Someone Is Listening and Hearing!

Liz Kalaugher, PhD, is editor of environment and energy at Physics World. She recently sought input for a feature in Physics World from Extinction Rebellion scientists and researchers as the members of a private Facebook group based in the UK.[1] Her inquiry appeared in the post to that group on September 9, 7:46 AM US EDT:

I’m putting together a feature for Physics World about climate scientists’ views on XR and other activism groups such as the school climate strikes and I’m hoping to find climate scientists who are members of XR to comment. A contact kindly suggested you may be able to put me in touch with some XR-member climate scientists. If so, this would be much appreciated as I’m trying to garner views by close of play tomorrow (Tuesday). The resulting feature will go live next week as part of our participation in the Covering Climate Now media initiative.

The questions I’m looking for answers on (appear as headings in what follows) ….

If you are able to forward these to relevant contacts that would be amazing, and thank you. Otherwise, hopefully our paths will cross another time.

Thanks and all the best

Liz  

I shared the post to a public Facebook group, XR Scientists and Researchers, and promptly sent Dr. Kalaugher my responses to her questions. As it turned out, when the feature was published, she used a snippet from my input:

Terry Rankin, an XR local organizer from Orlando, US, whose interests include philosophy of science, believes that value-free science “leav[es] scientists on the horns of a dilemma – be a scientist or be fully human, but not both”. Rankin has seen scientists in XR say that as advocates of change, they must act only as persons, not as scientists. “Science, in other words, has no voice in ethical conviction or in moral action, and conversely, ethics and morality have no place in science,” he says. Rankin sees the truth as the opposite. “The strongest evidence supporting ethical principles and consequential moral values and actions is the scientific evidence.”

Liz Kalaugher, PhD
”Climate scientist or climate activist — where’s the line?”
Physics World, 20 Sep 2019

Dr. Kalaugher chose well – this is one of the key claims from the responses I provided to her questions. In what follows, however, for any who may be interested in the full context and the broader perspective, my responses appear below as they were sent to her (with a few minor corrections).  

What is your current level of involvement with XR or other climate campaigning organizations?

I have two primary roles: local coordinator for XR Orlando FL US and regional coordinator for Christians for Climate Action XR US (CCAXRUS). Both groups are just getting started, still in their early formative stages.[2]

Why? (Please include your views on the movement’s plans and actions)

As completion of my doctoral studies and dissertation approached in March this year, my studies and research had focused primarily on the problem of the sixth mass extinction level event in the Earth’s history (‘6MELEE’) and its manifestations in climate crisis and ecosystems catastrophe. My doctoral program was in Semiotics and Future Studies, so my dissertation adopted a Peircean semiotic frame and explored philosophy of science, theological, and socio-political, cultural, and other aspects of the future implications of the 6MELEE problem as we understand it today. I was awarded the degree in May, after founding the XR Orlando group in March and subsequently the CCAXRUS group in June.[3]

I find the XR movement’s growth to be nothing less than astonishing! Its plans and actions are in fact ideally suited to the challenge and fit for purpose, I think, and if anything is going to work in standing against the 6MELEE, it’s the notion of a ‘movement of movements’ recently introduced by XR (by Roger Hallam, I think) that has the best chance of achieving some measure of success against virtually impossible odds. ‘United we stand, divided we fall,’ as the saying goes.[4]     

How do you think XR’s activities and others such as the Youth Climate Strikes have changed/are likely to change climate policy or emissions in the US or worldwide?

This is where the tangle becomes a Gordian knot: much as XR would like to present an entirely apolitical resistance free of “blaming and shaming,” the apparent reality is that the 6MELEE has come about through the deliberate rapacity of a tiny cabal of fascist capitalists and the praetorian corporatocracy they’ve contrived to secure and protect their astronomical wealth, indomitable power, tyrannous rule, and virtually absolute control over the world and everything on and in it, including the other 99% of us. As much as we would like to hope that 3.5% of the 7.8 billion humans on Earth today will break through their chokehold death-grip on the 99%, I suspect it’s more likely they’d wipe out most of the 99% in global WMD warfare before that would actually happen. Many notable intellectuals have made this perspective incisively clear, e.g., Sheldon Wolin, Chris Hedges, Ron Formisano, Henry Giroux, and Noam Chomsky.

XR and other 6MELEE activist movements are up against an inconceivably powerful enemy (fascist capitalism). Refusal to name it openly, face it squarely, and defy it at all costs, despite all odds, requires what Reinhold Niebuhr and Chris Hedges identify as the ‘sublime madness’ that (as Sartre pointed out) enables us to “fight fascists not expecting to win, but to fight fascists because they are fascists.” 

From that perspective, thus far the cumulative effect of all the 6MELEE activism, including XR, Youth Climate Strikes, et al., has achieved little more than gaslighting lip service delivered by a gaggle of corporate-owned media, think tank, and political and academic propagandists. At the end of the day, therefore, I find little evidence to support the hope, much less the expectation, that anything is “likely to change climate policy or emissions in the US or worldwide.” Activism may hasten the naked and full disclosure of the truth, whole and nothing but. We aren’t there yet, however, and the short odds as I see them are on that not happening until after all the feedback loops have triggered and all the tipping points have toppled, igniting full-on 6MELEE annihilation of 80-90% of the flora and fauna biomass on Earth. As the actual 6MELEE root cause, humankind will be in Mother Nature’s crosshairs this time around. Moreover, as the rise of such despots as Trump, Johnson, and Bolsonaro plainly demonstrate, governments are the circus the cabal and corporatocracy produce and keep running to distract the hoi polloi sitting behind the aristocracy of pop idols and technocrats in the box seats. The ultimate tragedy is that this charade works so supremely well and exactly as designed and intended.  

How much do you think climate scientists should act as advocates for change? And in what ways?

This question runs far deeper than it seems. Karl Popper, arguably the premier philosopher of science in the 20th century, described all knowledge, including scientific knowledge especially, as being built and resting upon epistemological pilings driven into a swamp of murky mystery. The positivism he staunchly opposed won the philosophical day, however, and it remains a powerful undercurrent in empirical scientific ideology, method, practice, and application today. This yields a radical scientism as a transcendental value judgment by which no metaphysical (ethical, moral, aesthetic, or theological) claims have any real epistemic meaning or value whatsoever. Value-free science becomes paradigmatic, leaving scientists on the horns of a dilemma – be a scientist or be fully human, but not both. Even in XR, I’ve seen scientists respond to this question by saying we must stand on the climate crisis evidence as fact, but as advocates of change, we must act only as persons, not as scientists. Science, in other words, has no voice in ethical conviction or in moral action, and conversely, ethics and morality have no place in science.

As I see it, the truth and reality is exactly the opposite: the strongest evidence supporting ethical principles and consequential moral values and actions is the scientific evidence that exposes the sheer lunacy of (as the World Economic Forum has described it) “sleepwalking into catastrophe under a global suicide pact.” Forensic science convicts the common criminals, but somehow it is not allowed to weigh against ecocidal and genocidal maniacs, simply because their wealth and power stand above and beyond the reach of ethics, morality, and law as an expression of rational justice. Of all people, therefore, scientists should be on the front lines of 6MELEE battle engagement and most committed to the cause, precisely because they are scientists in possession of the forensic facts that prove the criminality of this situation.

What else would you like to add?

Needless to say, mine is not the majority opinion among climate scientists in particular nor with empirical scientists in general. I would argue, nevertheless, that we are at least a full century overdue for a Kuhnian revolution that would completely overthrow the prevailing paradigms and uproot the entrenchment of positivism in 21st century scientific inquiry, together with the double standard of having scientism as the prime directive while at the same time eschewing all other values and value judgements as being meaningless. Value-free science is an oxymoron and it is long past time for truly rational scientists to awaken to that truth and reality. 

I hope you find these comments useful, Dr. Kalaugher. I will fully understand and not in the least be offended if you choose to use none of what I’ve said here. Thank you for the invitation to offer them for your feature. Whether you use any of them or not, I appreciate your work and your interest in the many varied views shaping XR and 6MELEE activism.

Sincerely,
Terry L. Rankin

Notes

[1] It seems I was the only Yank across the pond who became a founding member. The group has grown from the few founders to 457 (and counting), mainly due to the highly visible NVDA participation of the group in the Fall Rebellion in London during October. The group wrote and circulated the “Scientists’ Declaration of Support for Non-Violent Direct Action (NVDA) Against Government Inaction Over the Climate and Ecological Emergency,” which as of this writing has 1,470 signatures. The Declaration and signature form are available online. As it says there:

To show your support, please add your name to the list below and share with your colleagues. Signatures are invited from individuals holding a Master's Degree, holding or studying for a Doctorate in a field directly related to the sciences, or those working in a relevant scientific field in the private sector. Please make clear if your research field is directly relevant to the climate and/or ecological emergencies. Please note: the views of individuals signing this document do not necessarily represent those of the university or organisation they work for.

[2] See the Facebook public groups XR-Orlando and Christian Climate Action XR US, and Facebook web pages XR Orlando and Christian Climate Action XR US.

[3] The dissertation is a tangled tome of convoluted complexity, but for anyone wishing to give it a go, it is available online at two locations: “The End Signs! Are We Getting the Message?” in George Fox University Digital Commons, and “The End Signs! Are We Getting the Message?” at Researchgate.com, DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.33670.63044.

[4] Roger Hallam is a cofounder of XR. He can be seen discussing the need for a “movement of movements” in a YouTube video, “If we don’t work together, we are going to die together.” He also has a book in progress and is raising funds to get it published. Meanwhile, an early PDF draft of the book is available for free on his website.