Archives
OK
-
-
-
href=”https://villagemagazine.ie/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/3gurdgiev-oct-11.jpg”>
-
-
Humans don’t care about the planet and the future of their race. By John Gibbons Doomsday cults are as old as human civilisation. The Bible is a rich sourcebook for ‘End Times’ enthusiasts, who pore over Iron Age manuscripts purporting to pinpoint a particular day that heralds the Apocalypse. Another such date passed on May 21st last, with the ‘Rapture’ now rescheduled to October. But just because they’re crazy, doesn’t always guarantee they’re wrong. “An Armageddon is approaching at the beginning of the third millennium,” says celebrated naturalist Prof EO Wilson of Harvard. But, he adds, “it is not the cosmic war and fiery collapse of mankind foretold in sacred scripture. It is the wreckage of the planet by an exuberantly plentiful and ingenious humanity”. In the half a billion year history of complex life on Earth, five mega extinction events have been catalogued. The last one occurred around 65 million years ago, most likely triggered by rapid global cooling resulting from an asteroid strike. It brought the 160 million year reign of the dinosaurs to an abrupt end – along with around half of all other species. Their misfortune was to be our lucky break, as this calamity opened the evolutionary window for the rise of our ancestors, the early mammals. Today, what scientists have designated as the ‘Sixth Extinction’ is already in full swing, with an astonishing 50,000 species disappearing every year and the very face of the planet being re-shaped. For the first time in Earth history, the actions of a single species are threatening to overwhelm the entire biosphere. Homo sapiens is a young species, barely 200,000 years old. In the 10,000 years of human history for which some records exist, there has never been an age like the modern industrial era, and there has never been a century remotely like the amazing 20th century. My grandmother was born in 1901. Over the brief three-generation span from her life to mine, global population quadrupled, the world economy grew 14-fold, and industrial output shot up 40-fold. All this astonishing growth was fuelled by a 13-fold increase in energy usage, compared to the already industrialised 19th century. Along the way, we chopped down a quarter of the world’s forests, exterminating tens of thousands of species in a frenzied scramble to convert the natural word into saleable goods and lebensraum for people, our agriculture and our livestock. Two fifths of the world’s land surface has already been sequestered for the exclusive benefit of just one species. This human tsunami also unleashed a five-fold increase in air pollution, and a 17-fold increase in emissions of the critical trace ‘greenhouse’ gas, Carbon dioxide (CO2). This ongoing orgy of extraction, consumption and population growth was predicated on one key ingredient: cheap, plentiful energy. In the 20th century, humans employed more energy than in all the previous 1,900 centuries of recorded history combined. All these trends have accelerated through the tumultuous first decade of the 21st century, as China and India in particular have clambered enthusiastically aboard the ‘globalisation express’. The energy involved in reshaping the planet is almost unimaginable. Since 1970, the rate of energy building up within the biosphere is on a par with exploding 2.5 of the bombs that levelled Hiroshima every second, or 216,000 atomic bombs a day, every day, for the last four decades. Minus the radiation, of course. Another example that vividly illustrates the might and scale of human planetary reengineering is the Syncrude mine in Canada’s Athabasca tar sands. This one project involves displacing some 30 billion tonnes of earth – that’s twice the total tonnage of sediment carried down all the world’s rivers in a year. For better or for worse, man is now the dominant force of nature on this planet. As Brian Cowen reminded us, being in power should not be confused with being in control. “The human race, without intending anything of the sort, has undertaken a gigantic uncontrolled experiment on the Earth”, is how environmental historian Prof John McNeill put it. The bubble of spectacular affluence and comfort enjoyed by many of us in the Western world has been sustained by spending down the Earth’s finite natural capital and exhausting its ability to absorb wastes at an ever-increasing rate. The WWF’s Living Planet Index (which measures trends in biological diversity) found that between 1970 and 2007, global biodiversity had declined by an astonishing 30 per cent. “This global trend suggests we are degrading natural ecosystems at a rate unprecedented in human history,” says the WWF. The UN Environment Programme concurs, adding: “The world is currently undergoing a very rapid loss of biodiversity comparable with the great mass extinction events that have previously occurred only five times in the Earth’s history”. The mass die-off of the Sixth Extinction that has already spelled the end for vast swathes of the natural world has not – yet – impacted directly on human numbers. But since we are perched precariously at the apex of a global food chain that itself is a subset of a biosphere in freefall, this is no longer a matter of if, but when, and just how severe it will be. Not everyone is alarmed. “I think human beings are a failed species – we’re on the way out,” is the blunt assessment of Prof Michael Boulter of London’s Natural History Museum. “Our lives are so artificial they can’t possibly be sustained within the limits of our planet”. Looking down the road, he adds: “The planet would of course be delighted for humans to become extinct, and the sooner it happens, the better”. The Professor’s prognosis may be accurate, but that hardly makes it any less unpalatable to us humans. The scientific warning bells have been tolling ever more urgently recently. In May 2011 an expert group that included 17 Nobel laureates issued the ‘Stockholm Memorandum’ urging emergency action to reduce human pressures on the global environment. The language is plain: “Science makes clear that we are transgressing planetary boundaries
-
The Irish Red Cross fired me for detailing its delinquencies. By Noel Wardick In July 2005 I came home after seven months in Darfur and seven years working in Africa. I accepted a job with the Irish Red Cross (IRC) as Head of its International Department, based in Dublin. Perhaps I should have listened to a colleague of mine who informed me it was considered a dysfunctional organisation and had a high staff turnover. I was, however, glad to be home and the Red Cross was a global organisation with an impeccable reputation. After my first month it was clear that the IRC had problems. Within weeks I had reservations about the capacity of the Finance Department. More worryingly I was very uncomfortable with certain procurement practices which were largely out of the hands of senior management and instead under the control of certain board members. I expressed concern. I was advised “this is the way business is done here” and not to challenge the two or three individuals who dominated the board. In June 2007 the Secretary General (SG) left in acrimonious circumstances. She had been pushing for reform, a dangerous pursuit in IRC. By 2009 there were problems with a huge financial deficit, staff redundancies, staff morale, failures to rotate board members and delays in distributing funds raised for that year’s domestic flooding. Throughout the period 2005-2010 I challenged the prevailing culture at the Society. I sought reform, accountability, transparency and openness. Where I could implement it, on the international side, I did. Where I couldn’t, at the level of the board, I documented my concerns to the organisation’s hierarchy. I was forever being told “Noel, you are a marked man”. The discovery of an undeclared bank account in mid-2008 in Tipperary under the name of the IRC, which had had €162,000 lying in it for over three years, caused consternation and panic. The money was supposed to be for victims of the 2004 Asian tsunami but money was not forwarded to IRC head office as per IRC financial procedures. The Vice Chairman of the IRC was a signatory on the account. He denied any wrongdoing. At least one call for his resignation was made. Questions were asked in the Dáil, particularly by Labour’s Brian O’Shea and towards the end of 2009 many of these matters were covered in Village Magazine, which named names and outlined details of the undeclared bank account for the first time; and in some, though not many other organs. With one or two notable exceptions, the establishment media seemed uninterested that a pillar of the charitable sector was in fact seriously delinquent. Another SG resigned suddenly and unexpectedly in November 2009 and a discomfited David Andrews, Chairman for 10 years, resigned on the same day. Chaos and turmoil followed. Eventually an investigation, highly compromised as it was internal, took place in late 2010 following intense media and political pressure. Serious errors, breaches of policy and mistakes were identified. Blame was apportioned to no-one. The signatories on the account were not sanctioned or reprimanded. The Vice Chairman was re-appointed to the IRC board for the 21st year in a row on May 28th 2011. This despite the IRC’s public position that it intended reforming its governance. By 2010 every attempt was being made to silence dissent and protect long established power bases. I began writing an anonymous blog outlining the IRC’s problems. Attempts were made to inform IRC members about the blog and to encourage them to take action. Shutting the blog down became an obsession for the IRC hierarchy. This culminated in the extraordinary decision in mid 2010 to take legal action against Google HQ in California demanding they reveal the identity of the blog author. Google refused. IRC incurred huge legal costs in the failed legal action. In August 2010 I publicly revealed for the first time, on RTE’s Prime Time, that I was the blog author. I had, just days before, told the IRC. In November 2010 I was fired “for gross misconduct”. I have taken an Unfair Dismissals action against the IRC. The backlog of cases means it will be many months yet before the case is heard. In the meantime I remain unemployed. The complete absence in Ireland of whistle-blowing protection for employees who in good faith report abuses means the weapon of fear can and is used to great effect in ensuring those who witness wrongdoing remain silent. Those responsible for the financial irregularities and the breaches of good corporate governance at the IRC remain in positions of authority and seniority. The government knows this and still it unquestioningly gives €1 million of tax payers’ money to the IRC every year. One government-appointed member of the IRC Central Council summed it up “Until those responsible for the Tipperary tsunami bank account scandal are removed and until those board members with excessive service step down the future of the IRC remains seriously jeopardised”.
-
By Niall Crowley Theatre and the arts have choices to make in a time of crises. While they have been effective in organising for survival and the National Campaign for the Arts has been certainly impressive, the messages from the campaign raise disturbing questions as to the choices being made by theatre and the arts. The campaign sets out a belief in the value of the arts and in a society that values creativity, imagination and expression. It points to the role of the arts in enriching our lives. It also, however, emphasises the value of the arts to economic growth, tourism and the smart economy and the contribution of the arts to enhancing our image and reputation abroad. These messages are tailored to a purpose: theatre and the arts have chosen to be at the service of the economic and political élite. They have taken on to create the conditions for this élite to sustain profit taking in a time of crises by contributing to economic development and by creating favourable market conditions. There is no focus on theatre and the arts enabling people to question their current situation and how it is being managed by this political and economic élite. The campaign notes how the new Government needs our help to implement its Programme for Government and to deliver “the society we all want”. It highlights that an investment in the arts is an investment in Ireland and in the closer realisation of “the society we all want”. Any such consensus about society seems unrealistic in a context of the deep inequalities that persist in our society. The suggestion of such a consensus is unhelpful where alternatives being put forward are smothered with the mantra that we have no choice. The role of theatre and the arts in enabling people and communities to imagine different futures to the divided, unsustainable and unequal future offered by the political and economic élite is being denied. The ‘Imagine Ireland’ initiative launched earlier this year in the USA reflects similar choices. Mary Hanafin, then Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sports, highlighted that arts and culture are vital to Ireland’s recovery and to the relationship between Ireland and the USA. Gabriel Byrne noted that there was nothing new in this idea of imagining Ireland. He highlighted the work of W.B. Yeats in founding the Abbey Theatre with the aim of re-imagining Ireland for the 20th Century. He did not contrast the impressive ambition of Yeats with the tawdry ambition of ‘Imagine Ireland’ in imagining Ireland for tourists and investors from the USA. Theatre and the arts are there to rebuild our image and reputation abroad. They are to boost economic growth and enable economic recovery. ‘Imagine Ireland’ grew from discussions at the 2009 Global Irish Economic Forum. Business and cultural leaders were brought together to discuss ways to escape our parlous economic situation. Arts and culture were diminished by participants as a vital door opener abroad for Irish business. Ireland’s unquestioning artists bolster the economic and political élite When theatre and the arts choose to speak beyond the confines of their own sector it would appear that the interlocutor of choice is the business sector. Figures from theatre and the arts are largely invisible when it comes to collaboration with any other parts of civil society. Where they have participated, it has been largely confined to individuals fronting high-profile and well-resourced initiatives that pose little threat to the dominant status quo. This is an engagement more akin to patronage than to the collaboration that is required. Theatre and the arts have yet to reach out in any meaningful way to other parts of civil society seeking social and political change. As a result their capacity to arouse outrage at our current situation has not been deployed to any significant extent. The potential of theatre and the arts to challenge the ideological forces that sustain a response to crises that merely deepens inequality has yet to be realised. Their contribution to imagining a different and better society is still awaited.
-
Democracy poses a threat to Israeli governments. By Kevin Barrington The theocratic nature of Israel has for too long been concealed behind the empty slogan ‘the Middle East’s only democracy’. The idea of a Jewish state is tolerated and defended by the same ‘progressives’ who shiver at the mention of an Islamic one. And while the US railed against the brute nature of the Taliban’s Islamic state it rallies in defence of the anti-democratic idea of a Jewish one. Worldwide indignation was aroused by the insult to modernity that was the Taliban’s use of the chador. Yet somehow the world is supposed to find acceptable Israel’s use of that appalling medieval phenomenon: the siege. Afghani woman were ‘imprisoned’ inside the chador. A whole Palestinian people is imprisoned inside Gaza. Like all religious states, Israel’s true anti-cosmopolitan nature has rarely been debated. Ironically, it’s the secular, democratic desires of the Arab Spring’s protests that have thrown an unforgiving spotlight on both the Jewish State’s backwardness and its fears of change to the region’s retrogressive status quo. ‘New historian’ Israeli Benny Morris believes that an ethnically-cleansed religious state was Israel’s aim from the very outset. When global awareness started to render unacceptable the policy of ‘transfer,’ a more subtle, but equally evil, policy of ‘politicide’ was adopted. Politicide is an attack on any of the constructs that define people as a nation. Its aim is to deprive people of hope and to encourage emigration through despair. The leak of the Palestine Papers – diplomatic correspondence about the Arab-Israeli peace talks from 1999-2010 – further undermined Israel’s pretence at being the rational peace-seeker faced with a delinquent, intransigent partner. Predictably, the bulk of the media supported this pretence. Most coverage told us how a corrupt Palestinian Authority was prepared to sell its people’s aspirations short while the leaders lusted for the perks of power. But what the leaked papers really revealed was the flip side of this tale of treachery and greed: the fact that the Palestinians were prepared to bend over backwards for a peace deal. Yet still they got nothing. And the world was spun the fallacious rehash of the Palestinians “never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity”. Neither the democratic challenge of the Arab Spring nor the truths revealed by the Palestine Papers has curbed Israel’s backward ambitions. Instead the world witnessed Benjamin Netanyahu getting 29 Congressional standing ovations whilst bluntly rejecting Obama’s call for a ‘1967’ based peace deal – a plan which Israel’s continuing policy of creating facts on the ground has rendered nearly redundant. Like a true zealot, Netanyahu treated us to a paean to old-fashioned greed and territorial expansionism which if uttered by an ayatollah would have made many a young Iranian blush. But Netanyahu can’t even hear the supposed ‘sense’ of the Israeli left as they currently proclaim that a ‘1967’ based plan is the best deal modernity will offer to that ultimately offensive and outdated concept: the religious state. A democratic deficit, to put it mildly, is the hallmark of all of Israel’s Arab neighbours. But, despite oppression, it’s the citizens of those countries who are out on the streets bravely demanding that they be granted the decency of a modern democracy. The Arabs leaders may now quake at their peoples’ demands. But they are not alone in their fear of democracy. “More and more Palestinians are uninterested in a negotiated, two-state solution, because they want to change the essence of the conflict from an Algerian paradigm to a South African one. From a struggle against ‘occupation,’ in their parlance, to a struggle for one-man-one-vote. That is, of course, a much cleaner struggle, a much more popular struggle – and ultimately a much more powerful one. For us, it would mean the end of the Jewish state.” Thus spoke the former vice-prime-minister in Ariel Sharon’s government, Ehud Olmert, talking to the Israeli paper Haaretz in 2003. Olmert was recommending Israel impose a unilateral solution to safeguard the Jewish state and protect its religious status from the fatal threat of one-man one-vote. Olmert shows us that many in Israel, safeguarded by nuclear weaponry, see0 its real existential threat not in Arab armalites but in the ballot box. Olmert told Haaretz that his “formula for the parameters of a unilateral solution are: To maximise the number of Jews; to minimise the number of Palestinians; not to withdraw to the 1967 border and not to divide Jerusalem”. The newspaper noted that Olmert’s language was that of “long ago” adding that the former vice prime- minister hankered “unabashedly for those more hopeful times.” It seems those more “hopeful times” were back when the ethnic cleansing implicit in ‘minimising’ Palestinians was a more acceptable pursuit. Olmert’s language does indeed hark back to “long ago”. Because in the 21st century, when it comes down to a choice of religion over democracy, the answer must be quite simple. And when religion involves the complete abnegation of democracy, the question ceases even to be legitimate.