On December 10, the Nobel Peace Prize will be awarded, and many have wanted Greta Thunberg to be the recipient. But would the world’s leaders really have been able to take in Greta’s message? Few would probably realize that a battle has to be fought before her visions come to fruition.
We cannot save the world by playing according to your rules, because the rules must be changed.
And if solutions within our system are impossible to find, maybe we should change the system itself. We are striking to shake the system.
This is just the beginning. Change will happen – believe it or not.
Young idealistic dreams to take with a pinch of salt? Or does that, perhaps, just reflect the disillusioned and befuddled judgments of the older generation? The quotes are true, but not because it is Greta who pronounced them, but because all creations have an expiry date, even the society that our western world wants to call the most adult and noble we can ever dream of.
We should understand that it is time for an upgrade when our civilization has evolved to steal resources from future generations, from those who cannot defend themselves. We should acknowledge the abuse we have inflicted and our collective normalization of dishonesty in order to maintain our way of life.
- Our economy, the lifeblood of our society, is based on the idea that we steal from the future. Our life force, economic growth, is financed by money that banks create out of nothing, for a debt that we can only pay off in the future.
- We are stealing from our future communities by constantly consuming more than the planet can deliver.
- We are stealing resources and not really being true to ourselves when every day is spent in the pursuit of more ‘stuff’ because society expects us to participate in this addiction and destruction.
The nuts and bolts of our way of life are based on abuse. We live in a dream state, in a consensus trance that an increasing number of people are breaking out of. The world is programmed. The way forward is about de-programming.
But system change is not a utopia, it has happened before.
During the 1930s, the world faced gigantic political and social problems, not least in the United States after the “Great Depression”. President Roosevelt gradually carried out what became known as The New Deal, which entailed a comprehensive reform program involving investments in the public sector and business regulations that resulted in falling unemployment and social reforms. The nightmare was broken, optimism increased, and society rose up again for the benefit of all citizens as it led to the welfare societies of the western world. The ensuing culture of consumption would, ironically, be the beginning of the nightmare into which we have now been seduced.
This time, however, we cannot lobby and negotiate in the same way. Mother Earth does not bow to demands for a realistic transition or a smooth exit.
A peace award to Greta would demand the politicization of her message. The struggle over who will be allowed to carry out the economic, democratic and social adjustments required for this system change will lead to a political war. We are talking about an Extreme Green New Deal beyond the visions of American Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and European DiEM25, with not only green investment but also with demands for reduced consumption. Mother Earth’s more intense convulsions will force politicians and experts to drill ever deeper into the ground of our civilization as they plan for a transition. When they find that hundred-year-old political and economic paving stones must be blown away, we will have a near-existential struggle with progressive forces on one hand and the established and conservative on the other.
The hatred against Roosevelt from isolationist forces during the 30-40s is basically the same as what Greta has to endure today. It comes from those who are embittered, scared and worried; the conservative realists without alternatives. But the end of the coming battle is a given “believe it or not”.
Much indicates that Greta will receive next year’s Peace Prize. The climate problem will then be more established, with more insights and greater desperation. It would be the Nobel establishment’s cry for help: a cry for structure and clear efforts. The luxury trap must be disabled and all those who do not want to put an end to the theft and corruption of our civilization should not be allowed to influence our society. In a reclaimed parliament, politicians will be able to enact laws and sort out the parts of society that benefit everyone.
What is actually there in the wallet is what we have; what the earth can afford today is what is offered. People should be able to live in the present without being burdened by the financial yoke that the future forces them to bear. Shopping on credit will again be thought of as a disreputable practice.
David Anderson says
Nice article. I don’t agree with ALL of it – I’m no fan of Swedish truant Greta and some of the (emotioanlly blackmailing) tactics of her and Extinction Rebellion. I think the topic is too important to let it be hijacked by fanatics AND hijacked on the other side by (amazing!) actual denialists. But Republicans never quit letting us down ethically or intellectually so you gotta expect that. :-)
Greta is no FDR, however……
You’re right about the inequality and overuse of resources problem. People are fine with a certain (quite high, actually) amount of inequality but things go off the rails if a) it gets to extreme (like now, say), or there’s a feeling that the system is rigged (a lot of it is if you look at the numbers of how people live and wealth distribution). BOTH of those events lead to Big Trouble, more violence and tend to damage humans, the economy and the environment. heheh — which is why I say vote for Liz Warren, but that’s just my personal opinion.
Great article though, thank you.
mats sederholm says
“(emotioanlly blackmailing) tactics of her and Extinction Rebellion”
Well, you have a point here.
On the other hand what is left seem to be a shared, open and controlled suicide.
We know that established politicians never will intervene, so there must be an action from people, some kind of activism. That is actually exactly what Great urged in her speech in Madrid lately.
The problem with Great or XR is that ir seems like they want to have this climateactivism undisturbed and by themselves whil in fact they need political partners that can walk the talk, that can be just as radical politically.
Looking forward to your input