Acknowledgements.
The mundi club would like to thank those people who have sent in articles used in this work. It would be marvellous to thank them openly and fully but, unfortunately, naming names is likely to put their careers, reputation or social status at stake. As a consequence acknowledgements are indicated by initials enclosed in brackets and are to be found usually in the footnotes. None of these people have helped in the writing or publication of this work and thus cannot be blamed for its contents - although we hope they will not disapprove too strongly about what has been written. This work also features poems by damian robin. These have been reproduced from an obscure sheffield publication. We hope he doesn’t object to this expropriation but we felt compelled to use them - there are so few poems these days which mention Photosynthesis.
Welcome to Terra Firm Issue 7
This issue of the terra firm returns to one of the subjects covered in an earlier issue - cars. It consists of three essays. The first suggests that campaigns against the car industry should be aimed at saving the Earth rather than saving humans. Some ‘green’ activists seem to believe that there is a fortuitous coincidence of interests between the two such that helping one will automatically help the other but there are circumstances in which saving humans increases the damage inflicted on the Earth’s life support system. The second essay discusses some of the main events which have taken place since 1989 in the war over the government’s road building programme. The third essay highlights the failures of the oomanistic critiques of the car which are concerned solely with the impact which cars have on human health and wealth. The basic argument of this essay is that attempts to curb the car by using humanistic arguments are fatally flawed. The critical attack on the car can come only from a geocentric perspective.
INTRODUCTION: A NOTE ON GEOCENTRISM
Geocentrism looks upon life from the point of view of the Earth and highlights the critical importance of the Planet's health, interests, needs and well being.[1] The basis premise of geocentrism is that all value derives from the Earth. The more a species contributes to the maintenance of the Earth’s habitability, the greater its Earth value. Conversely, the more ecologically destructive a species is the greater its negative Earth value. The scale of the pollution and ecological devastation caused by a species determines its Earth value. Whilst most Animals produce little pollution and protect the Planet’s life support system (i.e. Photosynthesis) humans dump huge quantities of pollution into the environment and devastate the Planet’s Photosynthetic capacity. Bacteria, Ants and Worms contribute more to the Planet’s life sustaining processes than humans. In fact all Animal species are doing more to protect the Planet than humans. From the Earth’s perspective, oomans not merely have a lower Earth value than Wildlife species, they are the most geophysiologically destructive Animals on Earth and thus have the biggest negative Earth value.
Geocentrism is a scientific theory capable of measuring, with extreme precision, the contribution made to the Planet’s life-sustaining processes not merely by each species but by each individual within each species. This is of especial relevance where humans are concerned given the wide disparity between consumers in the over-industrialized world, who are destroying the Earth’s life support system, and those people, mainly in the industrializing/disintegrating nations, who make a far smaller impact - some of whom may even have a positive impact on the Earth.
Unless humans get into the habit of looking upon life from the point of view of the Earth and then putting the Earth first they will not survive. Oomans can no longer continue to be preoccupied exclusively with their own species’ interests, as they have been in the past, or they will cause a geophysiological collapse.
It is more important to focus on the devastating impact which cars have on the Earth’s life support system than on the carnage which cars inflict on humans. This can be illustrated in two ways: firstly, by looking at car exhaust technologies which protect human health but damage the Earth and, secondly, by comparing the damage which the car, and tobacco, industries cause to humans and the Earth. Both illustrations also illuminate the distinction between a conventional, humanistic perspective and a geocentric perspective.
ONE: CARS, CATALYTIC CONVERTERS, CIGARETTES, AND THE EARTH.
i) Catalytic Converters.
Many environmentalists have demanded the introduction of catalytic converters to reduce car exhaust emissions. Unfortunately although this ‘green’ technology reduces pollutants which damage human health,[2] it exacerbates the pollution which contributes to the greenhouse effect, one of the most important threats to the Earth’s life support system. The greater the number of catalytic converters, the greater the short term reduction in anthropogenic pollution, the greater is the damage to the Earth. Humanists support the spread of catalytic converters because of the reduction in human fatalities - despite the boost to the greenhouse effect. Conversely, geocentrics oppose catalytic converters because of the damage to the Earth and insist that some other way should be found of reducing vehicle exhaust emissions e.g. by banning cars.
the creation of tobacco plantations has caused massive ecological damage
ii) The Car, and Tobacco, Industries.
In virtually every country around the world, cigarette smoking kills far more people than car accidents. For example, it has been estimated that, in great brutland, in the early 1990s, smoking caused the deaths of 115,000 people a year whilst car accidents killed a mere 5,000.[3] In other words, tobacco kills roughly 23 times more people than car accidents.[4]
From a humanistic point of view, more time should be spent combatting cigarette smoking rather than cars. However, from a geocentric point of view the issue looks different. Tobacco is a monocultural cash crop which is grown with the aid of heavy machinery and the widespread use of chemical fertilisers, pesticides, herbicides, etc..[5] Although this results in a considerable amount of ecological damage, this damage is miniscule in comparison to that caused by the car, and car related, industries. The growth in car numbers is causing increasing geophysiological damage and, if this trend continues, it will eventually lead to the collapse of the Earth's life-support system.[6]
Thus, although cigarette smoking kills far more people than car accidents, it is far less of a threat to the Planet’s life sustaining processes than cars. Whilst humanists would give priority to campaigns against tobacco, geocentrics would give priority to campaigns against cars. Despite the fact that tobacco causes more fatalities than cars, priority should be given to campaigns against the car because cars pose a critical threat to the Earth’s life support system. Humanists are wasting their time campaigning against tobacco fatalities whilst cars are causing such critical damage to the Earth. It is not inconceivable that, over the next three decades, humanists could spend huge amounts of time campaigning against cigarette smoking, and eventually succeed in persuading everyone on the Planet to give up smoking, only to find that the continued expansion of the car, and car related, industries had brought the Earth’s life support system to the point of collapse. Such a campaign is as absurd as trying to persuade someone to give up smoking whilst sitting in the middle of the road. The huge numbers of people killed by tobacco are geophysiologically irrelevant.[7]
Ultimately, it doesn’t matter how many people die from smoking it won’t cause a collapse of the Earth’s life support system. Even if every single human on Earth smoked tobacco it wouldn’t cause a substantial fraction of the geophysiological damage caused by the car industry. In stark contrast, if everyone on Earth drove a car it would lead rapidly to a geophysiological calamity.
It is possible to extend this argument in order to reinforce the conclusion. If most of the Earth’s land surface was covered in tobacco plantations it would devastate the Earth’s multitude of local ecologies, it would change the Planet’s Vegetation cover and thereby disturb the Earth’s climate but, in all probability, it would not cause a geophysiological collapse. But, covering the Earth’s landmasses with a global car infrastructure i.e. roads, factories, petrol stations, motorway cafeterias, car salesrooms, etc., would cause an almost immediate shift in the climate and, soon after, a geophysiological collapse.[8]
These illustrations indicate that, as harsh as it might seem, it is necessary to give greater priority to the damage which cars inflict on the Earth than to the damage cars inflict on humans. The geophysiological threat to the Planet is more urgent than moral concerns over death on the roads.
iii) The Dangers of Humanism
These arguments put humanism in too good a light. Firstly, relying on humanism as a guide to action is dangerous because it focusses solely on human interests and thus detracts from a concern for the health and welfare of the Earth. Assume that tobacco was not merely 23 times more fatal than car accidents but a thousand times. Such a huge death rate would tend to focus attention on tobacco fatalities and thereby neglect the damage which the car inflicts on the Planet. The greater the number of tobacco fatalities, the greater the tendency to campaign against tobacco, the less time is devoted to saving the Earth. No matter how great the desire may be to campaign against tobacco fatalities, the temptation should be resisted because the health and welfare of the Earth are paramount.
Secondly, assume that humanists found some way of showing that cars had a more destructive impact on human lives than tobacco.[9] They would then start campaigning to reduce car accident fatalities. But, even if they campaigned against car fatalities (whether caused by accidents or by pollution) this would not be of any help in saving the Earth’s life support system. On the contrary, humanists are likely to increase the damage to the Earth - as was noted above with the introduction of catalytic converters. This can be seen even more clearly in the historical decline in car accident fatalities. What is so striking about the huge numbers of people currently being killed in car accidents is that the death rate is much lower than in the past when there were far fewer cars on the roads.[10] There is no reason to believe this trend won’t persist. If humanists demanded reforms to the car to save human lives then, despite continuing increases in car numbers, there could be further reductions in car fatalities.[11] But, more cars on the roads would cause even more damage to the Planet’s geophysiology.
One of the grimy views of ‘realo’ green thinking is that the real worry about car accidents is not the huge number of fatalities but the possibility that road safety measures will reduce fatalities to zero. In those circumstances where car numbers are increasing and car accidents are decreasing, and where fewer human-damaging pollutants are being released, there would be fewer objections to cars. This would enable the car industry to continue expanding - thereby increasing the damage inflicted on the Earth. ‘Realos’ tend to believe that where most people, especially motorists, are not interested in saving the Earth, the only hope of reducing the ecological damage caused by cars is if people get so angry about car accidents/anthropogenic pollution that they make demands for such drastic curbs on cars that this leads, incidentally, to a decrease in geophysiological damage. But, this is unlikely to happen. There will always be so-called ‘green’ technologies like catalytic converters which enable motorists and non-motorists alike to safeguard human life and thus permit the continued ravaging of the Earth’s life support system.
These conclusions will upset oomanists, whatever their political creed, whether anarchist, marxist, trotskyist, tory, liberal or fascist. Their primary concern is to save oomans (or particular types of oomans) not the Earth. They want to protect humans no matter what the cost to the Planet because they are oblivious of, and indifferent to, the needs and interests of the Earth. Geocentrics argue that the Earth’s life support system is heading for a collapse and that it is vital to focus attention on the damage which cars inflict on the Earth rather than on humans. It is more important to oppose car, and car-related, industries on the grounds of its ecological destruction than for the fatalities it causes around the world each year. It is not possible to save the Earth solely by trying to protect humans - as if there was some geophysiological ‘hidden hand’ behind human self-interests. It is only possible to protect humans through saving the Earth.