Wednesday, March 1, 2023

Apologies to the Grandchildren

As many of you know, I have seven grandchildren. The oldest celebrated her 38th birthday in January, so I have been a grandfather for 38 years now. In 2022, two of my granddaughters became mothers, so now I also have two precious great-grandchildren, the first born a year ago last month.

I have been thinking about my grandchildren in a new way because of reading two books written to or for grandchildren. Those books are closely related to my January 28 blog post.

Larry R. Rasmussen’s book The Planet You Inherit was published last year. Its subtitle is Letters to My Grandchildren When Uncertainty’s a Sure Thing. I had the privilege of writing a review of that book for The Englewood Review of Books, and you can read that review here.

Rasmussen (b. 1939) is the Reinhold Niebuhr Professor of Social Ethics, emeritus, at Union Theological Seminary in New York. Among his published books are Earth Community, Earth Ethics (1996) and Earth Honoring Faith (2013).

It is no surprise that the letters written to Eduardo and Martin Rasmussen Villegas (b. 2015 and 2018), his two grandchildren, are primarily related to his many years of ecotheological teaching and writing.

While the letters clearly express the writer’s love for his two young grandsons, it will likely be 2035 and beyond before they will be able to comprehend the meaning and significance of those letters.

Maybe, though, the writer’s intention was to say important things to us adults who read those letters now, as well as to Eduardo and Martin, who will be reading them much later.

One of Rasmussen’s most important letters is titled “Responsible by Degrees,” written in August 2020. There he broached the possibility of “widespread civilizational collapse”—and asserts that “we know we must put an end to a growing, extractive economy running on ecological deficits.”

Rasmussen, though, has hopeful views about humanity’s ability to confront the current and coming ecological crisis effectively, and those views need to be pondered thoughtfully.

Still, this challenging book written for the author’s young grandsons needs to be balanced with careful consideration of more realistic views about what is most likely to occur in Eduardo’s and Martin’s lifetime.

William Ophuls’s Apologies to the Grandchildren is a 2018 book of essays, the first one bearing the same title as the book, which does give a more realistic and less hopeful view of the current ecological crisis.

(I first learned of Ophuls, born in 1934 and with a Ph.D. from Yale University in 1973, from the video by Michael Dowd that I introduced in my January 28th blog post linked to above).

Ophuls begins his essay with stark words: ”Civilization is, by its very nature, a long-running Ponzi scheme. It lives by robbing nature and borrowing from the future, exploiting its hinterland until there is nothing left to exploit, after which it implodes.”

He continues by saying that civilization “generates a temporary and fictitious surplus that it uses to enrich and empower the few and to dispossess and dominate the many. Industrial civilization is the apotheosis and quintessence of this fatal course.”

He goes on to write these blunt words to the grandchildren, “A fortunate minority gains luxuries and freedoms galore, but only by slaughtering, poisoning, and exhausting creation. So we bequeath you a ruined planet that dooms you to a hardscrabble existence, or perhaps none at all” (p. 1)

What Can We Say/Do? While I would like to embrace Rasmussen’s hopeful view, I have become convinced by Ophuls and by Dowd—as well as by William Catton, whom I plan to introduce in later blog posts—that my grandchildren and their children will experience a world of increasing gloom.

Perhaps there is still time for necessary changes to be made, but that is doubtful—and there is little evidence to indicate that such changes will likely be made. Perhaps, sadly, little can realistically be done other than to offer deep apologies to the grandchildren.

Yet, surely, we can work toward pushing the impending collapse farther into the future and encourage the grandchildren to find ways to flourish now in the present, regardless of what looms in a future that, unfortunately, may not be as uncertain as Rasmussen thinks. 

20 comments:

  1. Leroy, Patricia and I have five grandchildren aged from 32-42, and three great grandsons aged from almost 3 to 42. I worry about their future. As of this present moment, I am more aware of political danger, a threatened fascist state, than of ecological/environmental disaster. Athough the latter looms large as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Charles, for your comments. I agree that the political dangers of the present are perhaps greater in the near future, but as the ecological crisis continues to worsen, the political dangers will become even greater. Moreover, even if we are able to keep the country from becoming fascist, the ecological threat to the world will remain and grow even worse, in all likelihood.

      Delete
    2. (I asked Charles about the obvious mistake regarding the age of his oldest great-grandchild, who is 15.)

      Delete
  2. Before 6 a.m. I received the following brief challenging question from local Thinking Friend David Nelson:

    "And what is our intention and our plan for living responsibly and loving our grandchildren?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, David, for your pertinent question. I wish you would suggest a good answer to your question, for that is a major issue I am wrestling with now. No matter how responsibly I try to live, it is almost certainly not going to be enough to make much difference--but still I must do all I can now, in spite of realizing that it will not be enough.

      Delete
    2. I'm reminded of the guy who was throwing clams (or something) that had washed ashore back into the ocean. He was reminded that he could not throw all of them back, and he responded, "No, but I can throw this one back." As individuals, we cannot correct the environmental rush toward environmental disaster, but I can continue to recycle. And do other things that are environmentally friendly.

      Delete
  3. Here are powerful comments from Thinking Friend Michael Olmsted in Springfield, Mo."

    "At the age of 80+ I wonder what I will leave to my great grandson in this world of consumerism without regard for this world. We want ... we demand ... we consume ... we waste ... and we seem to believe there is no tomorrow. An overheard conversation from a few days ago caused me to grieve because of the utterly selfish comments denying the ‘alarmist’ words of ‘those earth worshippers who sow their panic fantasies!’

    "There has always been a short-sighted concept that this world is OURS and we have the right to enjoy it without the alarming words of extremists. The prophet Habakkuk speaks of ‘the earth is full of God’s praise’ (3:30), but we continue to see this world as ours to spend as we please. One day there will be nothing left to spend! So you don't wish to hear the alarming words of fanatics. You will not enjoy the outcome either."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your thought-provoking comments, Michael. Certainly there are many, no doubt a large majority of the population, who do not want to hear about what is happening and what will likely happen to the environment in which we live. One of the problems, though, is that many people who are our age, and even younger by a couple of decades, don't want to hear "the alarming words of fanatics"--but it will be our--and their--grandchildren, not us, who will suffer from the outcome. That is what is upsetting to me.

      Delete
  4. Just a few minutes ago, I received the following meaningful comments from Ed Kail, another local Thinking Friend:

    "Surely the others of us with grandchildren are facing the same dilemma: how to talk with them about the future that we have constructed (or is it destroyed) for them.

    "I appreciate your raising the questions and pointing toward thoughtful resources."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Ed--but I don't know how to talk with my younger grandchildren about this highly important topic. For the four who are through college and working full-time in good jobs, it is not so hard, but I don't know what to say to my three grandchildren who are still teenagers, a time when life in all periods of time has been filled with various anxieties. Perhaps talking about the imperative to care for the environment is something that I can and should do more of, but I'm very hesitant to talk with them about the catastrophic changes that will likely take place in their lifetime.

      Delete
  5. "A vital message, Leroy, a warning we all need to take with utmost seriousness." (--from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky--)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Here are comments just received from Thinking Friend Eric Dollard in Chicago:

    "Thanks, Leroy, for sharing your concerns. I have similar concerns and I wonder what kind of world our grandson will inhabit after Judy and I are gone.

    "I have a friend, and while he does not deny climate change, he believes that technology will save us and humans will adapt. He regards the dire predictions of climatic disaster as greatly overhyped. I am not so sure. The environmental problems we face can be solved if the political will to solve them exists, but I am afraid that the political will come too late. Along with the climate issue are the issues of warfare and displaced persons, which make the climate issue even worse. It is difficult to be optimistic."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your important comments, Eric--important because you have put your finger on one major problem today, which William Catton elaborates on in his book "Overshoot" (which I will be writing more about later). The ideas expressed by your friend are held by many people, but Catton thinks that they are not realistic. Also, with regard to your next to last sentence, I agree with what you wrote. But the opposite is also going to be true, I'm afraid: the climate (ecological) issue is going to make the issues of warfare and misplaced persons even worse.

      Delete
  7. The first major battle of the American Civil War was called by some the "Picnic Battle" because the Battle of Bull Run was found a few hours ride from Washington, and a large crowd brought picnic baskets in their carriages to watch the battle. Most people thought the war would be over soon, with few casualties. That is the human way of thinking. We tend to underestimate what is unpleasant. You can read what the Smithsonian says about the Picnic Battle here: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/was-first-battle-bull-run-really-picnic-battle-180964084/

    My father was born in 1922, when the world population was about 1.9 billion people. Last year he celebrated his 100th birthday, as the world population approached 8 billion people. One thing is for sure, we cannot long continue to quadruple the population of the world within single lifetimes. We are destroying our climate, and exhausting our resources. Will our ruling elites wake up in time? Probably not. Will we somehow muddle through anyway? Maybe, but not likely. Will future generations wonder at our squandered opportunities? If they survive to wonder, probably so.

    As it stands, the great nations of the world are still playing "the game" of empire. This includes the United States. We are just finishing a winter of what climatologist Katharine Hayhoe calls "global weirding." All this weird weather has been marveled at and complained about, in the short run, but nothing new is being done for the long run. What can we tell our grandchildren about that? East Palestine, Ohio is our future. Florida is our future. Perhaps some can slip-slide their way through the train wreck of history, but billions of our fellow humans probably will not.

    Crosby, Stills and Nash (before Young joined them) have a song that years ago probed this kind of existential crisis during the Vietnam War. As they sang, "Teach your children well/Their father's hell did slowly go by..." If you want to hear the whole thing, check YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj8FlXGPcOQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much for these thoughtful and thought-provoking comments, Craig. I thought your second paragraph was especially pertinent--and powerful.

      I knew of the singers Crosby, Stills and Nash, but didn't listen to their songs, even though I know my oldest son did. I was happy to hear the song you linked to, although I am not sure I grasped the full meaning of what they were singing. But it made me wonder at what happened to all that idealism of 1970 (when that song was recorded), which was also the year of the first Earth Day. If those young people then sought to teach their children about the need for reducing consumption and protecting the environment, they were not very successful in doing that. Of course, they (the idealists) were a minority back then and they never grew to become the "tipping point" necessary for significant changes.

      Delete
  8. Yesterday afternoon, I received the following comments in an email from Thinking Friend Truett Baker in Arizona:

    "Thanks for grappling with an issue we perhaps have waited too late to effectively address. On the positive side, I don't believe we can take a laissez-faire attitude and play the 'ain't it awful' game and do nothing. I do believe public and government attitudes are changing for the better and that's a start. (BTW, I have been thinking for years about sharing with my grandchildren what I have learned in 88 years, but I have just put it off, but your blog has helped get me back on doing more than 'just thinking about it.')

    "Our political choices and environmental neglect must be seen through a reality that includes consequences for our choices, rather than false realities as we would like to see it. It sounds mundane to blame our problems on loss of spiritual values, but down deep inside, I believe that is true. Maybe we have gotten our Baptist principle of absolute separation of church and state wrong? (If our country is foolish enough to elect DT for another term, we deserve the results.)

    "Thanks for the 'wake-up' call!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Truett. I fully agree that just exclaiming "ain't it awful" and doing nothing is a completely inadequate stance. I also agree that there is, at least in some circles, increasing awareness of the nature of the ecological crisis and the need to do more in response to that most serious problem. But I am afraid that what is being done now, and what will be done in the coming years, will be far too little, far too late. Still, it is better to do something rather than nothing.

      With regards to your second paragraph, I agree with your assessment about the loss of spiritual values--but that loss is seen in the churches as much as in secular society. I don't see this as being a problem of separation of church and state, for conservative Christians (e.g. the SBC for the last several decades) have been less concerned as a whole about environmental issues than many of the "secularists" who have rightly, and increasingly, sounded the alarm bell--and often will little appropriate response from the churches.

      Delete
  9. In my email inbox this morning, I had the following message from a Thinking Friend in northwest Missouri:

    "Do not give up hope. Emissions are finally starting to top out, and that is with the war in Ukraine raging. More work needs to be done, but humanity is starting to turn the corner." Then he gave this link to a recent article in "The Guardian": https://t.co/TjYR7cFbS7

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is the response I emailed back to him:

      Thanks for reading my latest blog post and for your encouragement. But I am finding it very difficult to be optimistic about environmental / ecological issues now. The article you linked to does, indeed, indicate that "CO2 from energy – by far the biggest source of emissions – increased by less than 1% in 2022." But note that the article also states, "However, a 7% reduction is needed every year to meet the goal of halving emissions this decade." I think that a yearly reduction of 7% is quite unlikely to occur--and I also doubt that such a reduction, even if reached, would be nearly enough to stave off the coming ecological crisis, although it might push it a little further into the future."

      Delete
  10. How may I respond to all those who crossed me, took advantage of my vulnerability, and calmly departed my presence, enriched, as I calmly refrained from hostility and vegeance? Should I be grateful to my discovered state of anti-natalist sensibility from my enemy's thoughtful and thoughtless actions, after the fact? I, in fact, am learning to understand, who I am.

    ReplyDelete