Sunday, November 13, 2011

The Matrix, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and #OWS

So, in the context of OWS, reform and government generally, a friend of mine brought up the speech in the Matrix about human beings being like a virus, destroying everything in their path:



Without getting into an interpretation of the Matrix - which actually I'm kind of dwelling on - I have some initial thoughts.

First, I think one must admit it's a difficult point to deny in light of the state of our environment - we are undoubtedly ravaging our planet, imperiling not only the non-human creatures of the earth, but ultimately, threatening our own existence. However, it's not clear that this is an inescapable facet of human nature. In fact, this recent Naomi Klein piece offers a different, slightly more hopeful, interpretation: Namely, it's not human nature to destroy our environment, it's a symptom of our consumer-driven, grow-or-die economic system.
The fact that the earth’s atmosphere cannot safely absorb the amount of carbon we are pumping into it is a symptom of a much larger crisis, one born of the central fiction on which our economic model is based: that nature is limitless, that we will always be able to find more of what we need, and that if something runs out it can be seamlessly replaced by another resource that we can endlessly extract. But it is not just the atmosphere that we have exploited beyond its capacity to recover—we are doing the same to the oceans, to freshwater, to topsoil and to biodiversity. The expansionist, extractive mindset, which has so long governed our relationship to nature, is what the climate crisis calls into question so fundamentally.
The assumption underlying the above-quoted passage - an assumption that offers at least a glimmer of hope with respect to the humans-as-cancer thesis - is that the cancer isn't humanity, the cancer is neoliberal capitalism. And capitalism is a newcomer to the human scene; despite Thatcherisms to the contrary, radical, neoliberal capitalism is hardly an inevitability.

Okay, second quick point - with respect to the generally dim view of humanity offered by Agent Smith, I was reminded (as I often am) of Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Specifically, Anya's last big speech in, "End of Days":

Anya: There was this other apocalypse this one time. And, well, I took off. But this time, I don't... I don't know.

Andrew: Well, what's different?

Anya: Well, I guess I was kinda new to being around humans before. And now I've seen a lot more, gotten to know people, seen what they're capable of and I guess I just realize how amazingly... screwed up they all are. I mean, really, really screwed up in a monumental fashion.

Andrew: Oh.

Anya: And they have no purpose that unites them, so they just drift around, blundering through life until they die. Which they-they know is coming, yet every single one of them is surprised when it happens to them. They're incapable of thinking about what they want beyond the moment. They kill each other, which is clearly insane, and yet, here's the thing. When it's something that really matters, they fight. I mean, they're lame morons for fighting. But they do. They never... They never quit. And so I guess I will keep fighting, too.... I don't think I'll be okay. I'm cool with it. I think I'd like to finish out as one of those lame humans trying to do what's right.

There may be very little hope, but every human being has the choice of skipping town or "finish[ing] it out as one of those lame humans trying to do what's right." And we've reached that critical point where one must choose. As Chris Hedges noted early on, neutrality is not an option. Once battle lines have been drawn - and they have been drawn - neutrality equals complicity equals guilt:

There are no excuses left. Either you join the revolt taking place on Wall Street and in the financial districts of other cities across the country or you stand on the wrong side of history....

To be declared innocent in a country where the rule of law means nothing, where we have undergone a corporate coup, where the poor and working men and women are reduced to joblessness and hunger, where war, financial speculation and internal surveillance are the only real business of the state, where even habeas corpus no longer exists, where you, as a citizen, are nothing more than a commodity to corporate systems of power, one to be used and discarded, is to be complicit in this radical evil. To stand on the sidelines and say “I am innocent” is to bear the mark of Cain; it is to do nothing to reach out and help the weak, the oppressed and the suffering, to save the planet.

So, those are my initial thoughts and I might get around to writing something more in-depth later.

9 comments:

  1. Unfortunately, I have a more pessimistic outlook. I would suggest that the key line in Anya's speech is this statement: "They're incapable of thinking about what they want beyond the moment." That sounds about right.

    And I am not sure I agree that it isn't human nature to destroy our environment, or that what we are doing now stems solely from our consumption-oriented economic system. It is my understanding, for example, that the Levant used to be a rich and flourishing ecosystem that was fairly early on reduced largely to desert simply because humans had been living there for so long.

    Now, I suppose that one could argue that even then we had developed a consumption-based society, but the pattern repeats elsewhere. I don't believe the Easter Islanders had a capitalist, grow-or-die economic system, but they cut down all the trees on their island and destroyed their environment anyway.

    Or, probably even more tellingly, we can look to the behavior of Native Americans. According to Robert Wright in "Non-Zero: The Logic of Human Destiny" (that is, if I am correctly remembering where I got this), even the nomadic tribes of North America did not "live in harmony" with their environment so much as they periodically despoiled small patches of it before moving on.

    That is, they would set up camp, stay until the food supply had been fished out/wiped out, and the refuse generated had rendered the place uninhabitable, and then move on. They had a large are in which they traveled and would not return to a place that had been destroyed for maybe 20 years, after nature had had the opportunity to scab over the predation and heal itself. Then the cycle would repeat all over again.

    In a way, I suppose, this represents a "balance of nature" because harm being done to the environment was spread out over both time and space so that it didn't destroy the system entirely -- in a way, it was a form of crop rotation. But if this is an example of the type of behavior that comes naturally to humans, and we've lost the ability to spread its effects over time and space (generally because we've metastasized into a 7 billion unit growth), then the only way to avoid the effects of this behavior is to change it -- that is, to change the fundamental way humans interact with their environment. Sounds like a tough sell.

    Don't get me wrong, a consumption-based, grow-or-die economic system obviously exacerbates the problem, I'm just not sure it is the ultimate source of the problem. I think the ultimate source comes from within us.

    And, as for digging in and fighting, well, hell! I'm all for that. And yes, it is one of the nobler things about humans that we will fight when we think we don't have a choice. The only problem is, because we are so short-sighted and have no ability to think "beyond the moment" when confronted with a slow but inexorable dilemma like climate change we are unlikely to realize we don't have a choice until it is much too late.

    Sorry to be such a downer, but, well, there you are.

  2. @swellsman - actually, the Anya "argument" is an alternative argument. So, even assuming the truth of the human-as-cancer thesis, we should still try, even if we go down trying.

  3. No argument there. I spent some time last week writing a longish letter to one of my Senators after learning that she intends to co-sponsor a bill for another tax repatriation holiday. Afterward I was telling a buddy about it and he just smirked and said: "You're cute."

    "Yeah, yeah, man, I know," I told him, "it'll probably do no good at all. But we're always talking about trying to do something, and this is a lousy idea and she is my senator. So while it'll almost certainly have no effect, I'd feel like a jerk if I didn't at least try to be heard on this."

    "Yeah, I know. You do what you can."

    As you say, I'd rather go down fighting than just go down.

  4. Also, FYI - Joss Whedon is always quick to point out that he's hopeful, but only in the most pathetic, limited sense - that's what I think this is really speaking to - how do you recognize our shortcomings as human beings and yet also the fact that people can be heroic and noble?

    As for Easter Island (and that's certainly not the only example), the only argument is that these examples, by and large, were pre-science. So, some hope - as always, limited and pathetic - that understand what we're up against makes a difference. But like I said at the outset, I'm writing and thinking about it because it's compelling.

  5. Of course other side of scientific/technological progress is that now we can rape the earth like never before - we can take off mountain tops, we can mine to oil from Tar Sands. So, that argument has two sides - now that we understand science, we'll do better (hard to buy given opinion on global warming); or we're now in an even better position to really do damage (probably more likely).

    Which takes us to "Whedon Pathetic Hope" argument. If we're honest about the history, that's probably where we are.

    However, I also think I'm a product of my time, which means I have learned cynicism. OWS has exceeded my wildest expectation because I was too cynical to believe in it at the beginning. That's why it has to start with the young.

    Anyway, that was kind of all over the place, but I'm just at the thinking-out-loud stage with these ideas.