Euphemisms of the Apocalypse

Before we begin 

Why does vague euphemistic language surround the looming collapse of civilisation? On the face of it – this seems bizarre, inexplicable and wrong . What lies behind this disconnect between reality and language?

In conversations about the apocalypse, I find myself not just in an entirely different conversation from the one that needs to be had – but on an entirely different planet.

On my planet, humanity is pushing past all ecological limits and warnings – accelerating towards a global systemic collapse. On the other planet people chatter in mild cliches about ‘energy security’ and ‘local resilience’ – as though ‘green growth’ and ‘natural gas’ will permit a mildly green-washed civilisation to continue much as before.

The oft seen slogan ‘There is no planet B’ couldn’t be more wrong – there is planet Earth and there is planet-la-la-not-listening – it is the latter which almost everyone, including many (most?) in the environmental movement, seem to be on.  

What and whom are being protected by ensuring that discussions about climate change (a euphemism) and biodiversity loss (another euphemism) take place inside an electric fence?

Who polices this boundary and who decides what passes as acceptable debate? What states of mind, ideologies, material advantages and simple-minded certainties are getting a stay of execution via the pardon of  indirect language? We should expect (and surely welcome?) that our looming extinction will invoke appropriate fear and thus signpost the need for effortful thinking and major societal change? What is our collective sense making for if not to inform us about reality and suggest action? It is not logical to evade reality  – but then humanity and reality don’t often (as yet) connect all that well.

It is precisely because current ecological crises raise the ‘spectre’ of effortful thinking and major systemic change that we collectively obfuscate debates on the ecological crisis. As a species we are playing hide and seek with the truth – but ready or not…the truth is going to find us. 

That many (most?) people blank even the possibility that our generations might be penultimate is understandable. How many accept that the era of humanity may be ending? Humans have a long history, we have never truly known defeat and many (most?) imagine humanity to be collectively immortal and invincible.

The eco-niche of prehistoric humans was balanced, but successive generations have had more swagger. We have exponentially grown our population, tightened our ‘dominance’ over nature, deepened our technological sophistication and increased our material standard of living. It is perhaps unthinkable to many (most?) that humanity might be about to die – killed not by a rogue asteroid, a super nova or even a nuclear war – but by our  own hubris and systemic stupidity.

Blows to the ego are a natural part of life. Of all the blows to the ego – death is the big one. When the cancer diagnosis lands and old age looms… it puts things in perspective. Alcoholics and drug addicts say you have to ‘hit the bottom’ before being forced to change – humanity’s bottom is coming up hard and fast.

Petty ambition shrivels in the pale moonlight of mortality and elective beliefs crumble. Dealing with existential challenges is tough work – which is why so many of us avoid it.

So it is with our response to the onrushing death of our species. Precious few are properly engaged with it – not least because our hubristic swagger, ideologies, self-image, material wealth and short-term peace of mind are all threatened.

Capitalism and neoliberalism – our ‘trusted service delivery partners’ of the ‘good life’ may need to follow the path of the dodo – before we do.

Those with a vested interest in capitalism will feel deeply threatened by any loss of confidence in this currently ubiquitous framework for ‘goodness’. It’s not just corporate apparatchiks, corrupt politicians and the ultra wealthy who will feel the heat if exigent emergencies (rightly) herald the end of our blind faith in markets and neoliberalism.

Many people have both a material and a psychological investment  (at some level) in the hegemony of capitalism – thus  most ordinary folks will try to shield it from evidence (like the climate crisis) that throws doubt on its efficacy. 

The bitter resistance of the capitalist establishment towards acknowledging ecological emergencies is not primarily about money but ideological survival.

Our feckless and destructive relationship with nature has now invoked an existential crisis for all life on earth. The capitalist / materialist / technological triad has demonstrably failed to deliver a good life for all. If one chooses to look, it is demonstrably a destructive and self-terminating moral framework. 

Would some people let humanity die before admitting that their faith in technology, materialist values and market forces has proven to be disastrously misplaced? Almost certainly – particularly if the can of the final reckoning can be kicked down the road to posterity. 

It is not just capitalism that is in crisis – I submit that complementary ideologies like utilitarianism, radical empiricism, post modernism, the nuclear family and the more toxic aspects of rugged individualism are looking very wobbly too and their true believers know it. This is why the ‘debate’ about these end times remains so vague and non-committal, a full and frank audit of the true situation would surely initiate the intellectual obsolescence of many daft ideas and toxic moral norms.

Soft, insidious lexicons have swiftly evolved to allow adherents of various (often overlapping) ideologies to discuss exigent ecological emergencies while ignoring the damaging implications for their moral tribes. This crude process of system defence is toxic to our collective sense-making since it firmly places the survival of identity and cherished conceptions above the detail and demands of the truth. 

The threat to the ideological ‘centre ground’ can make strange bed fellows of economists and some environmentalists.

While economic think tanks mutter about ‘green growth’ and ‘fossil fuel divestment strategies’ – environmental  pressure groups demand a ‘new green deal’ and investments in whizzy green technology. That both are basically re-jigs of the status quo seems lost on these ostensibly opposed tribes. Crucially, both ignore the over-arching moral crisis – seeking material fixes that leave existing moral systems untouched. Direct moral language is very rarely heard in the lexicons of environmentalism – even the marvelously euphemistic ‘regenerative culture’ leaves much of the moral status quo quite undisturbed.  

The linguistic knot weed which is choking simple honest language needs to be cleared away  – this won’t be at all easy and my hopes of success are low.

Many contemporary ideological systems have a vested interest in using diversionary language to keep us comfortably numb to the end. In my view there can be no moral justification for not attempting to confront this – so tomorrow we will begin to hack through the top 100 euphemisms of the end times – #1 of course is…

…Climate Change.

Since 2013 I have worked between 4-6 hours a day on this Ad-Free site: trying to give a voice to those without the power or agency to speak out for themselves and uncovering truths that well paid journalists in the corporate media dare not utter.

I am a home schooling parent on a low income – paying for the domain, web hosting and security entirely out of my own pocket.  

If you found this article useful and could spare us a few shillings to help keep our lights on, it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you in solidarity with all our readers. John Lynch, Editor.     

Follow Sodium Haze on Facebook