Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Unpacking for a Disaster: What You Need to Survive the Unexpected
The first American responses to the triple calamity in Japan were deeply empathetic and then, as news of the Fukushima nuclear complex’s leaking radiation spread, a lot of people began to freak out about their own safety, and pretty soon you couldn’t find potassium iodide pills anywhere in San Francisco. You couldn’t even -- so a friend tells me -- find them in Brooklyn.
The catastrophes were in Japan and remain that country’s tragedy, so we need to keep our own anxieties in check. Or harness them to make constructive changes in preparation for our own future disasters (without losing our compassion for those killed, orphaned, widowed, displaced -- and contaminated -- in northeastern Japan). But last week saw a deluge of bad information and free-floating fear in this country.
Bogus maps of radiation clouds heading our way began circulating, along with a lot of junk science, and all kinds of overwrought fears. Crackpots and quacks in Internet postings, as well as a popular science writer in Newsweek magazine, predicted imminent earthquakes in California, with no grounds whatsoever, or with distorted scientific data. Too many of us combined a reasonable distrust of the authorities with a poor understanding of the science and the situation, starting with the fact that Japan is really, really far away from California, let alone Park Slope.
The great Sendai earthquake of March 10th should, however, teach us that the unexpected does happen, and there’s no time to prepare for it -- except beforehand. And what you do beforehand matters immensely. Japan was both impressively prepared and shockingly unprepared.
The country was indeed ready for a major earthquake, even a massive not once-in-a-century but once-in-a-millennium monster. Their earthquake drills and building codes are superb and -- as far as I can tell (reporting has been anything but clear on this) -- the temblor itself did remarkably little structural damage.
The country was far less prepared for a tsunami that would breach every protective sea wall and obliterate huge swaths of coastal habitat, even though sirens and evacuation plans went into effect almost instantly. It was even less prepared for the nuclear reactor disaster that quickly overshadowed everything else.
What Not to Bring
I live in earthquake country, so I’ve been told most of my life that I must have an earthquake kit. Almost anyone anywhere would benefit from having an emergency kit on hand: the usual flashlight, blanket, coins for pay phones (cell phones and cell-phone service die quick in disaster), small bills, potable water, and so forth. To really deal with an emergency, though, you not only need to pack, but to unpack.
Think of your mind as your most fundamental and important emergency kit. You have a great deal of what you’ll need to survive there already, but if you’re not careful, a lot of junk will end up piled on top of your excellent equipment. Lift up that big television of yours, for example, and gently lob it out the window. It will fill your head with hysteria, presuppositions, misinterpretations, stereotypes, exaggerations, and racial slurs that will leave you ill-prepared for what to expect when your world is turned upside down.
Be careful with newspapers, online media, and those emails your anxious friends forward to you. Watch out for experts who aren’t (or who have an unspoken agenda), for authorities who lie and withhold crucial information, for hysterics, and those who fill in the blanks of disasters past, present, and future with invented scenarios. Be clear that a lot of the worst-case scenarios are just that, not breaking news (though what happened in Japan was and continues to be pretty horrendous).
A disaster is a big foray into the unknown and into uncertainty. We hate those things. We like to know what’s going to happen. Even in our own quiet everyday lives, we like to fill in the blanks. The media feeds this urge during crises with a lot of speculation and a stream of stereotypes. After all, it’s their job to know, and yet a disaster means a million unexpected things are going on all at once amid severely disrupted communications networks, which often means that they don’t know either, that no one does.
Throw These Words Out Right Away
So start this way. Open up that disaster kit in your mind and throw out two words that cause so much unnecessary confusion and damage in a calamity: panic and looting.
Immediately after the earthquake, I saw a video of a group of Japanese in a wildly shaking office with a British-accented voiceover calling what they were doing panic. They were indeed moving rapidly and in all directions, but they were taking shelter, stabilizing objects that were falling off shelves, and generally doing just what people should do in such situations. The New York Daily News ran a headline several inches high that just read “Panic!” Maybe they were describing themselves.
The media likes to call any rapid movement panic, even when it’s the wisest possible thing to do. When the World Trade Towers were collapsing in New York, the right thing to do was run -- and most everyone did. That’s not panic. That day, “panicked” people also carried a quadriplegic accountant down 69 flights of stairs, slowed down to keep pace with their co-workers, got all the kids safely out of their nearby schools, and helped the fallen to their feet. More than 60 years of disaster research makes it clear that, despite what you think you know, ordinary people generally don’t panic in emergencies. So throw that out.
After both Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, the word “looting” was used to justify shooting people down in the streets -- the death penalty, that is, without benefit of trial -- for what in ordinary times might otherwise be called “petty theft.” In extraordinary times, when the electricity goes, and there are no functioning bank machines, credit cards, or banks, and in many places no shopkeepers, you may need to acquire the goods that sustain life by taking them, often from wrecked or abandoned stores. The alternative is hunger, thirst, cold, and misery. To me, that’s not even theft. What we saw a lot of in Japan was people lining up to buy things in not-so-wrecked places where shopkeepers were actually still doing business.
Lots of reverse-stereotype articles have appeared about how Japanese don’t loot. In fact, there are accounts of Japanese citizens taking things without benefit of purchase, but since they’re not black, no one gets all that excited about it. Also there have been accounts of people getting really angry while waiting in line. I also saw a photograph of a guy siphoning gas from a minivan tipped up in some wreckage. Was it his? Who cares?
In crises, for some authorities, the media, and many outside observers, civilization tends to consist mainly of property relations, and so they pay more attention to whether someone’s taking crackers than whether a grandmother is dying in the wreckage (while law enforcement goes after the cracker-taker). Throw that out. It’s sludge in your mind. It causes needless deaths -- both of those who get shot as “looters” and those in dire need who get neglected while property is protected. So far, this hasn’t happened (as far as I can tell) in Japan, but it did happen in Port-au-Prince, New Orleans, and earthquake-wrecked San Francisco in 1906, and it might well happen when big earthquakes hit the Bay Area, Los Angeles, and Seattle -- as they one day will.
The idea that all Japanese are selflessly dutiful might be undermined by the story of the hospital near the Fukushima reactors where 128 elderly people were simply abandoned. “Most of them were comatose and 14 died shortly afterwards,” the Guardian reported. Of course, six miles from that hospital were the “Fukushima 50” -- the nuclear workers risking their lives to try to keep conditions at the plant from getting worse. What they are undergoing and what it will do to them we don’t know yet. There is so much we don’t know yet.
Other racial stereotypes suggested that Japanese are quiet and obedient and that this is a good thing -- though one must now hope that they will be neither and demand a major transformation of the private corporations and public institutions that allowed their nuclear nightmare to unfold as it did. Which is to say that, like human beings everywhere, the Japanese vary, and no blanket statements fully cover them. For your future emergency, pack a real blanket or sleeping bag, but don’t pack the usual set of clichés.
The Human Nature Business
In a disaster, you will want to bring your identity, so we are often instructed, meaning some government-issued form of identification. But you will also want to bring a deeper identity, a sense of who you are and who we are. This matters greatly, because disaster tests our nature, even as it requires us to cooperate with those who are in it with us.
The usual emphasis on “panic” in disasters implies that, in a crisis, we’re all sheep wheeling around idiotically, incapable of making good decisions, and selfishly trampling those around us. The emphasis on looting implies that, in a crisis, we’re all wolves, taking ruthless advantage of and preying on each other. Both presume that during a disaster social bonds will break. In fact, as the records of disaster after disaster show, mostly they don’t. In fact, those who study the subject (and reams of testimony by those who have lived through it) confirm that, in catastrophe, most of us behave remarkably beautifully, exhibiting presence of mind, altruism, generosity, bravery, and creativity.
Most of us.
Who, then, does it serve to imagine that we are wolves and sheep, fools and savages? Lee Clarke, a disaster sociologist and professor at Rutgers, wrote after Hurricane Katrina, “Disaster myths are not politically neutral, but rather work systematically to the advantage of elites. Elites cling to the panic myth because to acknowledge the truth of the situation would lead to very different policy prescriptions than the ones currently in vogue.” That is to say, if we are wolves and sheep, and so not to be trusted, then they are the shepherds and the wolf-killers.
They want the right to police us, to boss us around, and to lie to us in a disaster (and the rest of the time, too, actually). They lie to us on the grounds that we will panic if we know the truth -- and so they withheld critical information when Three Mile Island nearly melted down in 1979, when Chernobyl did melt down in 1985, when the pit where the World Trade Towers had been spewed toxic smoke for months in 2001, when a mass murderer was loose on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007, when the reactors in Fukushima started venting radiation into the surrounding environment. The media often repeats these lies and regularly fails to question authority even though the track record of lying in disasters is clear.
Officials in the U.S. lied in this disaster, too. The amounts of radiation that have reached these shores apparently are, as they have claimed, so minor as to be insignificant in a world already full of toxins and carcinogens, but they also suggested that much higher levels would be safe. Which is a lie. As is the idea that nuclear power is safe.
Authoritarian Technology
In some respects the authorities here and in Japan have been completely crazy, not just in the aftermath of this disaster but every day since the dawn of the “peaceful atom” era of the nuclear age. Nuclear power is essentially an elaborate and unlikely way to boil water to turn turbines to create electricity. Its makers must mine, refine, and consolidate huge amounts of one of the deadliest materials on earth, uranium-235 (the less than 1% of naturally occurring uranium with 235 electrons; the leftover 99%, the less radioactive but nevertheless deadly U-238, becomes nuclear waste in the process). That U-235 and the plutonium created from it are dangerous at every stage of the process. In addition, constructing a power plant requires a huge amount of carbon-spewing conventional energy, so there’s never been a lot of logic to building them to bridge our move to renewable energy.
The delusional premise behind nuclear energy is that we can create this material and then contain it for the duration of its dangerous phase. For plutonium, that’s 24,000 years, or about 15 times as long as something called civilization has existed. For uranium-235, that’s 700 million years, a time so vast it’s basically forever.
Fifty years into the nuclear age, we’ve had four major reactor accidents, along with a host of minor ones and leaks and ventings, and we still don’t know what to do with the nuclear waste that plants like the ones at Fukushima produce even when no accidents occur. This is the “spent fuel” that the U-235 quickly becomes. It’s still intensely radioactive and toxic; it’s only “spent” in the sense that it’s no longer useful for boiling water in reactors. It’s still useful for bombs, dirty or otherwise.
There are better ways to boil water.
The Guardian reports: “The power plant at the center of the biggest civilian nuclear crisis in Japan's history contained far more spent fuel rods than it was designed to store, while its technicians repeatedly failed to carry out mandatory safety checks, according to documents from the reactor's operator.”
This news suggests incompetence and untrustworthiness, but most U.S. nuclear power plants also have an overabundance of spent fuel rods in cooling ponds onsite. That’s because the only plans for long-term storage of some of the more than 70,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste American nuclear reactors have produced, now heating those ponds, were also crazy. If there’s one good, long-term reason to love Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Barack Obama, it’s that they put a stop to a plan to dump some of the stuff in seismically, hydrologically, and volcanically active Yucca Mountain, Nevada, a couple of years ago. Of course if the Republicans have their way, the dump will lurch back from the dead.
Further Preparations
So in a disaster, unload the usual clichés and stereotypes. Do your best not to fill up the unknown with fantasy or fear. Don’t assume the worst or the best, but keep an alert mind on the actual as it unfolds. Don’t take scenarios for realities. Be prepared to reevaluate and change your plans again and again.
Which is to say that disaster is like everyday life, only more so.
Don’t bring a lot of fear of the neighbors: if you’re not rescuing them, they might be rescuing you, and afterward you may very well be building a community kitchen together in the ruins. In San Francisco, we have a website called 72hours.org, which acknowledges that you’re likely to be on your own in a major disaster. There just aren’t enough rescue personnel, firefighters, and so forth to respond on the scale such a disaster requires. So help yourself and the people around you.
In preparation, investigate local dangers, whether a refinery, a freight rail line on which toxics roll by, that big earthquake slated to hit New York, a floodplain, or a forest fire, and figure out what to do if the worst happens, since Japan reminds us that sometimes it does. And maybe you can even train your authorities not to panic in disaster and not to treat the rest of us like so many sheep and wolves. Try to ensure that they won’t regard a major disaster as a major occasion for law enforcement rather than a time when civil society should pull together. Make sure they won’t demonize or victimize the most needy in a crisis, as nonwhite people, undocumented immigrants, the poor, and the left-behind have been many times before.
Get a battery-powered, or better yet, hand-cranked radio and decide which media outlets you trust. Then sift through the news with care, because ordinarily useful news sources, too, fall prey to fear-amplifying rumor and government cover-ups and lies in a crisis. The left-wing media is no exception: I heard a fair amount of nutty nuclear stuff last week.
Learn some science about radiation, especially if you live near a nuclear power plant. And keep in mind that it’s better to evacuate unnecessarily than undergo contamination unnecessarily. Don’t forget to take Great-Aunt Helen. The triple disaster in Japan has offered countless reminders of just how vulnerable the elderly can be in an emergency.
If you want to do more, look into hazard reduction. This can mean learning how to turn off the gas lines in your home, or preventing a new nuclear power plant from being built in your neighborhood or on your planet. It can mean acknowledging that climate change is bringing us a superabundance of disasters -- droughts, floods, heat waves, fires, rising seas, and more -- and that we need to be better prepared than ever for calamity, even as we work to minimize the causes of climate change and its impacts.
And keep in mind that disasters start suddenly and end slowly. Some predict it will be five years before Japan recovers from the Sendai quake followed by tsunami followed by nuclear crisis. Remember as well that disasters often lead to permanent change. In that sense they’re never over.
The U.S. was permanently changed by 9/11 and Katrina; Ukraine by Chernobyl -- or maybe it would be more accurate to say the whole world by Chernobyl. In 2006, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev himself said, “The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month… was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later.”
In the wake of its present disaster, Japan may already be changing, and that may not be a bad thing. In its wake, the future of nuclear power may change, and that might be a very good thing. One thing we know now: we don’t know yet.


41 Comments so far
Show AllAs always, Ms Solnit is sensible and calm, creating badly needed perspective. Well done her!
Solnit has it together!
"Elites cling to the panic myth because to acknowledge the truth of the situation would lead to very different policy prescriptions than the ones currently in vogue.” That is to say, if we are wolves and sheep, and so not to be trusted, then they are the shepherds and the wolf-killers."
She is brilliant in simplifying the truth.
Turn off the TV; throw it out the window!
Good advice.
Live your life in the here and now.
Necessity is the key to surviving, water, food, shelter. Getting these will be a community effort, and you are going to have to deal with real people again.
Shock Doctrine actually works both ways!
Lets all live in mud huts and grow our own food.
Here are some herbal suggestions for those who are concerned about radiation exposure:
http://www.susunweed.com/Article_Surviving_Radiation.htm
“Nuclear power is essentially an elaborate and unlikely way to boil water to turn turbines to create electricity. Its makers must mine, refine, and consolidate huge amounts of one of the deadliest materials on earth, uranium-235.”
I hear this all the time, but the quantities are not very "huge" at all. A handful of uranium pellets in a nuclear reactor produces the energy of a dozen rail-car loads of coal, or in a fast-breeder reactor, a trainload of coal. Heavy water reactors like the Canadian CANDU reactor use natural un-enriched uranium for fuel, so there is no waste from enrichment.
Nuclear fission presents unique health hazards of a sort not encountered in chemical energy sources, but it is not inefficient. If you lived out here in environmentally trashed Appalacia and also downwind of the huge power plants that burn the stuff, the hazards of nuclear power (expecially the newer passive-safety designs), does not look so bad.
The analysis is correct.
You do have to mine huge amounts of pitchblend (uranium ore) to extrct a small amount of uranium, which must then be processed into 'yellowcake', and finnaly be refined into a stable metallic compound, then encased in zircalloy fuel rods.
All of these elements are considered rare, and are ecessively expensive to extract, refine, and transoport, all of which uses an exhorbitant amount of fossil fuels to do so.
I've seen your defense of nuclear elsewhere. I encourage you to read these two articles on CounterPunch today:
Mind the Gap
Deconstructing Nuclear Experts
By CHRIS BUSBY
http://www.counterpunch.org/busby03282011.html
The Doomsday Scenario
Is Fukushima About to Blow?
By MIKE WHITNEY
http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney03282011.html
As for Solnit's comments about exposure in the US, it's clear that while she chastises those that are not scientists, she herself clearly isn't one. 5,000 miles away is nothing considering the wind patterns and the half life of cesium-137.
The distinction between internal and external exposure is missed, as covered by Chris Busby. It's incredibly dangerous to water supplies and agricultural land, and sadly, proving that cancer is caused by this leak will be near impossible, but no less deadly.
As Cockburn said recently, the happy talk of the nuclear industry and the pundits that support it rarely take into account the Real World; namely, that in which greed, lies, and power meet.
PS. Solnit and Sabocat should also read this article published today, here on CD as well:
Harvey Wasserman:
"Safe" Radiation is a Lethal Three Mile Island Lie
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/03/28-1
I was reqading an article the other day whichpointed out the one thing about the American responce vis a vis the Fukushiima Dai-ichi explosions and limited release of radioactive material.
The article noted the American responce to this disaster was full blown narcicism, a panic about how 'THEY', the 'greatest Country on Earth (tm)' was going to be negatively affected, how many marginally intelligent people were panicing (yes, *really* panicing), snapping up supplies of potassium iodide that would be not only worse than useless to them, but actually detrimental to thier helath. People in California were panicing about how sushi (made ironically from local ingredients) was goping to be contaminated, and 'unsafe' for them to consume.
I can honestly say, when the true and lasting economic Collapse finally sets it's teeth in the collective American ass, the reaction of many of you will be to turn on each other like rabid weasels.
"when the true and lasting economic Collapse finally sets it's teeth in the collective American ass, the reaction of many of you will be to turn on each other like rabid weasels." Galenwainwright...
More reason to keep your 2nd amendment solution at hand, for defense purposes only, of course. (evil grin here) To the more reasonable survivors, cooperation will be the key to survival. The "panic" is already happening , like you point out Galenwainwright... these panic-ers are walking over the edge. Let'em. The calm-ers will begin to pick up the pieces. This crisis is decades in the making. The radiation from this leak is now entering the ecosystem. It has already been released in previous explosions and accidents. The Japanese people and those near them are toast within a few years. The people/animals and other life of the world around them will be toast in concentric circles of time around Japan. Within decades and throughout the centuries to come the earth will change and I fear for the worse before (and if) it gets better. Not much we can do but try to stop what we are doing to accelerate the problem(s).
Loved the article, by the way. Great presentation of the situation.
Coal fired generators, boiling water with nukes and on and on... As long as perpetual growth is the cornerstone of our Edselesque economic ediface we are doomed to one collapse after another. Don't expect to find solutions when conservation and sustainability are swear words and increased production and dividends are worshipped on the altars of greed. Captains of industry and their political shills create problems that ordinary folk deal with daily. These,"ordinary" folk are more apt to deal with crisis more reasonably than the wealthy who will sit in their bunkers until the wine and cheese run out while their henchmen roam the streets protecting their property.
bing-o! we have a winner here, folks.
Second that!!! Especially when a piffling 5% of world population consumes such a gross and inequitable share of resources and energy. It's the lifestyle.
Ms Solnit states: "The delusional premise behind nuclear energy is that we can create this material and then contain it for the duration of its dangerous phase. For plutonium, that’s 24,000 years, or about 15 times as long as something called civilization has existed. For uranium-235, that’s 700 million years, a time so vast it’s basically forever."
In fact, it's even worse than that. The half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years. So it would still be half as lethal after that period. After 96,000 years, its lethality would be down to a little over 6% of what it is now. To bring it down to 1%, we would have to wait a total of about 165,000 years. But it would still be dangerous.
Nuclear energy is totally insane.
Cool, calm & collected. Such good advice.
Nice. I want to buy her book, too.
An emergency kit is a great idea but...
A Japanese friend told me that people in Japan knew that they were due for a big one and had been prepared by having extra bottles of water, canned food, flashlights, etc. etc. That's great. However, that didn't do a hell of a lot of good in that tsunami now, did it? Particularly, not to the ones that died. Please, don't take me wrong, I'm not against being prepared, of course. I'm simply pointing out the venality of it all in certain circumstances.
"The left-wing media is no exception: I heard a fair amount of nutty nuclear stuff last week."
I didn't hear any "nutty stuff" from the "left wing media". Why must progressives try to appear "fair and balanced" by blaming ourselves too when we had nothing to do with it?
Oh, there was some very nutty stuff coming from the Left Wing - insanity. A bunch of them are claiming that 'global warming' (or 'climate change' - whichever you prefer) is a far more dire danger than radiation. Guess they don't know who is funding all that 'global warming' hoopla... they got snookered by the the nuclear lobby into supporting more nuke plants. Right. Real smart. Well, maybe if they glow in the dark they can stay up all night and sleep in the daytime when it's cooler... oops, Charleton Heston was in a movie like that a long time ago...
There is a nutty bunch out there - and they come from both Left and Right (and probably Center as well). Nobody has a monopoly on stupid (just paranoia and sociopathy). A lot of environmental groups are in bed with the nuke lobby too - pretty scary stuff.
"One can't say that all conservatives are stupid people, but one can say that all stupid people are conservatives"
John Stewart Mill
What do the survivors do after they have survived?
Don't forget this:
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious."
Ah, the bug-out bag. Gotta start working on one soon....
The problem with a 'bug-out bag' is that you'll be prepared for any incident except the one that happens... Murphy's Law.
What kind of warning do you put on nuclear waste that will be understood 10,000 years from now - let alone a quarter million, or a few billion? What language? What symbols? (I like the 'Scream' idea - pretty catchy, if you're a human.)
Yeah, Right.
Your flashlight and Boyscout decoder ring will protect you from P-239 fallout.
Apparently the idiot that wrote this article was not alive when Mount Pinatubo blew up in the Philippines, crossed the Pacific ocean via the 200 mph jet stream and rained volcanic ash down in California. That upper level jet streams still goes directly over Japan and dumps out in Seattle to California depending on the season.
The "crackpot" mentioned in this article appears not to be the folks getting data from NOAA and Nopac aviation charts, but rather one Rebecca Solnit, who clearly has no background in Aviation Meterology.
TJ
You're right, TJ - Rebecca has little or no evident background in science or engineering, and so she makes mistakes in those fields. She's a writer, and skilled enough to make her living at it. And she's an anarchist who, as you and I also do, believes strongly in the goodness of most people. Cut her some slack?
Well,
O.K, Mairead,
Perhaps I was a bit harsh. I love Anarchists like you also, but, for christsakes, you also are pro-nuke. I have presented the sorted history of nuclear power to you and others and now we all will get exposed to a series of accidents in which the Nuclear Industry itself warned Japan was likely:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Japanese_nuclear_accidents
Nuclear power is unsafe under any conditions whatsoever imho, because it requires 100 percent perfect cooling all the time.
http://planetofthebushapes.wikidot.com/nuclear-power-incidents
TJ
Maybe that's the problem, TJ: I'm *NOT* "pro-nuke" any more than I'm "pro-abortion". I'm anti-fake-solution.
I'm painfully aware of the many factors both social and technological that we accept without really thinking about them despite their *actual*, not theoretical or statistical, toll.
And because we *do* accept them, or at most condemn them in a sort of pro-forma, genuflecting way, I find the reaction to the nuke issue to be not merely irrational but *anti*-rational. I expected better of the people at CD. Maybe I shouldn't have.
You're right, of course. The existing nuke plants are unsafe because totally dependent on constant cooling. The newer ones (pebble bed) don't have that problem, but we've to deal with the old ones (as Mark said, in part because of the opposition to replacing the old ones).
But most things are unsafe. Aeroplanes are unsafe, as you well know from having aviated for your living. Like nukes, they depend on no mistakes being made. (Funnily enough, or maybe not, we don't count the deaths due to them being used to kill intentionally.)
Coal and oil are not merely unsafe, they're lethal. Even when their extraction kills no one outright, their use creates residues that go everywhere and slowly poison everything. Perhaps that lethality is ignored because it's not dramatic? Certainly even the horrors of BP poisoning the Gulf and its environs didn't elicit anything near the response here that the Fukushima tragedy on the other side of the world has done. Or perhaps, as Sab has suggested, it's a class thing.
And of course we have cars, trucks, and their ilk. A million-plus deaths and injuries every year. Not the *possibility* of that many, but the actuality. Every year! Ho hum.
Then we have radon. 100K lung-cancer deaths every year. But nobody's worried. Evidently some radiation deaths are more equal than others. And besides, as one poster here reassured us, all one need do is keep the cellar ventilated. So it's like smoking: if someone dies, it's their own fault for not keeping their cellar ventilated. Ho hum again.
And finally, the founder of the feast: economic and religious feudalism. The exploitation of the many by the few. Got to keep baby production high, otherwise there won't be enough serfs to keep the deserving living in luxury. Oh sure, everyone here is against Capitalism...nominally. But not everyone opposes the overpopulation that keeps Capitalism in business [npi] and the Extinction Express rolling along.
If people put their energy into demanding that buildings be insulated to Passivhaus standards, everyone be provided with a gigabit tap into the internet, cars over 150KG empty weight be banned, Capitalism criminalised, the meeting of our common human needs be made a right of citizenship, and fertility-reduction (elective sterilisation on demand; mandatory after 0.5 live birth) made law, the difference in the amount of generating capacity we need would be enormously reduced. That's the *real* solution: reducing demand.
So that's where I am, TJ. I'm not "pro-nuke" any more than I'm "pro-gun" or "pro-abortion". I just recognise that neither nukes nor guns are the problem, so getting rid of them won't do a damned thing but give a lot of shallow thinkers (I don't include you in that number of course) a momentary frisson before they start thinking they have to cut more off because it's still too short. Britain right now is well along that road, and it's ugly.
"Got to keep baby production high, otherwise there won't be enough serfs to keep the deserving living in luxury."
Your sarcasm is a bit Malthusian, don't you think?
Nope.
I'm glad someone said it...and that it wasn't me! I've attacked by the "open-minded, balanced and tolerant progressives" on this site once too many times to jump on this one feet first but since you did it for me, then, here it goes. Yes, she sounds like an uniformed, tinfoil wearer of sorts. As I hinted at in my comment above, a hell of a lot of good a "kit" is going to do when you're being washed away (inside your own house) by a 30-foot massive wave. Idiots come in all sizes, colors, genders and forms. Still, you have an out-of-touch with reality, condescending crackpot like this one go on for pages and pages spewing unrealistic crap and, not matter how whacked up it is, you'll find 10 other idiots bobbing their heads and agreeing with her. I don't know who's worse, if her or them.
If you're complaining that her suggestions won't always be enough, you're right. They absolutely will not.
But I can't think of a single thing, even air or water, that will be lifesaving or even useful in absolutely every circumstance. Can you? If you can't either, then you're complaining that she's not doing the impossible, which doesn't seem fair.
Why is it that you people always take it upon yourselves to project your opinions, believes and biases on others? What's wrong with asking someone what they mean instead of telling them what you think they mean, huh?
Solnit has it wrong on so many levels I don't know where to stop. So I will try to keep it short.
This notion that disasters in and of itself create the root of a mutal aid society is crap, pure and simple. What disaster does is create a forge for projecting the political structure of civil society onto govenment. In the US, this structure is fascistic. That disaster could be natural, or brought on by destabilization of government by the left, but I will not be betting that the results under current conditions will be anything close to what Solnit is projecting or begging us to hope for.
Second. Her remedy for diaster is no better then what the New Age Y2k people were saying on the Art Bell show ten years ago. The reality is that an individual approach will not work, and her remedy contradicts her ideology. Disaster response planning is done by every institution except those on the left, and is a collective response out of necessity from those institutions, in order to preserve hiererchy and order. Getting food and supplies under a hierarchy will be viewed more positively then getting nothing while we sit in endless spokecouncil meetings in the neighborhood who are just then trying to organize a response to disaster. Getting information from a hand cranked radio is passive. Why is there no suggestion that people actually learn disaster response? Does she realize that emergency communications on the front lines are dominated by the cultural right vis a vis Ham radio? Hoping for revolution without a disaster plan is suicide. Revolution destablizes society and people will clamor for stability before they will buy in to the unknown of some kind of coup, from either the right or left.
Third: Gorby lost power because of the inherent contradictions of Stalinisn, which grew out of Marxist-Leninism, a method of reasoning that for whatever reason anarchists are reluctant to reject in practice (in word only, perhaps). Gorby was in no position to admit that, but plenty of people in the Eastern Block knew it and had acted upon it since the 1950's. The secret police rebelled against the Glasnost reform from above program in the USSR. That is why the Soviet government couldn't do anything to address the demands for refrom in Eastern Europe for better or worse, among many other reasons. Recreating autonomus civil society from below might have had something to do with the collapse of the Eastern Block, which had a destablizing effort on the USSR to say the least; Stalinism and Leninism to a degree demands that civil soceity be complete subordinate to the State, and then this element broke from the State, there was no way it could survive.
I'm sure I am reaching my 1000 word limit so I will stop here.
I believe you are confused about a number of things. I'll mention just one:
-------------------------
Gorby lost power because of the inherent contradictions of Stalinisn, which grew out of Marxist-Leninism, a method of reasoning that for whatever reason anarchists are reluctant to reject in practice (in word only, perhaps)
-------------------------
Anarchists find it *quite* easy to reject Marxist-Leninism. Actually, "reject" is perhaps the wrong verb, since it doesn't seem possible to reject something that never had a hope of being accepted to begin with.
And while there's probably no way for us to ever find out the truth, I'd unhesitatingly bet US$500 (*very* serious money in my financial circumstances) that the CIA and similar were involved in the coup against Mikhail Sergeevich. Not just the failed part of the coup, but the successful part too, the part that put El'tsin in power.
"Anarchists find it *quite* easy to reject Marxist-Leninism."
They do in terms of their rhetoric. But there are plenty who use tactics and culture from that tradition to maintain their own influence over organizations and temporary space. It is a division between, "those of us who 'get it'" and the rest that "don't". Anarchist culture is full of this stuff. Many anarchists openly colaberate with authoritarian groups on the left because for the time being they are "on the same team", only to fight over the spoils in victory (rare, but deadly) or lay blame to one another when a project goes south (often), while supporters go away. Many anarchists also use the hierarchal structure of non profits to impose an activist hegemony over independent action by monopolizing issues. Lastly, many do not believe in a separation of civil society from the political, a cornerstone of State Socialism. These are not the people I want trying to manage a life or death crisis.
What do you mean by this: "Lastly, many do not believe in a separation of civil society from the political"? What sort of "separation" are you thinking of, and why would that be desirable?
I'm asking because I and all the people whom I'd recognise as anarchists (as opposed to chaos-kiddies) indeed believe that government is a natural function of citizenship, and that, therefore, the existence of a political class is toxic and should be disallowed.
As to anarchists collaborating with left-authoritarians, it's true that coalition is where we find it, but most anarchists (caveat as above) feel repelled by authoritarians and find it difficult to be civil to them, never mind working with them.
"What sort of "separation" are you thinking of, and why would that be desirable?"
Total domination of civil society by the political are one of the roots of totalitarianism. To the extent that civil society is dominated by the "market" this is also true. The fight between left and right is a fight for the spoils of dominating civil society either by market mechanisms or by government ones. Each time the pendulum swings, there is less of it outside of both of those realms.
The result we are seeing is a partnership of State and market regimeting civil society by imposing its political will. That is fascism. What the radical left proposes in practice isn't a whole lot different, except that it should be done without a bourgeious State or any State at all, and that it is largely unspoken. The "personal is the political" means that people will not be allowed to self organize society, but that it will be organized by a political elite.
Anarchists want to abolish the State, and perhaps, political parties, and they want to abolish class based Capitalism, but they do not call for the abolition of politics altogether. Calling for that would be like calling for the abolition of any kind of social intercourse. OTOH, calling for politics to not be segmented from civil society means that the divisive nature of politics will affect all aspects of life, and not just an appropriate realm where it can be thought through and debated in a rational manner, and decided upon amongst those who freely chose to participate and agree to the outcome. So in a sense, you have proven my point, by admitting that you feel the separation of the two is not desireable.
So when I read Solnit talking about how we should play passive role in disaster response, it reinforces that idea that there will be a political class in some form telling us what to do..I don't know, via Pacifica (?) rather then using the social bonds already in existence that are non political to do a particular task (food distribution, medical care, rebuilding shelter, communication, detoxification, evacuations, etc.). I'm suggesting that the right controls the spaces we will rely upon in a disaster, and that Solnit is out to lunch by not recognizing this fact.
So in a sense, you have proven my point, by admitting that you feel the separation of the two is not desireable.
-------------------------------------------
Evidently I was less clear than I intended, because I'm completely opposed to a political class even *existing*, never mind running things.
What I believe to be desirable (necessary, really) is exactly the opposite of the impression I somehow gave you.
In the world I'm working to build, political power is completely distributed throughout the citizenry, not concentrated anywhere. Where it's important to have an agent of the demos, that agent is a delegate, wielding communal power temporarily and by permission only.
I hope that makes the position more clear. (Somehow your impression of Rebecca's views have got similarly skewed. She's not even slightly in favor of passivity)
You views are well received, in and of themselves, but do little to sustantively address the points I have rasied on Solnit's essay. Your remarks do serve the purpose of defending Solnit's position-- or rather, obfuscating it more in general terms, and changing the subject to a general debate. So far all I have gotten is "the CIA did it" and Solnit is a nice person, and that I just "don't understand". Maybe I do understand, and I disagree; big difference.
I've seem how the spokescouncil structure works. If you are "outside" the "movement" as defined by the de-facto leaders or even just outside of the specifics of their ideology and tactics, one has no representation to begin with, hence are the seeds of unaccountability--how do you "recall" someone who never relied on your "consent" to get where they are to begin with? These are not the people I want running things on the ground when a crisis occurs. There will be real work to do, and that goes beyond just making policy decisions about who will get food and support based on ideology and whether or not they pass an acedemic left litmus test.
Then be the one that gets things going and sets the ground rules. If there's no formal structure, there's nothing to prevent you doing it. After a disaster, only the power-mad will turn away willing hands, and there's always more hard work to be done than people to do it. So be one of the few, and get there first.