“As the full extent of the devastation of the Holocaust became
apparent, a Polish Jew whose entire family had been killed, Raphael Lemkin,
came to realise that there was no word for the distinctive crime that had been
committed: the murder of a people. His life work became finding a word to name
the crime and then convincing the world to use it and condemn it: genocide. Today, not only has genocide become a
dreadful part of our lexicon. We recognise it as perhaps the gravest of all
crimes.
“During
these first days of the third decade of the twenty-first century, as we watch
humans, animals, trees, insects, fungi, ecosystems, forests, rivers (and on and
on) being killed, we find ourselves without a word to name what is happening.
True, in recent years, environmentalists have coined the term ecocide, the killing of ecosystems — but this is
something more. This is the killing of everything. Omnicide.
“Some
will object, no doubt, that this does not count as a ‘cide’ — a murder or
killing — but is rather a natural phenomenon, albeit an unspeakably regrettable
one. Where is the murderous intent? Difficult to locate, admittedly, but a new
crime also requires a new understanding of culpability.
Indeed, one of the most serious problems with the laws against genocide is that
they were written in a way that requires that the specific intent to destroy a
people can be shown to have existed. Even where it did exist, such intent most
often remains hidden in people’s dark hearts.
“This time, though, we need to go much further. We need to
understand that the responsibility for omnicide is various and layered. The
role that those responsible play this time is almost always less direct, but
its effect no less devastating. We are unlikely to identify anyone actively
scheming the death of the five-hundred million wild animals whom we believe to
have died in the first month of this summer’s
Australian bushfires.
“We
can, however, identify the political representatives who refused to meet with
fire chiefs who had been seeking to warn of, and act to mitigate, the impending
disaster. The same political representatives who approved and continue to
approve new coalmines in the face of scientific consensus on the effect that
continuing to burn fossil fuels will have on climate in general, and drought
and temperatures in particular. The same political representatives who approve
water being diverted to support resource extraction, when living beings are
dying for want of water and drying to the point of conflagration.
“We
can identify the media owners who sponsor mass denial of the scientific
evidence of the effects of a fossil fuel addicted economy on the climate. The
same media owners who deploy the tools of mass manipulation to stoke fear, seed
confusion, breed ignorance and create and then fuel hostile divisions within
communities.
“We can identify the financial institutions that continue to
invest in, and thereby prop up toxic industries, and who support the
abovementioned media owners so as to protect themselves from accumulating
stranded assets. We can identify the investors who use their financial and
social capital to support politicians who will protect their financial
interests. We can identify a corporate culture and a legal system, populated by
lawyers, management consultants and financial analysts, that incentivise or
even require companies to maximise short term shareholder profit and
externalise costs to the future and the planet.
“And
then we can identify parties closer to home. Business owners and investors
whose profits depend on systems of extraction and resource exploitation.
Consumers addicted to lifestyles based on resource extraction and the
exploitation of the natural world. Citizens who prioritise narrow short-term
interests over the sustainability of the planet. Citizens who lack the courage
or fortitude to take ourselves through the social and economic transformations
required to give our children and the more-than-human-world a future. Citizens
who do not bother to take the time or make the effort to develop well-informed
opinions, but would rather run to the comfort of the truisms of their tribe.
“We
can also identify the humans and human cultures that have told ourselves that
we are superior to, and thus have the right to dominate and exploit, other
animals and the natural world. That we are the ones who get to flourish, and
that everything else that is here, is here for our use. That other beings are
not life but resource.
“None on this long list developed a specific intent to kill
everything. But all of us have created and are creating the conditions in which
omnicide is inevitable.
“When
I was growing up, my parents used to play a Bob Dylan song called ‘Who Killed Davey Moore,’ about a boxer who died in the ring when he was just 30 years
old. Each verse begins with some party — the coach, the crowd, the manager, the
gambling man, the boxing writer, the other fighter — answering the title’s
question, ‘Who killed Davey Moore?’ They each respond, ‘Not I …’ and then
explain that they were just doing what it is that they do: going to the fight,
writing about the fight, throwing the punches and so on. And of course, they
each told the truth.
“We
too are just doing what it is that we do: ensuring that the largest political
donors support our political campaigns; maximising profits; ensuring a high
share price; living a comfortable life style; avoiding change; lazily buying
back in to the conceit that we humans are special. But sometimes, just doing
what it is that we do is sufficient to kill, not just Davey Moore, but everything.
“Omnicide,
the gravest of all crimes. And as with all crimes, those responsible must be
held accountable.”
Danielle
Celermajer is
Professor of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Sydney. She is
the author of The
Sins of the Nation and the Ritual of Apologies and The
Prevention of Torture: An Ecological Approach.
Omnicide: Who is responsible for the gravest of all crimes? by Danielle Celermajer
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.