Reykjavík Grapevine - 13.08.2010, Blaðsíða 12

12
The Reykjavík Grapevine
Issue 12 — 2010
On Magma, Björk, the sep-
aration of philosophy and
reality, xenophobia, green
industry, false solutions,
borders, Earth conservation and lib-
eration.
There are countless reasons for Magma
Energy not being allowed to purchase
HS Orka. Those who have no idea why
should quit reading this and get their
hands on books like Naomi Klein’s ‘The
Shock Doctrine’ and documentaries like
‘The Big Sellout’ by Florian Opitz. They
show how the privatisation of natural
resources brings about increased class
division and poor people’s diminished
access to essentials—without exception.
People could also study the history of
Ross Beaty, the man that wants to build
Magma Energy to being ‘the biggest and
best geothermal energy enterprise in the
world.’ Ross is the founder and chair-
man of Pan American Silver Corporation,
which operates metal mines in Bolivia,
Mexico and Peru, where mining is done
by the book: Environmental disasters,
human rights violations, low paid labour
and union restrictions, to mention but a
few of the industry standards.
Even though such facts are evident to
all, the acceptance of this kind of critique
is rare in Iceland. Those who criticise
privatisation and marketisation from a
radical perspective, analysing the global
economic and power structures we live
within, are often dismissed and belittled.
The phenomenae ‘capitalism’ and ‘rep-
resentative democracy’ have been nor-
malised and recognised as ‘the only right
way’ of social organisation; daring to
criticise today’s ruling ideologies is seen
as banal, uncool, even hysterical.

THE FUNdAMENTAL qUESTIONS
THAT ARE NEvER ASKEd
In this discourse about the use of natu-
ral resources, the Earth and man, some
people must wonder why the funda-
mental questions are never asked: Is
man ‘supposed’ to ‘exploit’ nature just
because he can? Is he ‘allowed’ to ex-
ploit nature like he does today? Does he
‘own’ nature or does he live with it? Is
he not a part of it, does he not depend
on it for his existence? These questions
were asked at a public meeting on the
Magma affair, recently hosted by Attac
in Iceland. To begin with they were writ-
ten off as theological reflections but after
few objections the moderator changed
his mind. He called them ‘philosophical’
but did not want the panel to turn into a
forum for philosophical reflection.
GOd ANd THE RATIONAL MAN
Considering the questions, theologi-
cal and philosophical isn’t necessar-
ily wrong. In the book of Genesis, God
provides instructions for humanity: “Be
fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
earth, and subdue it: and have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl
of the air, and over every living thing that
moveth upon the earth.” Those words,
like others in the Bible, have often been
used as arguments of those in favour of
man’s domination of the planet. Hannes
Hólmsteinn Gissurarson, Iceland’s most
famous neo-liberalism proponent, used
them to criticize James Cameron’s Ava-
tar, saying God’s message is clear: Man
is ‘obligated’ to dominate the Earth and
tame it.
A similar attitude is found widely
within Western philosophy. Starting with
the ancient philosophers of Greece, man
has been placed higher than other liv-
ing beings on this planet. For instance,
French philosopher René Descartes,
often referred to as “the father of mod-
ern philosophy”, claimed our species’
rationality and intellect is what makes
us men and separates us from animals.
Even though these and similar ideas
have been debated back and forth, phi-
losophy has smoothly been separated
from reality. It is allowed to wallow in the
whole world’s philosophy, asking compli-
cated, challenging questions. But seeing
it as a part of reality and as real element
in the discussion is not an option. Phi-
losophers can simply dawdle between
library shelves while pragmatists argue
over the tiny difference between private
and state ‘ownership’ of the Earth.
The ‘pragmatist premises’ that sur-
face when philosophy and our alleged
reality are separated prevent some of the
discussion’s factors to be considered.
“Aluminium has to be produced some-
where! Without genetically modified
food, humanity will starve!” With these
premises, we jump over few of the de-
bate’s steps, so it starts in the middle of
the stairway instead of at the beginning.
This is called manipulating a debate.
ExTREMES? OR THE REAL FACTS?
At the above-mentioned public meeting,
the “green socialist” Mörður Árnason
stated that independent from his favour
of privatising ‘utilization rights’, he could
not agree that the man ‘owns’ the Earth.
Rather that he is its guardian that hasn’t
done his job well enough so far. For sure,
humanity hasn’t protected the planet
properly. But on the other hand, there
is a reason to doubt that the opposite is
actually possible when ideas of the man
as the planet’s owner or guardian are in
the foreground.
In his book ‘Violence’, Slovenian phi-
losopher Slavoj Žižek asks if it is not time
to stop ignoring the fact that organised
religion is one of the main sources of
murderous violence in the world, by al-
ways defining the violence and murders
as the work of violent extremists who
abuse the noble spiritual message of
their creed. The same question can be
transferred to humanity’s destructive
behaviour, since it is clearly not some
extreme fundamental-heavy-in dustry-
moguls who alone bear responsibility for
the state of the planet. We are dealing
with an entire culture, a whole system of
destructive power structures and behav-
iour patterns that build on the premises
of man’s domination over nature.
When Björk says that we should think
in terms of the 21st century—which she
says is free from heavy industry but full
of nano- and biotechnologies—she as-
sumes that lately, man has been on a
wrong road, but should now head some-
where else on full speed.
This is a misunderstanding. The 21st
century way of Björk, Mörður and other
progressivists, is in full harmony with
the dangerous ways in which humanity
has been leading, at least since the be-
ginning of the industrial revolution. The
high-tech solutions do not replace heavy
industry and old-school polluting pro-
duction. They are only additions to what’s
already there, forming a global, industri-
al, unsustainable economical system that
constantly is built upon. But removing
from the bottom is impossible. The sys-
tem stands and falls with its foundations.
SOLUTIONS! BUT ONLy THOSE WHO
PROdUCE MONEy
So often the opponents of environmen-
talists try to bury the dispute by accusing
the latter of not offering any solutions ‘in-
stead’ of the industry they oppose. This
is of course nonsense. Anybody who
opposes one thing has another to offer.
This is self-evident, though the solutions
can differ. For instance, the solution to
Iceland’s constitutional violence towards
refugees could span everything from
‘more just laws’ to a world without bor-
ders. The solution to an abusive or vio-
lent family father could be him receiving
assistance to reform, or him being exiled
from his community.
The biggest flaw of the discourse is
how there is no space for solutions out-
side of the ruling system’s frame, how-
ever obvious they may be, e.g. a healthy
culture thriving on a healthy planet.
It isn’t discussed whether unsustain-
able capital should be produced, the de-
bate is rather based on the premises that
‘capital production’ is fundamental. With-
in this culture where jobs like entrepre-
neurial investment and human resource
management have become as natural as
a newborn’s breath—money is the cen-
tral point of all existence and discourse.
No matter if there is no real value behind
it. The market and industries might have
found their ways to put a price on every
square centimetre of this planet and ev-
ery second that passes. But when one
comes to think of it, how can human lives
be measured with money? And what
about mountains, rivers and forests?
THE MyTH ABOUT ‘GREEN’ ECONO-
My ANd INdUSTRy
In connection with aforementioned
Coca-Cola-sponsored ‘Náttúra’ “nature
concert” and the parallel opening of
the Náttúra.info website, Björk stated
that she and her comrades were not
one more group of “angry environmen-
tal guerrillas”. The happy environmental
entertainers’ project seemed to be about
not challenging the status quo at all, but
rather keep on the old track of industry
and production—this time under the ban-
ner of institutionalised green flags and
environmental certifications.
They went all over the country to find
solutions in employment affairs, some-
thing that could replace heavy industry
but still make money. The list became
long, including everything from treat-
ment-tourism and exported children’s
food to biotechnology and identification
software for law enforcement.
In the magazine ‘Dealing with Dis-
tractions’ that was published last De-
cember, parallel to the resistance to
the UN’s climate change conference
in Copenhagen, Mikko Virtanen writes
about so-called ‘alternative industrial-
ism’ and points out the flaws that envi-
ronmentalists seem to avoid recognising
and discussing: “To build a new green
infrastructure of such a massive scale
would require a lot of energy and materi-
als, which can only be provided through
the use of already existing fossil fuel
based infrastructure. [...] The production
of this new infrastructure will require a
vast amount of raw materials, much of
which are not renewable themselves,
and are environmentally destructive to
obtain. [...] It has yet to be proven if we
even have the raw materials available to
make enough wind turbines and solar
panels to keep up current levels of en-
ergy consumption or any significant level
of industrial production at all.”
His result is that we “...need to put
wind energy, solar energy and other al-
ternative industrial solutions on the list
of false solutions along with agrofuels,
nuclear energy, and clean coal technolo-
gy. As soon as possible, we need to start
doing the only thing that can halt the de-
struction of our life supporting systems:
reducing our industrial production and
consumption to the absolute minimum.”
What about bringing these ideas into
the discourse on energy production and
nature conservation here in Iceland?
THE EARTH WITHOUT BORdERS
In Reykjavík Grapevine’s last issue, Björk
says she cannot separate the protection
of Iceland’s nature and her role as an
Icelandic artist. This enormous emphasis
on this being ‘Iceland’s’ nature and that
as ‘Icelanders’, people should protect it
—an idea not at all limited to Björk and
her partners—makes it impossible to dis-
miss accusations about xenophobia as
sidetracking, like Magma’s opponents
have done so far.
Certainly it is likely that libertarians,
who in the same sentence talk about xe-
nophobia and hostility towards foreign
investment, are simply not capable of
having a discussion about the ownership
of the planet. However, that does not give
environmentalists permission to dismiss
all criticism about the integration of en-
vironmentalism and nationalist chauvin-
ism. Sigur Rós have especially stated
that they are not a political band, but
just cannot sit by and watch such heavy
industry constructions in ‘their own
backyard’. During Saving Iceland’s inter-
national conference in 2007, Ómar Rag-
narsson—one of Iceland’s best-known
environmentalists—said that compared
to other nature, the “Icelandic one” is the
equal to a Christmas meal in comparison
to other meals of the year. And nobody
would skip that dinner for another one!
Do we really have to argue about if chau-
vinism and xenophobia are included in
such pleadings?
In his 1922 book ‘At The Cafe: Con-
versations On Anarchism’, Italian anar-
chist Errico Malatesta simply but sharply
explains his objection of nationalism:
Why should a worker rather stand with
a factory-owner within the same politi-
cal borders, rather than another worker
outside of them? These words can be
implemented with nature at front. Why
should the struggle for the protection
and liberation of Earth, which constantly
comes under persecution by the culture
of the ‘civilised’ man, be subject to man-
made borders?
Opinion | Fundamental questions
does Man Own Earth?
We generally don't run opinion pieces this long, but this one was just all sorts
of interesting. You should definitely give reading it a go if you've got a moment
to spare.
>> CONTINUES ON PAGE 14
Total waste managed in Iceland
1995 - 2006
T
H
E
B
ES
T
OF
REYKJA
V
ÍK
2010
B
EST GODDAMN REST
AU
RA
N
T
petting zoo
da
lv
eg
ur
da
lv
eg
ur

4

smáratorg
laugar dalur
swimming pool
suðurlandsbraut
álfheimar
campi
ng
are
a
smáralind
shopping centre
we serve you all day 11-22