Gatherings 9, 2003

february 2003 -- Issue 9

The Problem of Disconnections
By Bob Russell

One of the important principles that parents hope to instill in their children is being responsible for their actions -- understanding that there are consequences. Sometimes consequences are immediate ("instant Karma going to get you" -- John Lennon) and others catch up with you later; some are physical, some are emotional and others are moral and ethical. It is a lot to sort out as we learn to be responsible adults in society, but most do. So why do we have biospherical crises like global warming, ozone destruction and massive species extinction? I think it's because we don't see them as a consequence of our actions -- we are disconnected.
Would our society understand environmental issues differently if we were not so disconnected from the consequences of our lifestyle? Most readers of this newsletter are in the wealthiest 20 percent of the Earth's population that is responsible for 86 percent of the total private consumption on our planet. The people in this top 20 percent don't see the effects of this over-consumption in terms of toxic waste, soil degradation, unsustainable mining, logging and many other negative impacts. Most of these impacts are suffered by the 25 percent of the human population who live in absolute poverty.
Before our economy became so globalized, ecological problems could be seen more directly. A community put it's toxic waste in a lake or river and it was polluted. Now, most wealthy communities don't do that. Instead, they export toxic waste or the production that causes it, to areas where the people live in poverty and are powerless to escape. Think of the maquiladoras on the Mexican American border that make cheap goods for us while polluting the region's environment, as well as creating harsh conditions for the workers.
We do not see the connection between our unsustainable consumption and the ecological destruction that is now global in nature. Humans have evolved to react to the visible dangers -- fight or flight -- but we have exported most of the most visible dangers elsewhere.
The disconnect of the coming oil war in Iraq results from our inability to see the results of our over-indulgent energy needs. The ability to control the flow of cheap oil rests on our country's military might. We need to bomb and kill people to maintain our lifestyle, but we don't see that directly. We only see the sanitized version the military releases to the mainstream corporate media.
If Traverse City were Baghdad
Let's switch places with the people of Iraq and consider what might happen to a city like Traverse City, Michigan, if it were the target of a country with the military ability of the United States -- a country that needs to protect its economic lifestyle of unsustainable consumption that both Bushes have said isn't negotiable. What would be bombed? Here is a possible list of targets and consequences:
1. The water plant on Eastern Avenue that supplies the drinking water for most of the metro area. Those in the neighborhood would be collateral damage along with the workers at the plant; no public water supply
2. The airport; no flights in or out
3. The fuel tanks on West Bay; no fuel and the creation of an ecological disaster for the Bay
4. The power plant on the Bay and substation that allows for distribution of the electricity; no power
5. The bridges over the Grandview Parkway, Union Street, Cass St., Eighth St. and South Airport and the destruction of other major highways; transportation severely limited
6. Natural gas pipelines; no gas for heating, cooking or industrial uses
7. The telephone building on State street in downtown Traverse City, various cell towers and Charter Communications' head end; almost no communications

We would be very connected after the first day of smart bombs to what a war for oil would be to a civilian population. There would be no water system for clean drinking water, no gas for cars and trucks, no electricity, no fuel for heat, no transportation system to bring food -- and that was just from the first day.
Being bombed to make connections between our lifestyle and its consequences is a harsh reality that I hope doesn't ever happen. There are other ways to help make this connections: listen, watch and read from independent media sources; ask yourselves questions about where the goods you buy come from, start a discussion group about these issues within your community and slow down to give yourself time to pay attention to your connection to the natural world.
Actions to help lessen the consequences of an unsustainable lifestyle: support local food systems, support locally owned business, support alternative media, use more renewal energy, conserve energy, buy less stuff and be kind.

The Bush-Cheney energy policies leave us at the mercy of a region that's racked with violence and instability, now more than ever, Kerry said. Every day our service men and women put their lives on the line so that oil can flow from around the world to America's gas stations.
-- Senator John Kerry, (D-MA)

An excerpt from an article on Military dual-use targeting:
Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical, and Doctrinal Perspectives
by Kenneth R. Rizer, From: Air & Space Power Chronicles
May 2001
. . . IV. Summary
This paper has reviewed the development of three perspectives to dual-use targets. In the final analysis, none of the perspectives shows any near-term tendency to outlaw attack on dual-use targets nor to demand consideration of the long-term, unintended effects of attacking them. . . .
. . . The Christian Just-War Ethic's treatment of dual-use targets is more encouraging as several commentators have begun to question the wisdom of ignoring the long-term unintended effects obviously caused in part by such dual-use attacks. Yet proponents of the JWE have no leverage over international opinion so long as their voices are a cacophony of competing views. . . .
. . . Finally, the US Air Force has a vested interest in attacking dual-use targets so long as dual-use target destruction serves the double role of destroying legitimate military capabilities and indirectly targeting civilian morale. So long as this remains within the letter if not the spirit of the law and the JWE, the Air Force will cling to the status quo.
The full article can be found on the web:
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Rizer.html
Other web references:
Bombing Dual-Use Targets? By Sean Gonsalves
Cape Cod Times, November 12, 2002
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2002/1112dual.htm
Iraqi Water and Sanitation Systems Could Be Military Target, Says MoD,
by Jo Dillon, Deputy Political Editor
Sunday, February 2, 2003 by the lndependent/UK
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0202-03.htm

february 2003 -- Issue 9

Gatherings Main Index

Center Home

		february 2003 -- Issue 9
The Problem of Disconnections By Bob Russell
One of the important principles that parents hope to instill in their children is being responsible for their actions -- understanding that there are consequences. Sometimes consequences are immediate ("instant Karma going to get you" -- John Lennon) and others catch up with you later; some are physical, some are emotional and others are moral and ethical. It is a lot to sort out as we learn to be responsible adults in society, but most do. So why do we have biospherical crises like global warming, ozone destruction and massive species extinction? I think it's because we don't see them as a consequence of our actions -- we are disconnected. Would our society understand environmental issues differently if we were not so disconnected from the consequences of our lifestyle? Most readers of this newsletter are in the wealthiest 20 percent of the Earth's population that is responsible for 86 percent of the total private consumption on our planet. The people in this top 20 percent don't see the effects of this over-consumption in terms of toxic waste, soil degradation, unsustainable mining, logging and many other negative impacts. Most of these impacts are suffered by the 25 percent of the human population who live in absolute poverty. Before our economy became so globalized, ecological problems could be seen more directly. A community put it's toxic waste in a lake or river and it was polluted. Now, most wealthy communities don't do that. Instead, they export toxic waste or the production that causes it, to areas where the people live in poverty and are powerless to escape. Think of the maquiladoras on the Mexican American border that make cheap goods for us while polluting the region's environment, as well as creating harsh conditions for the workers. We do not see the connection between our unsustainable consumption and the ecological destruction that is now global in nature. Humans have evolved to react to the visible dangers -- fight or flight -- but we have exported most of the most visible dangers elsewhere. The disconnect of the coming oil war in Iraq results from our inability to see the results of our over-indulgent energy needs. The ability to control the flow of cheap oil rests on our country's military might. We need to bomb and kill people to maintain our lifestyle, but we don't see that directly. We only see the sanitized version the military releases to the mainstream corporate media. If Traverse City were Baghdad Let's switch places with the people of Iraq and consider what might happen to a city like Traverse City, Michigan, if it were the target of a country with the military ability of the United States -- a country that needs to protect its economic lifestyle of unsustainable consumption that both Bushes have said isn't negotiable. What would be bombed? Here is a possible list of targets and consequences: 1. The water plant on Eastern Avenue that supplies the drinking water for most of the metro area. Those in the neighborhood would be collateral damage along with the workers at the plant; no public water supply 2. The airport; no flights in or out 3. The fuel tanks on West Bay; no fuel and the creation of an ecological disaster for the Bay 4. The power plant on the Bay and substation that allows for distribution of the electricity; no power 5. The bridges over the Grandview Parkway, Union Street, Cass St., Eighth St. and South Airport and the destruction of other major highways; transportation severely limited 6. Natural gas pipelines; no gas for heating, cooking or industrial uses 7. The telephone building on State street in downtown Traverse City, various cell towers and Charter Communications' head end; almost no communications We would be very connected after the first day of smart bombs to what a war for oil would be to a civilian population. There would be no water system for clean drinking water, no gas for cars and trucks, no electricity, no fuel for heat, no transportation system to bring food -- and that was just from the first day. Being bombed to make connections between our lifestyle and its consequences is a harsh reality that I hope doesn't ever happen. There are other ways to help make this connections: listen, watch and read from independent media sources; ask yourselves questions about where the goods you buy come from, start a discussion group about these issues within your community and slow down to give yourself time to pay attention to your connection to the natural world. Actions to help lessen the consequences of an unsustainable lifestyle: support local food systems, support locally owned business, support alternative media, use more renewal energy, conserve energy, buy less stuff and be kind. The Bush-Cheney energy policies leave us at the mercy of a region that's racked with violence and instability, now more than ever, Kerry said. Every day our service men and women put their lives on the line so that oil can flow from around the world to America's gas stations. -- Senator John Kerry, (D-MA) An excerpt from an article on Military dual-use targeting: Bombing Dual-Use Targets: Legal, Ethical, and Doctrinal Perspectives by Kenneth R. Rizer, From: Air & Space Power Chronicles May 2001 . . . IV. Summary This paper has reviewed the development of three perspectives to dual-use targets. In the final analysis, none of the perspectives shows any near-term tendency to outlaw attack on dual-use targets nor to demand consideration of the long-term, unintended effects of attacking them. . . . . . . The Christian Just-War Ethic's treatment of dual-use targets is more encouraging as several commentators have begun to question the wisdom of ignoring the long-term unintended effects obviously caused in part by such dual-use attacks. Yet proponents of the JWE have no leverage over international opinion so long as their voices are a cacophony of competing views. . . . . . . Finally, the US Air Force has a vested interest in attacking dual-use targets so long as dual-use target destruction serves the double role of destroying legitimate military capabilities and indirectly targeting civilian morale. So long as this remains within the letter if not the spirit of the law and the JWE, the Air Force will cling to the status quo. The full article can be found on the web: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/cc/Rizer.html Other web references: Bombing Dual-Use Targets? By Sean Gonsalves Cape Cod Times, November 12, 2002 http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/law/2002/1112dual.htm Iraqi Water and Sanitation Systems Could Be Military Target, Says MoD, by Jo Dillon, Deputy Political Editor Sunday, February 2, 2003 by the lndependent/UK http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0202-03.htm
february 2003 -- Issue 9	Gatherings Main Index	Center Home