Dining With The Devil

I don't like people telling me what to do. Indeed, none of the three Weissinger children � off-spring of a strong-speaking welder and an independent woman who railed against fate and authority � are good at having other people tell us what to do.

John Milton in Paradise Lost, Book 1 had the Devil speak of this disinclination on a cosmic, metaphysical scale:

The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n.
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence:
Here we may reign secure, and in my choice
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.

"Better to reign in Hell, then to serve in Heav'n:" I had never before considered that powerful line to be relevant to anything more than conflicting power relationships on a vast scale � at least national, if not cosmic.

Which brings me to my dinner table a few weeks ago: a conservative friend and I were discussing global warming. After more of the obligatory conservative assertions that there is no proof we are undergoing global warming, the truth came out. My friend said:

"Even if it is true that global warming will cause widespread devastation, I would rather we did that, than be forced to follow the dictates of petty bureaucrats."

Well, "petty" is just a meaningless insult, and "bureaucrats" in this context is merely a reference to those who write rules to protect the environment. So translated, my friend would rather see widespread devastation from global warming, than be forced to follow rules designed to protect the environment written by people for whom he has little or no respect.

As I said, I don't like being told what to do either, but my conservative friend's startling pronouncement takes that attitude to new depths. He may as well have said, "Better to reign in a degraded earth than serve environmental regulators on a pristine planet." He is not alone in that sentiment.

For here, I fear, we see much of the underlying reason that so many conservatives reject the evidence of global warming and its dangers. They don't care about the dangers. Rather, they would prefer the risk of even the worst dangers and the actuality of some the less-terrible consequences of global warming, than to be inconvenienced by the rules, and their costs, that would fend off the dangers.

So, back to the dinner table: After my conservative friend's pronouncement, I reached across the dinner table, grasped my friend by the chin, and told him he was the Devil Incarnate!

Perhaps that was a little over the top. First of all, if my friend really had been the Devil Incarnate, he probably would have turned me into a yellow duck for insulting him, instead of (as he did) merely acting surprised and chagrined. And second, my friend is basically a good guy � he'd happily do me a favor if I needed one (well, so long as it isn't saving the world!), and indeed he has done me favors and an important service in the past, as I have him. But his statement made me wonder about the basic nature of right and wrong � indeed, about the basic nature of evil.

I happen to be reading a book by Joseph Campbell, called Myths to Live By. The book summarizes a series of talks he gave on mythology between 1958 and 1971. In Chapter 9, from a lecture given in 1967, he summarizes the mythologies of war and peace.

Remember that nice, cheerful spiritual, about Jericho?

Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho,
Joshua fought the battle of Jericho,
And the walls came tumbling down�.

Sing it to yourself right now: it has a nice rousing beat to it, doesn't it? It is a cheerful tune. Heck, it gives me a rosy glow just to sing it in my head as I write.

But what happened at Jericho, as quoted by Campbell from the First Testament to the Bible, isn't quite so cheery:

"The trumpets blew, the walls fell down, �And then they utterly destroyed all in the city, both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword� and they burned the city with fire, and all within in it; only the silver and gold, and the vessels of bronze and of iron, they put into the treasury of the house of the Lord.'"

Id., quoting Joshua 6:21, 24.

Sometimes civilizations evolve in a healthy manner. What the Old Testament sanctions as God-worship we'd call genocide and mass murder today. That is healthy cultural evolution. Sometimes civilizations don't evolve well: witness Easter Island, whose residents stripped their Island of resources to feed outdated rituals. We (including my conservative friends) are facing our own choice, now, as to how to evolve.

My conservative friend's ideals are shared by many. Would my conservative friends truly allow widespread devastation and destruction in the world � devastation that could be avoided by controlling the factors contributing to global warming � because they don't like to be told what to do? Perhaps not intentionally � although few conservatives think urgent action is needed in face of the obvious environmental crisis in Puget Sound. But their actions might allow such devastation and destruction even so. Solving the global warming problem will require acting contrary to their ideals. Consequently, they will wait too long for the negative environmental impacts on their lives to pile up; when they finally deem the impacts sufficient reason to act, it will be too late. One of the very scary things about global warming is that the consequences are not all forecast to happen incrementally: some consequences are forecast to happen as "tipping points," where causes build and build and build, and then a cataclysmic event happens all at once, and cannot readily be undone. Many of those now doubting global warming someday may rue not sooner supporting action to stop it. But by then it may be too late, not just for them, but for us too.

My conservative friends are entitled to live in as pristine or as squalid a home as they can afford or wish � or as to which they can convince their spouses. But here, it isn't a house of squalor we're discussing � it's a world. And, it's my world too. And yours. Better to serve in Heaven than reign in Hell.






[link]