From the preface to Leaves of Grass

This is what you should do: Love the earth and sun and animals,

despise riches, give alms to everyone who asks,

stand up for the stupid and crazy,

devote your income and labour to others, hate tyrants,

argue not concerning God,

have patience and indulgence toward the people,

re-examine all you have been told in school or church

or any book,

dismiss what insults your very soul,

and your flesh shall become a great poem.

Walt Whitman

Air Condition

Much of my reading recently has danced around the concept of ‘Air Condition’, developed by Peter Sloterdijk. His point is that our current age is better understood, not seeing it as Modernity, or the condition of Postmodernity, rather the Human Condition – since the first World War – is one of Air Condition. Basically, the condition of being aware of air (or any other such unrealized sustainer) and the following impulse to control the supply of it. Air Conditioning.

He sees the inauguration, the heralder of the age of Air Condition, in the first use of Gas in Modern warfare. The gassing at Ypres, in April 1915.

It was then that that which we take for granted and exists in the background, the air we breath, dramatically takes centre stage, is the only thing worth having in the foreground. When the air we breath is threatened, even if we've never considered it before, becomes the only thing worth seeking. The irony - if it weren’t so tragic – is that it’s only when life comes under its most testing threat, is when those who suffered in that attack came to view their utter dependence on that which they had taken for granted their whole lives.

Much like the proverbial fish who swims it’s whole life without want nor need to know what water is, suddenly (if fish could do such) has an existential angst to return to the state of water immersion where life is possible.

I’ve written previously about Bourdieu and how humans necessary for life, allow certain aspects of our existence and livelihood to become screened out of existence – to slip into the doxic realm. An occasion like that at Ypres is one where those taken-for-granted assumptions become all too real, where we become aware of our Air Condition.

Sloterdijk, and guys like Bruno Latour, who liberally quote his theories, use this to point to the increasing realization of our dependence on more than just air. Our connection to the natural realm, through farming practices, walking, song, even breathing, is becoming far more realisiable, as we shut ourselves off in boxes, in our air conditioned cells. When that which we depend on becomes threatened, the desire to control tends to be not so far behind. Of course the air we depend on need not just be material sustenance, but also cultural, social and spiritual.

As humans run up against all manner of different 21^st century barriers - environmental, spiritual, cultural - the increasingly unsustainable nature of our existence can come to be seen as choke our supply of ‘air’.

To live in the age of air condition is to be aware that that which we took for granted – living in harmony with the earth, others and ourselves – is slipping from view. Again the irony, if only it weren’t so tragic, is that it’s only as we are on the cusp of loosing our air that we become aware of just how utterly, in our Air Condition, we are dependent we are upon it.

Original (Carbon) Sin?

As the world careers full-pelt towards ecocide, is the potential solution a return to that most controversial Christian belief - Original Sin?

That's the startling conclusion of the latest 'blog post by George Monbiot here. What's interesting here is not so much that the man who's previously described himself as an 'Evangelical Agnostic' has recanted, repented and turned towards orthodox Christian faith. I don't think for a minute that's not what's going on here. But there is something curious in his declaration. Effective and enduring environmental action, simply cannot be done by incentives and persuasion alone. There needs to be a deeper, some might say spiritual, impulse.

Our whole society is geared up to consume more, and the incentives for a greener, more equitable life are neither economic or rational. The current incentives for the environmental good life are more for those who are attracted to 'do gooder' sensibilities, or those who are fond of fringe lifestyles anyway. Of course, there are those who have a genuine sense of fairness and desire to do the right thing. I do think though that it's desire, not reason that draws people into environmental actions.

That seems to be Monbiot's point here too. That we can have all the education and awareness raising we want, but people will carry on being selfish - that's just what we do. Particularly when the scales are tipped in favour of the unethical choice most often. (It's often cheeper and easier to fly than drive, take the car in place of public transport, etc.) In order to alter our unsustainable, harmful lifestyles we do need something akin to a conversion experience. A harmful lifestyle incidentally that most of us didn't choose, or just blindly stumbled into. The parallels between this and Original Sin I find fascinating.

Interestingly, in another news story this week, the law has now put environmental beliefs on a par with religious ones. I think the more equitable lifestyle does require a taming of greedy instincts that desire more, more, more. It's paramount that we learn how to tame these soon, collectively. If religious thinkers have for years wrestled with how to salve matters of the soul (which greed no doubt is), then it makes sense to have them on board in dealing with these issues. Likewise, a Christianity searching for contemporary relevance could do far worse than direct it's efforts towards being an effective agent for environmental justice.

Original (Carbon) Sin? Maybe it's not such a bad doctrine after all.

A Call to Responsibility

This last week, I've had a conversation with some colleagues about academics and writers who write, think and talk about Climate Change for their career, and yet who also fly to give talks, papers and attend conferences for their work.

The problem was presented as if these writers are attempting to go and do some good. One person talked about flying to a Climate Change conference, yet was delayed due to a Plane Stupid action at the airport. This person was incredulous that they had been delayed. 'I was actually going [abroad] to make a difference' she declared. I have mixed reactions to this.

It is admirable that she wants to DO something about Climate Change, and all its' consequences. Even if that involved participating in some structural injustice that would continue apace whether or not she partook in said flight. I couldn't formulate a specific - or coherent - response at the time, yet this statement left me with disquiet. I spoke for a bit about the relationship between the message and the median, how the manner in which you convey a certain statement ought to be part of that statement. How a message is delivered changes that message, however subtly.

I also mentioned how a problem can't be solved with the same thinking that started, or caused, it. That old Einstein chestnut.

However, I wasn't entirely convinced by my responses. I want to avoid utilitarianism, but there must conceivably be a situation where to commit an immoral (sinful even) or harmful action may be the least worst thing we could do. For now, I'm going to content myself that these are matters for the soul. (Which is not to say our individual soul.) These exterior actions are reflective of our interior, or moral, wrangling.

Particularly with regard to Carbon emissions, so deeply harmful to the least well off, the poor and marginalised, we are completely complicit. What do we do that doesn't in some way contribute to the problem? This complicity ought to drive us inward, to reflect, chew and wrestle with what the best use of our skills, time and resources is the most alive way to be.

Perhaps this is a get out of jail free card to the problem? Everyone to themselves, no meta-morals to promote or defend. Perhaps it is.

But if taken seriously, this call to be responsible (the ability to respond rightly) for our actions, the way we go about our lives could be the most profoundly challenging thing we'll ever do.