technology and political solutions should suffice. A good story to go along
with them won’t hurt and might help.
B.
Science,
technology and politics are methods we have worked hard on and steadily
improved during our species’ cultural evolution. Let’s continue to improve on
them and guide our efforts using them with a new and better story.
C.
Coming
up with a new and better story is of paramount importance. Art and new stories
from literature are essential but alone they are not enough. Our new and better stories
must be fomented not solely by the hopes and dreams of the Humanities. Art and
literature are essential, but alone they are not enough. Our new and better
stories must be informed not only by our hopes and dreams, they must also have
the substance and direction that only the ever-evolving provisional truths of
the natural and social sciences can provide; and knowledge of the pitfalls
ahead that history and philosophy can help alert us to avoid. Art and the
Humanities generally provide inspirational sparks and reflections but science,
history and philosophy are the fire and light leading us to and along a path with
the highest probability for survival and flourishing. A consilience is underway - a
linking together of principles from different disciplines, especially those of the
arts and sciences, to form a comprehensive theory.
7.
We will not lose
ourselves in the elaboration of theories or ideologies. Our words will be
elemental. We write with dirt under our fingernails. The group generally
thought this was insufficient. Our current theories and ideologies, the group
concluded, are part of our basic story, an extension of the primal adaptive story of
Humankind. But they do little unless they are constantly challenged and redirected. A voice
from the “dirt” is necessary but it alone is not enough.
8.
The end of the
world as we know it is not the end of the world full stop. Together, we will
find the hope beyond hope, the paths which lead to the unknown world ahead of
us. We
agreed, the world is likely to survive the best and worst Homo sapiens does to it. But
“will” we find the “hope beyond hope?” Some thought we would. Others hoped we
would. All agreed there’s an “unknown world ahead of us,” of course, but we
also concluded there is more reason for hope than what was given by the Dark
Mountain Project.
