The Main Existential Threat of the 21st Century

by Dr Robert Muller, Medium: https://medium.com/@DrRobertMuller/the-main-existential-threat-of-the-21st-century-a703e11349bb

(image: pinterest.com)

There are many existential threats to human life in the 21st Century, many of which are carried over from the 20th Century.

The threats of terrorism, nuclear war, militaristic regimes, and so on, are issues that paralysed nations and individuals throughout the 20th Century. On the other hand, it is often argued that climate change is the most significant problem facing human life in the 21st Century. Indeed, the obliteration of all sentient and plant life on the planet is an immeasurable issue, well beyond the imagination of most humans who continue to live in the same way as they have for many decades. It is difficult to argue against climate change being the number one issue facing life on this planet. However, this is just what I would like to do in this article.

My premise is that climate change is the ultimate issue that will cause the destruction of life on Earth if drastic action is not taken very soon, but it is not the most serious threat. It is fully acknowledged by an overwhelming majority of the world’s independent scientists, who are not in the service of the corporate elites, that if action is not taken, then it may be too late. On the other hand, it has been argued that if enough action is taken by governments to tackle emissions, then the planet can be saved in a liveable enough state that human and other life will be able to continue.

So, what is the main threat? Again, many people argue that the corporate elites are the main threat. These owners of massive mining corporations and industrial agriculture are hugely responsible for spewing out massive amounts of emissions which are destroying many aspects of our life-support system. In addition, they are responsible for practices which not only create inequality, but actually have dramatically increased inequality through their practices over the last forty years, and in particular, over the last ten. In other words, the power of the corporate elites, and the consequences of their practices, has increased exponentially over the last ten years. 

As argued earlier, capitalism has reached a point where it is now confronting environmental and economic limits to the accumulation of capital. What this means is that capital can no longer be accumulated through the manipulation of labour and technology to create profit. This kind of profit is simply no longer available. In response, governments have been acquiescent in deregulating many industrial practices and trade regimes to the benefit of the corporate elites. The result of this process is that a new form of accumulation has developed which can be characterized as ‘accumulation by dispossession’. This is basically the accumulation of capital through privatization, deregulation, and the takeover of public space, all facilitated by national governments, mostly in democratic nations such as the USA, the European Union, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa. It is argued, again, that the corporate elites are not the main threat, but only because we have a mechanism that can put the brakes on the corporate elites — that of democratic government.

My argument is that national governments in democratic nations are the current main threat and barrier to finding solutions to climate change. Why? Because they are the ONLY institution that has the potential and the legal power (although this is rapidly diminishing) to curb the power of the corporate elites. This can be achieved through legislation that will place limits on what the corporate sector are allowed to do, and to re-regulate industry, and to reclaim those assets that have been privatized — this is also a point of justice as these very assets have been paid for by tax-payers and have effectively been stolen by the corporate sector with the assistance of government.

Of course, there is nothing in the legal statutes to stop politicians from acting in their own interests or from colluding with the corporate elites to ‘get a piece of the pie’ on the condition that they ‘give’ away a piece of the public pie. And this essentially is the weakness of the democratic system. So, let’s unpack this state of affairs by boiling it back to its basics.

Firstly, democracy is about the people rather than about the politicians. Politicians are supposed to be the representatives of the people. In Australia, the people go to the ballot box and place their votes for their local members in the upper and lower houses of parliament. The local member then gets a seat in the parliament, usually as a backbencher. This is a good opportunity for these elected members to voice their opinions and the opinions of their electorate on crucial issues. So far, the system appears to be very sound. However, Australia has a ‘party political system’, meaning that the parties are very powerful and tend to coerce the members into voting according to the party line. The fact that Australia has such a collective notion of party politics is a huge irony, considering that both major parties see anything at all that is even vaguely collectivist as complete anathema. And yet what could be more collectivist than the process of government?

A number of those who are in the party or coalition that has won the election are appointed into the cabinet as ministers. This may be more due to their ability to ‘make things happen’, or to tow the party line, more so than having any expertise in the portfolio to which they are appointed — the evidence suggests that this is very much the case, with ongoing portfolio reshuffles illustrating this point very clearly.

As representatives of the people, the cabinet ministers and the power of party politics act against true representation. Add to the mix the very powerful influence of Australia’s media monopoly spouting the values of neoliberalism, competition, and divisiveness on social issues, such as on gender, ethnic, immigration, sexuality, and Aboriginal issues, and one can see that the politicians are finding it very difficult to represent the people.

In order to get politicians to represent the people in true democratic fashion, instead of constantly undermining democracy, they need to listen to the mood of the people and to understand the people, instead of brushing off those who do voice their opinions as whingers and leaners. There is no democracy in selling the country off to the corporate elites and the majority certainly does not want to see this happen. Does anyone truly believe that if there was a referendum on the question of: “Should Australia sell everything in the country off to the corporate elites?” that it would not get a massive ‘no’ vote? Only if the politicians listen to the people will they be able to stop the corporate elites as has happened in Iceland.