Electric cars are shit suicide!

By Robert John

This is a deliberately unusual and provocative title but before a set of considerations about why electric cars are shit suicide are put forward, it is important to preface them with some other considerations or ideas, to frame what follows later with some thoughts about now and the future.

This is for many a challenging moment in history, whether we wish to accept it or not, we are historical beings and the choices or roads in front of humanity at this time, some of them are very bleak and destructive but there are hopeful  ones too. This is a time of a conflict of ideas, interests and ideologies: one of confusion, pessimism and dread for many, where there are risks, dangers and threats with terrible possibilities but it is, also, a moment of flux, one which is pregnant with more hopeful possibilities of what future societies could be as well.

The threats of man-made climate change, other man-made pollution and ecological catastrophes are very real, to deny them, is now to deny or reject fact, science, learning, enlightenment thinking and rationalism in favour of a dangerous, lethal ideological or irrational set of beliefs. The dangers of extreme militarism and instability caused by nationalistic brinkmanship or environmental collapse are similarly very real.

Change of one kind of another is going to happen this is inevitable, for better or worse.

There have been many, many advances on all sorts of things in human societies, it would be churlish to argue otherwise and things are very different from a century ago. Therefore we know cultures, attitudes, dominant thought patterns that influence policy or actions can change, it will be argued in this essay they have to change and that change could mean something far better than the current situation.  

There does though seem to be a closing off of ideas, proper forums or scope about how things can be adapted for a future of better possibilities, a kind of fear or confused attitude to change, when change could offer far better solutions and situations than now, as it has done in the past. Progress and advancement lives alongside more corrosive or destructive things and one can inform the other to find better solutions or inspire new ideas or proposals, human civilisation is defined more by change than things remaining static.  

Where one culture, set of ideologies or ideas dominates to the exclusion of all others and that is a provably destructive culture ,however, then that is an unacceptable situation.

What is apparent as a problem within societies now is one of psychology, how humanity, humans and societies views themselves, problems with self-esteem, respect, value, worth and in a way how we see our role or purpose as individuals or a society. This will be looked at in more depth later through the ideas of the French sociologist Emile Durkheim. 

There has been, though, what is difficult to describe in any other way, as a mass falling out of love with humanity from humans. What has caused this is open to speculation and conjecture but there is plenty of evidence as proof in an argument to support this in our societies now, historically, across and between cultures or nations.

This falling out of love with humanity can be best evidenced or reflected in the current laws and government policies of most nations. The law is a very slippery concept or thing, it is unrealistic to say that it cannot be oppressive, be used as a means to entrench privilege, serve narrow interests or allow very dangerous or destructive things or institutions to exist, imbalanced or unfair situations to be maintained too.

It can, however, liberate, protect and enshrine rights, whilst stopping the powerful from acting in an arbitrary manner.  It could be argued that the law is there to protect a set of interests (what those interests are or should be is of course disputed) and represents a set of beliefs about what is acceptable and what is not in terms of human interactions, society or behaviour. The law is rightly or wrongly a set of codified and enforceable beliefs.

Yet, what is very obviously and evidentially true is that the human future has no laws or legal protection for its existence. In legal terms in any meaningful way, the future of humanity does not exist or is protected, the law pretty much everywhere currently does not recognise the future as existing, collectively we do not currently believe in the future.

As a foetus a certain amount of legal rights exist for you depending on which country you are born into as a citizen, they differ, similarly when born you have rights too locality depending,  but the future of humanity does not have any legal rights or protections. There are no laws or they are extremely few and very limited to demand that governments, business and policy makers are compelled to act in a way that is sustainable for human life and future generations. Not only that but there are limited political movements who are looking to have proper policies to protect the next hundred, thousand, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions of years of human existence or pledges to work with other nations or parties to make this a reality, beyond flimsy unenforceable agreements.

Most political policy, legislation and funding resources or policy decisions are directed at the next election cycle, the next few years, decades. There are no or few ministries or departments for the future; the law and politics in pretty much every nation, does not in anything like a proper manner recognise the existence of a sustainable future for humanity.

If that is not the biggest indication that humanity has fallen out of love with humanity in light of the environmental evidence, combined with our current relations as nations or that humanity does not currently have a proper duty of care for the future, then I am not sure what is. We do not legally recognise, politically plan or acknowledge that the future can be a reality, pretty much in all human societies that exist now to anything like the level required to make that a reality.                      

Do people want human life to continue, a sustainable future for humans? I sincerely believe they do and I would confidently presume there are billions who agree with me. It would make a nonsense of all of this human struggle if we did not want that, a more enriching and flourishing life for as many people as possible too.

It is against this framing of the lack, currently, of a proper legal or political recognition of the future this essay shall proceed on and it will endeavour to explain its links to the debate around electric cars.      

Why electric cars are shit will be reviewed first with some of the interrelated energy issues, their connection to suicide last, with some more hopeful proposals or other considerations sandwiched in between.

This essay was being formulated just as the coronavirus hit and it was placed on hold, like many other things. Everything in our societies now has to be seen through the evaluative lens and in many ways welcome reflective perspective that the tragedy of the virus has afforded us. Although, written from the perspective of someone living in the U.K., the themes and ideas when it comes to electric cars are shit suicide are universal.  

Electric cars are shit

The first reason that Electric cars are shit is that they are way too expensive. The entry level of a first-hand electric car is tens of thousands of pounds, for a good more reliable and more up to date with the improved battery technology model, double the price or more. This immediately excludes vast swathes of the population who would happily trade in their fossil fuel car or vehicle for a less polluting electric model, if they could afford it or it was accessible. These prices make that purchase impossible or extremely problematic.

If electric cars are to make a real difference in terms of the scale required in dealing with the manmade climate change pollution emission problem, there needs to be few to no issues in terms of access for all households in getting one. Most households in the country already have huge amounts of personal debt, adding to this problem with a huge purchase, the equivalent of a significant chunk of what the value of what their house would be. That is if they can afford a house or a car for that matter and people towards the bottom of our economic hierarchy cannot, this simply is a financial commitment the vast majority of the population cannot readily or easily make.

Especially, with the concerns that if their circumstances changed they could end up being made bankrupt for attempting to do the right thing and improve their green credentials. This makes many justifiably fearful of the debt consequences, leaving them simply unable to afford a good reliable electric car or they are put off the idea entirely because of their means, the financial burden or risk. Now, you also have the added uncertainty, unemployment and investment issues caused by COVID 19, the problematic situation with affordability is further exacerbated by this crisis.

This creates an uneasy environmental snobbery, resentment or antagonism in society. Where those with more means are able to liberate themselves from the guilt of owning a fossil fuel car and are able to use the new facilities developed for electric vehicles, whilst there are insurmountable barriers for most households, even though they may desire to make this transition.  

This reality does not help in resolving the crucial issue, the numbers problem, as the overwhelming majority of people need an electric car now to reduce the current carbon emissions to levels which will make an appreciable difference. This needs to be happening now, not decades into the future, nearly everyone needs to be using them and the majority of people need to be using them in the next few years, so, if that cannot be the case, then they are currently a non-solution to the manmade climate emergency, making them shit.

The overwhelming majority of households would happily switch to an electric vehicle if they had the facility or ready means to do so. The same with solar panels or other household green energy measures, as the majority of people are more wedded to the idea or principle of the ease of travel, having sufficient energy and so forth, if readily affordable, they would choose the least environmentally damaging option, as most people are good moral actors given a meaningful choice. Electric cars are shit because owning one is just not a realistic option for most people.

This is not freedom, it is a tyranny, it is tyrannical to effectively give the overwhelming majority of people no choice but to have to pollute against their rational will. It is definitely not democratic because if you were to ask people in the nation, what would they prefer, an electric non-polluting means of travel which would be sustainable for the planet and future generations or not? Even with the powerful propaganda machines which are employed by the fossil fuel lobby to win elections nowadays and buy governmental power, a majority would vote yes.

That might be placing too much faith in rationality and democracy but I am still confident of at least a close win for sense and sound reasoning.

Another reason electric cars are shit is that in the main, they are not fully ready. The facilities for charging, the battery technology and reliability, although improving all the while, it is not fully there yet or on the scale necessary to make a real difference and the real difference needs to  be happening now or very soon. Then there are the hopeful hydrogen fuel cell possibilities for cars and households too, technology still mostly in the prototype, experimentation and regulation defining stage but they will need electricity and facilities as well, there are solutions for greener travel and energy but the investment and engineering or design nettle is not being fully grasped.

Then there are the problems that there is a diversification in terms of funding for research, development and a competition of manufacturing for ownership of the best technology of new energy sources and electric car batteries by different companies and countries, in a sort of post war space race but this is obscuring the higher principle. That this technology needs to be refined and crucially be available everywhere whilst being accessible to all in short order. Rather than splitting the engineering, scientists, know how, research and development, a more collaborative approach is required in terms of how does humanity resolve this transport problem, which needs to be fixed in the capacity required, in a timescale which will make a real difference?

Namely, not this distant very questionable suggestions a number of leading politicians make, this problem will be miraculously fixed in forty years when they are no longer in office, but to happen in more like a decade.     

Furthermore, electric cars do not resolve the inherent traffic problems of the current car dominated system. If all petrol vehicles were replaced by electric ones, it will not resolve the ridiculous problems with traffic nearly all cities, rural areas and towns endure. Especially at certain times of the day, where a journey of a few miles ends up taking a ridiculous amount of time and if you were able to make that journey without the other traffic or interruptions of traffic signals directly, it would take a tiny fraction of the time it takes now; journey times are way too slow and the main cause of that are other cars and vehicles.

The electric car as an idea and solution shuts down debate on alternative transport methods, imaginative new proposals, designs or technologies of getting around cities or towns, which could be crucially faster, use less energy, cheaper and overcome this problem of traffic that electric cars alone just cannot resolve.

There must be better more efficient alternatives for the simple reason many car journeys in towns and cities are made with just one person sitting in a car with limited luggage, where there is a significant area of air, space and weight in a car that is not being used for anything at all.

A far smaller unit that is able to transport an individual and their limited stuff, which is narrower, would allow you to transport more of these smaller vehicles on the current network and would mean capacity could be increased per user. This is just one theory or idea, but these debates or theories are not indulged, especially, when a lot of car journeys made in towns and cities are only a mile or two, slightly more than a comfortable walking distance, there must be better logistical ways of doing this. Cars just generally take up too much space, resources and are inefficient or problematic.

Whatever a better model could be or other efficient models of design for fast, comfortable, secure, well designed and pleasing to the eye modes of transport, which, resolve the biggest frustration for those living in towns,  the countryside and cities: the speed of journey from a to b because of problematic traffic. These proposals or ideas are not even meaningfully discussed, they are not part of the public debate, these alternative solutions, suggestions or designs are ignored, that debate is denied by the heralding of the electric car as a solution to our green transport woes, alone, it simply is not.  

The solution to cars being a problem here, cannot be a different version of the same vehicles, without confronting the cause of one of the major problems itself, cars, and other vehicles clogging up the transport system in often an inefficient way, this making electric cars a floater in the toilet of green transport ideas that will not flush.     

Although developments, technologies and the situation are improving, lots of energy is still produced using fossil fuels and a transition to electric cars would require an increase in the need for more electricity. The fossil fuel dependency and problem is not going away or the dependency on minerals for the batteries and copper for chargers, there being many victims created by the extraction of minerals to support this including: modern slavery, oppression, murder, child labour, environmental destruction and war.

These shitty problems need to be diminished then stopped but do not form part of the wider debate of electric cars, instead we are just presented with a shiny vehicle, obscuring the misery and suffering that brought it into being. Whilst simultaneously, ignoring the wider technological and infrastructural issues that require solutions or being addressed in anything like the thorough and proper manner or scale required.

This transition to a more electrified travel would need further huge investment in less polluting, better ethically, systems of energy production, nuclear energy, battery technology and renewable energy for households. Households which are at the moment dependent on fossil fuels too, so, electric cars are not a solution alone, far from it, but are often marketed or put forward by governments and manufacturers as one, when they are not.

The challenges ahead can be overcome and it is not all about electric cars.

The problems outlined so far require greater and far more reaching policy decisions and investments which need to be happening now and not just here. This would require an international worldwide commitment: rather than the current counterproductive, unimaginative, limited and unnecessarily competitive piecemeal effort which lacks collaboration, that is in operation now, with the undue praise to the manufacturers of electric vehicles or that this alone will solve the man-made climate change or pollution issues.

No amount of slick advertising for electric cars or corporate promotional adverts outlining their green investment programme credentials removes the scale of what is required. It is far more complex than this and people or corporations should stop pretending it is not, being deluded about the scale of the solutions required, being dishonest or disingenuous about them.

The hopeful thing is that there are solutions.

There is the option of a vastly improved, far better, clean, safe, reliable, speedy and consistent public transport route. This would require the rethinking and redesign of towns, cities and the countryside, this has happened before, is happening now, that is not a barrier to change.

There are even healthier means of getting around walking, running and cycling are the far healthier alternatives. This is where facilities need to be improved dramatically, especially regarding safety, which is a major barrier to more people cycling or walking for instance.

These modes of travel not only reduce and pretty much eliminate pollution, the people doing this are getting regular exercise which simultaneously deals with health problems of all kinds too. This would seem the most important travel design feature that needs to be improved and provided for in terms of travel around towns, countryside and cities, proper walkways and cycle ways which are safe, secure, maintained and that not only exist within towns, cities and villages but between them too.

The longest distance in the UK, John O Groats to Land’s End can be cycled in ten to fourteen days. With better organisations of time and working days, there are only reasons of a limited imagination and facility, to make these methods a far more common way to travel and it would be a far better way of traveling, seeing the country and countryside, there are electric battery bikes too for those who doubt they may have the physical ability to cycle long distances.

People may argue these suggestions or proposals sound ridiculous but they are not as irrational as the current far more unhealthy and damaging arrangements. A situation which selfishly and myopically is damaging the environment and potentially the very existence of humans on the planet, whilst concurrently making people unhealthy in their own lifetimes through less of a facility to exercise and through inhaling pollution or through other damage to the environment. Fostering this corrosive and damaging ruling principle, that work and the economy are always more important than your health or that of the health of your family, community, the environment or the biosphere: the biosphere which we are all entirely dependent on for our survival.          

Electric cars are totemic of an inability or reluctance to embrace the changes necessary to make a substantial difference to the travel arrangements of all in the country, to meaningfully reduce emissions, to engage in far more imaginative and sustainable proposals or alternatives which remove this spectre of man-made climate change or other environmental concerns to the level required. To have a proper debate and process by which the transport networks can be redesigned, improved and redeveloped to a far better model for towns, cities and the countryside, they stand in the way of the innovations, restructuring and policies to achieve travel, with extremely limited amounts of pollution.

It is simply not true that a huge venture, redesign or proposals of this kind would be unaffordable. Government bonds, especially ones which provide security, stability and the opportunity for the long term sustainability of markets, are the safest form of bond investment in the world and there would be investment funds all over the world willing to invest in such schemes. Whole new transport networks and the majority of whole new towns or cities have been rebuilt or reconditioned in the past and on huge scales like the road or rail network for instance, similarly the energy provisions system of countries have been redesigned too: this can happen again.

Governments can issue grants to individuals for new vehicles, bikes, scooters all sorts, low to no interest loans too or tax free borrowing. This is all entirely possible to do now, it is only a matter of will.

The average life expectancy of a petrol-car is approximately ten years and the average cost of a new car is approximately twenty thousand pounds, then there are the fuel, maintenance and insurance costs, this all adds up to tens of thousands, a huge slice of the cost of owning a house. Yet, few consider this current situation as unacceptable or totally accept these absorbent, very costly, polluting and damaging modes of transport as normal, rational or completely justified, when it is unsustainable, we know this now.

That people cannot afford the same or similar money they pay now for a better system but can afford the current travel system or the second hand version circumstances demand they have, this is just nonsense and it is completely untrue.  

So, this idea there are not the means, funds or ability to be able to rebuild our transport networks is a lie and it is either a false or disingenuous argument or claim, made by those wishing to protect certain interests now. There are both the public and private funds available to make it a reality, redesigned well and it could even be significantly cheaper, healthier, quicker and authentically better than the current system of transport and for energy too.

AI and supercomputers can allow humans to programme in the details, frequencies, journey needs, journey variables but also other factors such as sustainability, reductions in energy use, different modes of transport, the details of cities, the facilities in place, the facilities which may need to be built, costs and logistics, future needs or possibilities too. To hold and synthesise all of a myriad of information, details and designs beyond the capability of a human mind, to provide sophisticated solutions to our transport network. There is with this sophisticated super computer planning facility, the opportunity to make transport not only quicker around cities, everywhere, using less energy and greener but also significantly a lot cheaper, with healthier modes and means of transportation too; allowing things to be planned and designed on scales and in multifaceted ways, not open to those planning in previous generations.

So, there are the tools but more crucially at the planning stage, the intelligence to fundamentally change our transport system and economic activity to be more green, less polluting and provide the fast, secure, reliable, safe and well maintained facilities to provide for a far more inexpensive and healthy travel network, energy provision infrastructure too.

What an exciting engineering and design challenge it would be. The birth of a new world of transport and energy for towns, cities and the countryside, transformed for a sustainable future, one of new more hopeful possibilities for future generations.    

Proposals or endeavours like this, they are not even considered meaningfully in the public debate on transport or energy. Demonstrating a counterproductive lack of imagination, a now provably dangerous limited discussion of the possibilities for the future and that the damaging policies of now are considered the only possibilities or a very limited, stunted and slow reform, when they are not.     

There is a very popular worldwide desire for radical change and reform in tackling man-made climate change and environmental concerns. Polls all over the world demonstrate majority support for wide scale radical action on man-made climate change, demonstrated further by many prominent voices during the COVID Lockdown period calling for change, but people are trapped in a society which has been convinced that this is impossible or is to be feared in some way. There are, however currently, few means politically to make these kinds of proposals, arguments for change or for them ever to even be entertained in the public debate, in a meaningful or sustained way, never mind become a reality.

This makes the current reality mostly tyrannical or totalitarian, as it is imposed with limited to no choice for billions but worse still a meaningful discussion of alternatives is refused, here and in most countries in the world. If that is not totalitarian or tyrannical, then language loses its meaning, it is certainly not democratic, as citizens or societies do not have the chance to consider and vote on it, have laws or institutions to protect them or have rights against the worst excesses of this pollution now. It is, also, against rationalism and science, there has even been a deliberate obfuscation or conflation of green issues with other issues, to deny a proper public debate on these matters too.    

Worse still, people are made to feel responsible or accused of not doing enough about this unacceptable situation as individual citizens through not making often absurdly difficult, expensive and all but impossible life style changes or measures to counter these environmental problems.  If they cannot make them, either way it is their fault as an individual for not doing enough, yet, those continuing in the more destructive ways who are not making these efforts are curiously, apparently, guilt free and excused and that people not making extreme lifestyle changes in enough numbers to save us all, they are the unreasonable and problematic ones.   

When, the only real solution for overcoming these transport and pollution problems is collective action, not only nationally but internationally to make this new world a reality: with short, medium and long term planning or policy. Something which is all perfectly possible, affordable and achievable, anyone suggesting it is not is either serving  special interests, has been manipulated into thinking it is not a possibility, when it is; are uninformed, ignorant,  being disingenuous, deluded, are gripped by a toxic nostalgia or plain lying.  

A new way of thinking and planning of travel, create better plans.

Electric cars being a shit solution, is standing in the way of a reappraisal of what travel and transportation can mean, especially travel.

It is a fair argument to make that travel is good for humans in all sorts of ways: spiritually, culturally, educationally and for the general all round health and development of a person. Then why not as societies and as a world provide the facilities to do just that for citizens but rather than quick travel, slow travel?

In our lives we should have more time to travel, the facility should be catered for, are we citizens first, or are we just servants to economic power? Why do we spend so much time tied to one place or working? A truly free society would provide the facility and means for travel for citizens around their own nation, continent and the whole world: this is a worthy ambition for all societies.

The principle that we are citizens first or at least equal to being servants to economic power and therefore should be afforded the time to see the world with a number of yearlong or sixth month periods of travel, is very agreeable and again possible.

Travel which is at least part funded, supported, with the facilities to travel at leisure is surely a worthy ambition for the future. Where you take your time getting to and from places, where you can use far less polluting means or a combination of them: walking, cycling, train or public transport; where you can appreciate multiple destinations and the places in between, not just the destination itself, taking one route there and another back, why the rush?

Surely a better set of societies and countries is where there is a conscious plan to do this or other things to add enrichment to our lives; it is better to have societies where travel and having periods of travel is planned and facilitated into the lives of citizens, than ones which do not. If we are not striving for better societies or more enriching lives as humans, then questions need to be asked about just what all this human activity is for.

Might this mean we need a more coordinated, collaborative world politics and better international relations on a variety of matters, to plan and ensure stability, security and safety globally? Yes it would, but the case against having this is a very weak, selfish, ultimately counterproductive and a myopic one. The facilities, education, cultural development and institutions to make this a reality can happen.

Would we need, beside your own language, maybe a world language that everyone could speak? It would certainly be helpful but crucially this is possible too, as languages have been born and made for this purpose in the past, the Lingua Franca being the most famous example. 

Would this mean that more extensive enshrined rights and world rule of law on certain things would be required? Yes, but this would surely be a good development for citizens too, as opposed to having those seeking to rule everything in service of narrow interests, those who wish to own or control everything in terms of resources and dominate lives to serve narrow agendas or to dominate what happens in terms of policy,  to serve the short term agendas of the few. Agendas which are provably destructive and self-defeating for human civilisation: those who seek to oppress, marginalise, alienate, disenfranchise and subdue populations to serve them. May we need a world government or institutions to make this a reality? Potentially, would that necessarily be a bad thing, probably not, as competing individual nations or a few nations bullying the many has caused many problems historically, is clearly problematic now in resolving these man-made environmental problems, other issues too and is damagingly imbalanced and destabilising now, whilst creating unacceptable human misery, suffering and oppression of those who are powerless.

World institutions designed to serve all, with bigger scopes and powers would bring with it far greater facility and possibilities: if it were to be combined with protective enshrined individual and familial rights, to protect against tyranny, excessive impositions and corruption. Would we have to change our relationships with money and time in our societies, again more towards empowering citizens and their families, communities or rights? Yes, but surely more security and empowerment for all would be welcome in this regard as well. Why choose an inferior society, why not have better plans and aspirations?

It is better to build and aspire to a more hopeful, enriching and flourishing future of this nature in a process of ongoing nationwide and worldwide liberation and reform. Where travel is seen more as a right or an educational rites of passage open to all, than an exclusive pursuit, it would certainly help with human unity, appreciation and understanding of other places. We would also have the superior facility, possibilities, time and genuine realities of being able to see far more of the world, in all its wonder in our lifetime, at a time more of our own choosing.

Why not build towards that as a reality for human societies? Yes it would be challenging but it is not impossible, it would have to involve investment, changes of culture, thinking, policy, education; it would not remove all of the problems of this world or the lives of people and it would create challenges, but problems and challenges exist now. This would be in a sense working to solve a better set of problems or challenges for more enriching outcomes. 

Why should the extreme vanity, narcissism, egos and megalomania of essentially a few powerful people dominate? Why should we live in fear of violence or destruction? Why should we accept the unacceptable policies and realities of now? Especially when what it is most people crave is stability, peace and security, with opportunities for flourishing and worthy indulgences.     

These proposals may seem fanciful, laughably unrealistic, impossible to achieve for many but what are the alternative sets of questions we should ask or what is on the rest of this spectrum of possibilities?

Should humanity die out because of heat problems causing plant species we depend on to become extinct or because of droughts caused by man-made emission problems? Should we have the sea level rise laying waste to coastal areas or inland areas and creating a huge humanitarian refugee crisis? Habitats and the biosphere made inhospitable or destroyed by pollution? Should we have wars over resources, nuclear wars over national sovereignty, ideological beliefs or economic ideas? Alongside other unnecessary petty or corrosive oppressions, should generations now have to live with these terrible spectres of the future hanging over them for decades and then through wilful inaction, desperation, negligence, irresponsibility, failure, malice, viciousness or deliberate policy, see them be realised?  

What is the future being chosen?

This brings us onto how all of this links to the ideas and observations of Emile Durkheim. 

The disturbing Durkheim suicide revelation      

The future could be something radically more agreeable. Right now, however, we still have this shit and unacceptable situation with these unresolved problems with man-made climate change, pollution and irrationality in our societies. Alongside, the denying of proposals for better possibilities for society and the invented affordability problems for reform or other issues of electric cars.

This needlessly  limiting and unjust situation with the silencing of alternatives, which is in addition to the other injustices or mindless unfairness in our societies, this leads to a psychological hopelessness and feelings of a directionless despair for our societies.

Rather than a proper, deliberate, conscious, rational, responsible, considered, thoughtful political, societal and international movement acting with a duty of care towards future societies and sustainability; with a proper rationale, through using less polluting cars, forms of transport or other green measures, instead of this, most people have to sit in their polluting fossil fuel car, polluting, whilst knowing this situation is wrong, breathing in pollution, with an almost constant noise present in the background to remind them of polluting vehicles and this pollution is pretty much everywhere they go too, this adds to this sense of despair at these crazy set of irrational values governing everything, relentlessly polluting and destroying in exponential amounts.  

Furthermore, this creates a corrosive psychological thought process in people of guilt, recriminations, despair, self-destructive attitudes and what the French Sociologist Emile Durkheim identified as a moral anomie. Anomie is where the right moral actions become unclear, messed up or blurred in society or for an individual, where individuals or society have no good answers about the correct courses of action to take: individually or collectively.

Where for instance people know that owning an electric car is the morally correct thing to do or that there must be other better options, but the societal, political and economic limitations prevent us from making that right moral choice, forcing us to take more damaging options and in this case, increasingly knowing they are destructive. This creates a kind of corrosive psychological despair, a gnawing uncertainty, a directionless inaction and hopelessness in the population or in individuals.

This despair that this issue cannot be resolved leads to resentments or thoughts of powerlessness or an inability to have a meaningful impact as an individual or as a wider society. This leads to thoughts of nothing can be done, even though we know it is harmful and wrong, fostering thoughts of reckless harm and the legitimisation of further damage on the grounds of despair, hopelessness or uncertainty, an abusive reflex, that you as an individual cannot do something meaningful, so why do anything at all? Why care at all? There do not seem to be as Durkheim recognised any proper individual or societal answers to these problems with people feeling trapped, lost, alienated or dumfounded, not knowing what to do.

Durkheim is arguably the most important thinker, observer or theorist on the effects of capitalism, more so than Karl Marx or Adam Smith because he was observing what modern societies do to the brains and the attitudes of the population. Not ideologically criticising or speculating what should or could happen in terms of economics but instead what capitalism does to behaviour and how we think about ourselves, the world and others, yes, he recognised the liberating aspects of capitalism but to ignore the problems is irresponsible carelessness and his observations have more profound revelations in them than perhaps he at the time considered himself or could have known, especially, when it comes to the reactions among populations to all of the environmental news and problems.

This moral and social anomie which Durkheim identified as a psychologically corrosive phenomenon in modern individualistic industrial societies is so significant. The breakdown of any moral values, standards or guidance for an individual and for society to follow, how the bonds or relationships between members of society and the institutions governing it he argued become problematic, isolating and toxic because of it, especially to mental health.

He argued that developing a more nourishing, kinder, gentler, understanding, more forgiving society; a society that was psychologically, spiritually and ethically more refined in terms of having the facilities or institutions which serve all of society more thoroughly, in a more inclusive manner, that this would benefit everyone more, rather than a harsher world where there is too much pressure placed on the individual in terms of success or failure.  He argued that we need to find better means to support all to find solace, enrichment and flourishing, rather than have everything on the individual, as this is an intolerable strain and burden, or it is better to have a society where all can flourish, feel included or welcome as a citizen, without excessive judgement and that the possibility of this society is denied by the individualism of consumer capitalist societies.    

His most famous book Suicide, explores the corrosive and damaging attitudes or natures fostered in modern societies caused by too much individualism, this anomie and a lack of a pursuit of a higher societal collective purpose or action, or a sense of belonging in society or communities. He observed and argued this individualism was the main cause of the huge increases in the amount of mental illness and tragically the increase in the numbers of people taking their own life in consumer capitalist societies. This corrosive individualism he argued created self-destructive attitudes in the population, issues with self-worth, self-esteem or the value of one’s own existence,  this creates widespread unhappiness, mental health problems and destructively selfish societal attitudes too, leading individuals to consider suicide and acts of self-harm.

Although, perhaps Durkheim had not appreciated the scale these attitudes would permeate through society and this is the disturbing revelation.

Durkheim in his observations perhaps underestimated the magnitude of this fostering of suicidal and self-destructive attitudes, thoughts and actions in society. How the complete lack of a moral compass would become so profound in society, how a lack of collective societal purpose or direction would eventually dominate to the exclusion of finding answers, in order to protect the very existence of human societies themselves.

As how else do you explain the attitude of society now to the environmental news of man-made climate change or other man-made pollution and environmental problems such as habitat or species loss as anything other than suicidal, or, a complete and profound breakdown of a moral ideal, rationale or collective societal purpose or solutions as to what to do? A lack of proper answers beyond more of the same damage, whilst knowing this is currently sowing the seeds of our own self destruction?    

The news that the planet could become uninhabitable and inhospitable for humans because of the death of certain species, biodiversity and foodstuffs because of an increase in temperatures caused by the economic activity of man; this alongside the other terrible consequences of manmade climate change, pollution or other environmental concerns or threats caused by humans: this should sound the loudest alarm bells there are.

It strangely does not.

The attitude from modern societies and governments rather than be of one to resolve to tackle this complicated issue, is instead mostly a rejection of it as a moral concern.  The essential new  reforming policies required for long term human civilisation to stay in place and the difficult but definitely navigable set of measures to deal with these problems with advances in technology, culture and other necessary actions or policies.

This is largely ignored.

It is instead met with a resigned attitude to death and a weird suicidal acceptance of a future darkness for all humans, it is suicidal. It is a species suicidal attitude: a preference for death in the light of the evidence over life, a desire for destruction and harm over construction and life towards better sustainable societies.

Modern societies are suicide and death cults!

This self- destructive, suicidal psychological state that Durkheim noticed is now amplified to the level of whole populations and nations, rather than an individual choosing suicide, it is mass suicide. With people who do not wish these terrible futures to happen, being dragooned into a collective mass suicide against their will by the many millions who are resigned to or are accepting of this suicidal fate. 

And again, this species suicidal situation is tyrannical, it is totalitarianism.

It is, also, like Durkheim’s other observations, a mass denial or confusion of moral responsibilities, directions or values: mass anomie.

How our actions now have an impact on the future is lost or there is a complete loss or confusion of a collective societal moral purpose or meaning, where a connection to our fellow citizens, humans and what is trying to be achieved is obfuscated with no clear set of directions or instructions.  

This mass anomie is so dangerous, when combined with the other antinomian attitudes so prevalent in societies now and with the appeals from politicians to short term self-interest, the myopic policy and law making that dominates nearly all current political realms.  That and how so often a kind of personal sovereignty or individualism is too often encouraged, fostered or widely considered as above all other considerations and is combined with this corrosive widespread notion that there are no moral or collective responsibilities for the results of our actions for the future.

This anomie has seeped into the thoughts and consciousness of society to a level that is now a mortal danger for humans, a mortal danger that Durkheim at the time he was developing his theories could not have foreseen.

The promotion of this individual or personal sovereignty is a kind of spoiled child infantilism, which maybe reflects those currently governing or in powerful positions in many societies, nevertheless, this corrosive governing principle that short term selfish interests trumps the right thing to do in terms of policy, this is happening pretty much every time.

The result from populations though, is disturbingly these strange suicidal attitudes or reactions to these acts and how we deal with environmental issues or make decisions in the light of the evidence. This is the response from far too many people, and from those in the powerful positions guiding policy and decision making too, that because something is maybe privately owned, which most resources now are, there is no public accountability or effect, when of course there are and to argue otherwise is to deny reality, there are no externalities

Then there are the other suicide machines of weaponry and war like Nuclear weapons or international conflict in the background, another suicidal construction of technology, policies and actions. The technology, machines and the institutions humans build are filled with the human qualities or values or designs we place in them, they are built to achieve human ends but what ends, mass suicide?

It is now time we questioned the values and virtues or vices we place in technology and machines, especially regarding sustainability. What those qualities we place in the things we produce and make mean for the posterity are, the long term health of our society and the biosphere: seeing economic, political, technological, design, institutional and societal decisions as moral ones too.

The 2020 film The Social Dilemma, where the architects of the tech giants from Silicon Valley hand wrung at the AI monster they had created to keep people glued to their phone and on social media with all of the other problems this has caused for societies everywhere. They never once seemed to consider that the AI could be picking up on this anomie, this destructive individualism, these antinomian attitudes, these corrosive ideas about individual sovereignty, destructive self-interest, this short termism and a loss of any principles or directions for society or individuals, other than to destructive ends. That the AI is just reflecting, amplifying and enhancing this, that the anomie Durkheim identified as so destructive for individuals and for society, is just being mirrored, accentuated and accelerated by this self-indulgent AI.   

The elephant in the room of man-made environmental and pollution problems, they very much remain.

A set of civilisations that are comfortable with the knowledge human civilisation in the future will be destroyed because of their actions, those are civilisations closer to barbarity, neglect, murder and suicide, than to ones of a cult of life and human flourishing: a cult of authentic, sustainable, long lasting human civilisation. The destruction of the habitat we depend on is at the moment a mathematical and scientific certainty, without reform and change, there is a very real possibility there will be no humans at all, as the plant life we depend on is under threat, I wish that were hyperbole.

Yet, people are incredibly blasé and indifferent about this, but, paradoxically, ironically, it is clear people value the raw vitality, beauty and majesty of life itself, even with all of its imperfections, challenges, caprices, ‘sea of troubles’ and ‘outrageous slings and arrows’. This is a paradoxical contradiction that must be confronted, as for life to be protected then something far more substantial and radical needs to happen in terms of policy, action and change. The laws, investments and rights to protect future societies and sustainable human civilisation need to be designed and made a reality throughout the world.

These unacceptable psychological situations and suicidal attitudes must be confronted, this culture can change, it must change, it can change and it can lead to a far more enriching future. Where we can keep the non-destructive institutions and things we value now too, it is not like everything has to be thrown away or reformed sometimes it might just need adjustments or maintenance. We would not all have to live like some sort of morally perfect puritanical beings, a likely but false criticism of these proposals, but instead be served better by rights, policies and laws as societies, communities, families and individuals. 

These considerations of change with these environmental issues, transport and energy issues proposed, they may seem radical, but remember what are the alternatives here? 

The frightening alternative is placing a noose around the neck of, if not all of humanity, then billions. There maybe those who wish to dismiss this as alarmist or unrealistic, yet vast forces are evidentially mobilised for destruction, the only reason there are not vast forces for construction and sustainability, is political and societal will.

No country should get to make excuses regarding collaboration in resolving this. This is purely about life and the hopeful aspect is, of course it can be confronted and of course it can be overcome: the design, policy and reform necessary can be implemented and humans are acting at their most intelligent when solving problems,  either way, there is no getting away from the stark choices presented by this current reality.

People must accept that through choosing badly, we condemn to death and to terrible suffering human life, children, future generations, the things you hold dear in your own life to be enjoyed by others, life itself with its beautiful imperfections. Sustainability reforms will not resolve all the problems of life and societies but it will afford the full richness of the human experience. The human experience for all its rights and wrongs is all we have, but to have no human experience at all? To deny that to future generations, that is the choice here, to choose light or darkness.  I do not accept humans wish to rationally poison the earth for humans irreparably and choose darkness.

It maybe unpalatable to confront this but everyone, all humanity is in this decision, we are all bound to one outcome or the other, this is uncomfortable for all but there really need not be sides in this argument or for it to become adversarial. There is no need for this to be a culture war, far better it is a collaborative process or reimagining of a different world, a world with more hopeful possibilities, it is not like we all have to be morally perfect but morally better and more sustainable in the institutions, policies and technologies we create.   

Psychological inflexibility, recurring patterns of behaviour, feeling helpless, low self-esteem, problems with substance abuse, weight issues or mania, anxiety, mental health problems such as depression, are all symptoms of a suicidal state of mind and they are also present and prevalent in our societies in disturbingly large and increasing amounts. Changing direction will change this and remove the heavy psychological burden Durkheim recognised that we have placed on ourselves. We also need to confront the anomie, the confused morality and the self-destructive psychological attitudes that have gripped our society: which is again, all entirely possible. 

A return to ‘normal’ after the Coronavirus crisis is to return, knowingly, to accumulating the fatal dose of pills for the suicide of humanity. I am sure I am not alone in not wanting to be part of the taking of those pills, the feeding of them to children and future generations, against our express and rational will.

The totalitarianism of this current situation is unacceptable, it must be stopped and seen for the tyranny it is.

The policies, laws and rights for the future have to identified and then implemented which serve and protect those sustainable ends, we have to legally and through policy recognise the future can exist, far more profoundly than we do now. The world can be saved for humanity.

Electric cars do not resolve this or deal with the problems of a lost societal or human morality, a proper human purpose, or these mass self-destructive and suicidal attitudes, although, in the right circumstances and for the right reasons, I still want one.  

---

If you consider me worthy buy me a coffee on the PayPal link on my page, although that is an Americanism, buy me a cup of tea.