Thoughts in the
Presence of Fear
The time will soon come when we will not be able to remember the horrors of
September 11 without remembering also the unquestioning technological and
economic optimism that ended on that day.
This optimism rested on the proposition that we were living in a “new world
order” and a “new economy” that would “grow” on and on, bringing a
prosperity of which every new increment would be “unprecedented.”
III. The dominant
politicians, corporate officers, and investors who believed this proposition did
not acknowledge that the prosperity was limited to a tiny percent of the
world’s people, and to an ever smaller number of people even in the United
States; that it was founded upon the oppressive labor of poor people all over
the world; and that its ecological costs increasingly threatened all life,
including the lives of the supposedly prosperous.
The “developed” nations had given to the “free market” the status of a
god, and were sacrificing to it their farmers, farmlands, and communities, their
forests, wetlands, and prairies, their ecosystems and watersheds. They had
accepted universal pollution and global warming as normal costs of doing
There was, as a consequence, a growing worldwide effort on behalf of economic
decentralization, economic justice, and ecological responsibility. We must
recognize that the events of September 11 make this effort more necessary than
ever. We citizens of the industrial countries must continue the labor of
self-criticism and self-correction. We must recognize our mistakes.
The paramount doctrine of the economic and technological euphoria of recent
decades has been that everything depends on innovation. It was understood as
desirable, and even necessary, that we should go on and on from one
technological innovation to the next, which would cause the economy to
“grow” and make everything better and better. This of course implied at
every point a hatred of the past so that all innovations, whatever their value
might have been, were discounted as of no value at all.
We did not anticipate anything like what has now happened. We did not foresee
that all our sequence of innovations might be at once overridden by a greater
one: the invention of a new kind of war that would turn our previous innovations
against us, discovering and exploiting the debits and the dangers that we had
ignored. We never considered the possibility that we might be trapped in the
webwork of communication and transport that was supposed to make us free.
Nor did we foresee that the weaponry and the war science that we marketed and
taught to the world would become available, not just to recognized national
governments, which possess so uncannily the power to legitimate large-scale
violence, but also to “rogue nations,” dissident or fanatical groups and
individuals—whose violence, though never worse than that of nations, is judged
by the nations to be illegitimate.
We had accepted uncritically the belief that technology is only good; that it
cannot serve evil as well as good; that it cannot serve our enemies as well as
ourselves; that it cannot be used to destroy what is good, including our
homelands and our lives.
We had accepted too the corollary belief that an economy (either as a money
economy or as a life-support system) that is global in extent, technologically
complex, and centralized is invulnerable to terrorism, sabotage, or war, and
that it is protectable by “national defense.”
We now have a clear, inescapable choice that we must make. We can continue to
promote a global economic system of unlimited “free trade” among
corporations, held together by long and highly vulnerable lines of communication
and supply, but now recognizing that such a system will have to be protected by
a hugely expensive police force that will be worldwide, whether maintained by
one nation or several or all, and that such a police force will be effective
precisely to the extent that it over-sways the freedom and privacy of the
citizens of every nation.
Or we can promote a decentralized world economy which would have the aim of
assuring to every nation and region a local self-sufficiency in life-supporting
goods. This would not eliminate international trade, but it would tend toward a
trade in surpluses after local needs had been met.
One of the gravest dangers to us now, second only to further terrorist attacks
against our people, is that we will attempt to go on as before with the
corporate program of global “free trade,” whatever the cost in freedom and
civil rights, without self-questioning or self-criticism or public debate.
This is why the substitution of rhetoric for thought, always a temptation in a
national crisis, must be resisted by officials and citizens alike. It is hard
for ordinary citizens to know what is actually happening in Washington in a time
of such great trouble; for we all know, serious and difficult thought may be
taking place there. But the talk that we are hearing from politicians,
bureaucrats, and commentators has so far tended to reduce the complex problems
now facing us to issues of unity, security, normality, and retaliation.
National self-righteousness, like personal self-righteousness, is a mistake. It
is misleading. It is a sign of weakness. Any war that we may make now against
terrorism will come as a new installment in a history of war in which we have
fully participated. We are not innocent of making war against civilian
populations. The modern doctrine of such warfare was set forth and enacted by
General William Tecumseh Sherman, who held that a civilian population could be
declared guilty and rightly subjected to military punishment. We have never
repudiated that doctrine.
It is a mistake also—as events since September 11 have shown—to suppose that
a government can promote and participate in a global economy and at the same
time act exclusively in its own interest by abrogating its international
treaties and standing apart from international cooperation on moral issues.
And surely, in our country, under our Constitution, it is a fundamental error to
suppose that any crisis or emergency can justify any form of political
oppression. Since September 11, far too many public voices have presumed to
“speak for us” in saying that Americans will gladly accept a reduction of
freedom in exchange for greater “security.” Some would, maybe. But some
others would accept a reduction in security (and in global trade) far more
willingly than they would accept any abridgement of our Constitutional rights.
In a time such as this, when we have been seriously and most cruelly hurt by
those who hate us, and when we must consider ourselves to be gravely threatened
by those same people, it is hard to speak of the ways of peace and to remember
that Christ enjoined us to love our enemies, but this is no less necessary for
Even now we dare not forget that since the attack of Pearl Harbor—to which the
present attack has been often and not usefully compared—we humans have
suffered an almost uninterrupted sequence of wars, none of which has brought
peace or made us more peaceable.
The aim and result of war necessarily is not peace but victory, and any victory
won by violence necessarily justifies the violence that won it and leads to
further violence. If we are serious about innovation, must we not conclude that
we need something new to replace our perpetual “war to end war”?
What leads to peace is not violence but peaceableness, which is not passivity,
but an alert, informed, practiced, and active state of being. We should
recognize that while we have extravagantly subsidized the means of war, we have
almost totally neglected the ways of peaceableness. We have, for example,
several national military academies, but not one peace academy. We have ignored
the teachings and the examples of Christ, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and other
peaceable leaders. And here we have an inescapable duty to notice also that war
is profitable, whereas the means of peaceableness, being cheap or free, make no
The key to peaceableness is continuous practice. It is wrong to suppose that we
can exploit and impoverish the poorer countries, while arming them and
instructing them in the newest means of war, and then reasonably expect them to
XXIII. We must not
again allow public emotion or the public media to caricature our enemies. If our
enemies are now to be some nations of Islam, then we should undertake to know
those “enemies.” Our schools should begin to teach the histories, cultures,
arts, and language of the Islamic nations. And our leaders should have the
humility and the wisdom to ask the reasons some of those people have for hating
XXIV. Starting with
the economies of food and farming, we should promote at home, and encourage
abroad, the ideal of local self-sufficiency. We should recognize that this is
the surest, the safest, and the cheapest way for the world to live. We should
not countenance the loss or destruction of any local capacity to produce
We should reconsider and renew and extend our efforts to protect the natural
foundations of the human economy: soil, water, and air. We should protect every
intact ecosystem and watershed that we have left, and begin restoration of those
that have been damaged.
The complexity of our present trouble suggests, as never before, that we need to
change our present concept of education. Education is not properly an industry,
and its proper use is not to serve industries, neither by job-training nor by
industry-subsidized research. Its proper use is to enable citizens to live lives
that are economically, politically, socially, and culturally responsible. This
cannot be done by gathering or “accessing” what we now call
“information”—which is to say facts without context and therefore without
priority. A proper education enables young people to put their lives in order,
which means knowing what things are more important than other things; it means
putting first things first.
The first thing we must begin to teach our children (and learn ourselves) is
that we cannot spend and consume endlessly. We have got to learn to save and
conserve. We do need a “new economy,” but one that is founded on thrift and
care, on saving and conserving, not on excess and waste. An economy based on
waste is inherently and hopelessly violent, and war is its inevitable
by-product. We need a peaceable economy.
© 2001 Orion Society