November 9, 2004
THE LONELINESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE DOOMSAYER
'Our last chance to get the future right' (Sandra Martin, Globe and Mail, November 6th, 2004)
Elegantly clad in a black, fine-wale corduroy jacket, co-ordinating trousers, an open-necked, soft, white shirt and a blood-red poppy, Ronald Wright looked good and felt bad on Wednesday afternoon.The launch party for his ecological lament, A Short History of Progress, was about to start, but he had slept fitfully the night before, turning on the television at 5 a.m. to see if the results from Ohio had tipped in favour of his man, John Kerry. By now it was clear that George W. Bush, "a primitive man who should be extinct," as Mr. Wright described the incumbent, was headed back to the White House for four more years.
"It is a huge disaster for the planet," he said bluntly, sitting in a slate blue leather arm chair at the University of Toronto's Massey College, citing Mr. Bush's dismal record of rolling back the environmental protections instituted by his predecessors.
Mr. Wright, who is this year's Massey Lecturer, has a succinct and alarming message: Our global civilization will disappear if we don't change our flagrantly wasteful ways.[...]
"I think it is going to take a near-miss to turn around public opinion, particularly the political agenda and the thinking of the people at the top of the economic food chain. The best we can hope for is something that hits us hard enough to slap us in the face and wake us up, but not hard enough to knock us out."
Does he mean the ecological equivalent of 9/11? That should do it, Mr. Wright allows.
"Although," he says after a glum pause, "the response to 9/11 has only made the situation worse, especially when Bush went into Iraq."
No wonder he's depressed.
One has to wonder how long it will be before progressive intellectuals start arguing that genocide is our only chance to save the planet.
Peter Singer has already done that in effect.
Posted by: Bart at November 9, 2004 6:21 AMPray tell, what is "progressive" about that gentleman's point of view? What improvements or ameliorations of the human condition is he proposing?
There you go again, as Ronald Reagan used to say, calling people pushing the repeal of thousands of years of progress as "progressives."
Posted by: Lou Gots at November 9, 2004 6:27 AMStart arguing for genocide ? When have so-called progressive so-called intellectuals ever stopped arguing for genocide ? Genocide is their way of life, because they believe the planet would be a better place if they were the only human beings inhabitating it.
Posted by: Peter at November 9, 2004 7:29 AMThank you Peter, what I was thinking only expressed better.
Posted by: Jeff at November 9, 2004 7:54 AMNever did like fine-wale corduroy.
Posted by: Twn at November 9, 2004 8:21 AMLou:
You are right, of course, but I think that is a losing battle. At some point we have to accept that political labels get appropriated and distorted and they come to describe a certain class or mindset rather than a certain original belief. You wouldn't get far trying to argue publically in favour of tryanny on the basis of its classical Greek meaning. And can you imagine any blogster trying, however hesitantly, to rehabilitate the word "facist"? :-)
Posted by: Peter B at November 9, 2004 9:09 AMPeter:
And of course few political terms are more controversial than 'liberal' and 'conservative'.
Anyone care to define them? I bet we can't get a consensus.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 9:15 AMBrit --
In Australia, the Liberal Party is conservative.
The use of a label usually says more about the user than the target.
Posted by: Uncle Bill at November 9, 2004 10:33 AMYes. A few examples:
A radical is the opposite of a conservative. Yet Thatcher, Reagan and GWB have been described as 'radical conservatives'.
In the US a republican is right-wing conservative. A republican is Britain is a left-wing liberal.
Conservative is usually considered opposite to socialist. Yet liberals are also often considered opposite to socialists. And liberals and conservatives are usually considered opposite to each other.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 11:36 AMAnd let's not forget how the hardline communists in the Kremlin and the mullahs in Tehran were regularly described as conservative.
Posted by: Peter B at November 9, 2004 11:43 AMAnd the defunct "Progressive Conservative" party in Canada.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at November 9, 2004 12:41 PMOne has to wonder how long it will be before progressive intellectuals start arguing that genocide is our only chance to save the planet.
They have for 215 years.
Mother Gaia is hungry. We've fed her with over 40 million child sacrifices since Roe v Wade and she still cries out for more. Baal-Moloch wishes he had that kind of gig.
Posted by: Ken at November 9, 2004 1:22 PM"The first thing we'll do, let's kill all the professors."
Now, exactly how would this gentleman argue with that?
Posted by: jim hamlen at November 9, 2004 3:05 PM"We had to destroy the village in order to save it".
Nice ellipsis, given the past election.
Posted by: ratbert at November 9, 2004 6:46 PM"Never did like fine-wale corduroy."
Synchronicity moment. This is the third reference I've seen/heard today to the word "wale". I don't think I've heard that word more than 3 times previously in my entire life. Wasup with that!
Posted by: Robert Duquette at November 10, 2004 12:40 AMNot to forget Mexico's PRI (Party of the Institutionalized Revolution).
Posted by: Eugene S. at November 10, 2004 7:52 AM