Atheist Nexus Logo

Obama is poised to intervene in Syria, morally outraged by the Syrian government's chemical assault on its citizens. What seems at first glance a clear cut moral issue is, from a larger perspective, participation in the global failure cascade of Climate Destabilization. This regional horror is symptomatic of a broader process of global genocide into which we are being drawn.

The political unrest in Syria is rooted in widespread farming failure due to Climate Destabilization.

The crunch came in the context of an intensifying and increasingly regular drought cycle linked to climate change. Between 2002 and 2008, the country's total water resources dropped by half through both overuse and waste.

Once self-sufficient in wheat, Syria has become increasingly dependent on increasingly costly grain imports, which rose by 1m tonnes in 2011-12, then rose again by nearly 30% to about 4m in 2012-13. The drought ravaged Syria's farmlands, led to several crop failures, and drove hundreds of thousands of people from predominantly Sunni rural areas into coastal cities traditionally dominated by the Alawite minority.

The exodus inflamed sectarian tensions rooted in Assad's longstanding favouritism of his Alawite sect – many members of which are relatives and tribal allies – over the Sunni majority. [emphasis mine] source


This is humanity on Climate Destabilization. This is how Climate Destabilization unfolds. As environment resources supporting our lives collapse, preexisting social conflicts explode. Conflict resulting from resource depletion brings out the worst in humanity, as war has always done. War-making is intoxicating. Human "enemies" are easy for our ancient instincts to comprehend, as a focus for our rage. Both sides escalate until one sinks to mass atrocity.

The failure cascade of our planet's climate includes OUR social, political, and psychological responses. What we do in response to a deteriorating environment is an inherent component of the destructive process.

To see only the atrocities, ignoring the environment-based forces that push human beings to commit them, is morally naive. Every one of us is capable of committing atrocity with enough pressure, after years of deteriorating conditions, feeling that we must protect our families, our way of life, and everything we hold dear. When we become hopeless and desperate, we turn into monsters. (See Chris Hedges War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning)

Focus on the bottom line. The underlying cause is fossil fuel dependence gradually making our planet uninhabitable. Any military intervention increases fossil fuel use, generating a vicious cycle of its own. It also diverts funds away from clean energy programs.

What is an appropriate moral response?

  • Reframe the issue to focus on what's driving people on both sides of the conflict.  Avoid demonizing and blame.
  • Channel moral outrage on all sides into stopping the underlying process, supporting a global program to switch from fossil fuel to renewables.

It's time to see that "Climate Change" isn't just changes in the air and water, it's "People Change" in the worst sense. Climate Change is People Change! Got it?

Our response to Syria is a critical tipping point. We will either make climate destabilize even faster or channel our outrage constructively. Put another way we will take another step toward being monsters ourselves by trying to rescue perceived victims from perceived enemies, or we'll  take a baby step toward globally responsible mature humanity.

image source(from unrelated topic)

ADDENDUM

If you want to tell congress that you'll refuse to reelect any member who votes for war on Syria go to Peace Voter Pledge

Tags: Climate Change, Climate Destabilization, Syria, failure cascade, military intervention, moral framing

Views: 1581

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree, Tom.

We do live in a sick world, booklover. But I don't think it's even possible to stave off this type of problem by going in to help when people need it. The needs are bottomless already, compared to our resources. Detroit is bankrupt. We can't even afford proper wildfire prevention programs to limit next year's megafires. But most of all the needs will just keep getting worse and worse and worse as Climate Destabilization proceeds. We're only feeling the early effects of a 1°C rise now, with 2°C already "in the pipeline", and absent a major change in global policies we're heading right for 6°C. What Syria is going through today will soon seem like a picnic compared to the meatgrinder we've arranged for our children.

Truthfully, US intervention has little, if anything, to do with the chemical attacks in Syria. Nor, does it have anything to with climate destabilization (no offense, Ruth - but in my humble opinion, that's a completely phony issue). It's homegrown, US politics, at its worst. Right now, the President of the United States, one Mr. Barack Obama, is having one helluva time dealing with the extremist right wing neo-fascists in Congress. He couldn't get a farm fertilizer bill passed if he he had a 5 mile long convoy of 18 wheelers lined up full of cow shit.

This has everything to do with who can wave the biggest external genitalia at each other. Syria used chemical weapons. Soooo, get the war mongering right wing to agree with him on use of military force against them on moral grounds. Then, if the Republican Tea Baggers vote in favor of his proposal, he wins, If they don't, they look like cowardly wimps. Which is why McCain and his closet boyfriend lover Lindsey Graham are all in favor of it. Of course, neither side has to drop the bombs. That's left to the 1st lieutenant flying through Russian supplied anti-aircraft fire. And, if that 1st lieutenant is shot down, leaving a widow and orphaned children, we'll pin a medal on his coffin, wave the flag, and praise Jesus for his bravery. And the 535 members of Congress, and the members of the executive branch will all eat chateaubriand with a bernaise sauce and a fine french burgundy, and move on to the next crisis where they can make a profit.

If the west were REALLY  all that concerned, they would have done something before 450,000+ innocent Syrians had already lost their lives. 

Ohhhh, one last thing. The last time we were told by an administration that intervening in an Asian land war was a good idea, that worked out REAL WELL  for America. Now, didn't it.

Pat, your imagery is awesome.  That convoy would be very helpful for the organic gardeners and farmers of the midwest, and would free up chemical fertilizer to make bombs.  Oh wait - that's not what I want.

Plus, feedlot cow poop is now contaminated with persistent herbicides and antibiotics, which are not good for growing tomatoes.

Sorry for the digression.  My dad used to talk about saber rattling.  His favorite expression was, "It depends on whose ox is getting gored".  He was a Republican in the old sense - before it turned into whatever it is today. 

Let's get McCain back into the cockpit and make him the first pilot to fly into Syrian airspace.  We can also re-draft GW Bush - he's well know for his flying skills too.

Then, Mr. Obama needs to return his peace prize.  I voted for him  twice.  I'm glad I did, considering the alternatives.  History may show yet him to be a great president.  But I get the feeling he's given over to the dark side of power, with "big brother" intrusion into private lives  and now pushing a war in Syria.

Daniel, thanks for the compliment. As to the President moving to the dark side, I am of the opinion he did that a long time ago; in his first term. I voted for him twice. The first time because I hoped he might actually be able to get something done. I didn't foresee the extent of the racist backlash of having a man of mixed ethnic backgrounds in the White House would have. I figured after Dubbya, how could things get any worse. Then the Tea Party took control of the House of representatives, and much to my chagrin, my questions was clearly answered. As to the 2nd time, I suppose it was more of a vote against Romney than it was for the President. Sometimes, one has little choice. 

Ahh, but the dark side. I cannot think of one single President, since FDR whom, having taken power (legitimately or illegitimately) unto the executive branch, has ever been willing to give it back. Nether Democrat nor Republican. Once, Obama got into office, he was the inheritor of every executive power grab since before FDR. Wilson's intervention in Mexico foreshadowed Truman's "police action" in Korea. Neither were declared wars (along with others too numerous to mention). Guantanamo is still open, though Obama's the CINC. And, allow me to give a shout out to all my friends at the NSA who are reading this; a program started by Obama's predecessor and continuing on today. 

As the old saying goes, power corrupts. And, once one has that kind of power, it's not going to be relinquished. "My precious," says Gollum.

Pat, I'm glad you didn't add and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When I hear people talk of absolute power, I know they are in academia.

Outside academia, people who seek power know they have to share it with the people whose money makes their acquiring it possible, and with the people who will protect them from assassins.

I voted for him  twice.  I'm glad I did, considering the alternatives.  History may show yet him to be a great president.  But I get the feeling he's given over to the dark side of power, with "big brother" intrusion into private lives  and now pushing a war in Syria.


Me too Sentient Biped.

I voted for him  twice.  I'm glad I did, considering the alternatives.

Me too, and I worked in and contributed to his campaigns.

Yet, if he orders action in Syria without Congress's consent, I will work for his impeachment in the House and his conviction  in the Senate.

If Congress consents, this Korean War combat veteran will be very pissed off!

The SCOTUS should rule the War Powers Act, on its face, unconstitutional but they fear the reaction from our military-industrial Congress and our military-industrial Executive.

Okay, I exaggerate. A little.

The SCOTUS should rule the War Powers Act, on its face, unconstitutional but they fear the reaction from our military-industrial Congress and our military-industrial Executive.

The "on its face" above means "as it's written." The 1787 Convention knew how nations started wars in their time but nothing of how they now start wars: without notice. 

An unannounced attack might today require a president to act without first consulting Congress, and so upon thinking a bit more, I want the above to read:

The SCOTUS should rule the War Powers Act, as applied, unconstitutional....

Since Syria did not attack the USofA, if Obama were to act without Congress' consent, the Court could rule his application of the War Powers Act a violation of the constitution.

I also voted for him twice.  I wouldn't, though, go so far as to say that he's given over to the dark side of power.  Frankly, I believe that any person, from any political party, from any school of ideology who comes into the role of president of the United States is in over their head for the duration of their term.  There are just too many serious domestic and world issues that desperately need attention but cannot be dealt with all at the same time.  The financial and manpower resources are just not available or plentiful enough to begin meaningful solutions.  

In addition, all of our problems are interconnected with each other.  You can't begin to solve one problem without solving another one first, and so on.  These constant roadblocks create a continuous cycle of action and inaction.  To make matters worse, we are unable to come to a consensus on how best to fix our problems or to even acknowledge that some situations are a problem. 

A couple of weeks ago a coworker stated (and I paraphrase) "this administration has done absolutely nothing but talk.  They've constantly talked about all the things they're going to do or want to do but they haven't done anything.  They just talk.  They took action on one issue only, and that's healthcare.....and they completely screwed that up."

This person seems to be totally oblivious to the fact that the Republicans and the Tea Party have stood in the way and blocked any and all policies put forth by this administration.  I was elated when Obama was elected, for he embodied much of what I stood for.  But any stance taken or legislation put forward by Obama has been chopped off at the knees.  It's difficult for me to solely blame Obama for not getting things accomplished.  I would hardly accuse him of giving into the dark side of power.

We have, supposedly, the best type of governmental system ever established, yet we cannot seem to properly govern ourselves.  We passionately call for and stand for equality and justice but live in a society filled with inequality and injustices of our own making.  We have the false notion that we are superior to all other countries but are blind to see that our own standard of living falls far below many others.  Our problems lie within our collective inability as a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" to see and face reality.  That, to me, is the dark side.

I agree with Carl 100%. Here he's explained our current and past "dark sides" in any administration.

We have, supposedly, the best type of governmental system ever established, yet....

FA, I'm glad you said we supposedly have....

Winston Churchill said democracy is the worst form of government except for all the other kinds we have tried.

America is an oligarchy; it is ruled by a few -- 435 in the US House, 100 in the Senate, and a president -- 536 in all.

If these few were our best, America would be an aristocracy. They are not our best.

Please don't say what a few defenders say, that America is a republic, not a democracy.

The word republic describes a structure; the word democracy describes a process.

In the 1787 Convention, America's founders regarded democracy as mob rule. They were right; only the children of wealthy parents went to school.

Here are Alexander Hamilton and James Madison describing the government they wanted:

Hamilton. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the rich and well-born a distinct and permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the mass of the people, and as they cannot receive any advantage by a change, they therefore will ever maintain good government. I confess that my plan and that from Virginia are very remote from the idea of the people. Perhaps the New Jersey plan is nearest their expectation. The people tire of an excess of democracy. (June 18)

Madison. In framing a system we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes the ages will bring. An increase of population will increase the proportion who labor under all the hardships of life and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former. No agrarian attempts have yet been made in this country, but symptoms of a leveling spirit have sufficiently appeared in certain quarters to give notice of the future danger. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and check the other. It ought to be formed as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. (June 26)

The nations that are establishing democracies now have educated populations. The USofA does not have the best type of governmental system ever established.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service