Die These des Artikels ist eine direkte Konfrontation des „Freiburger Lebenswandels“, auch des meinigen. Die Idee der glücklichen Oase. Kurze Duschen mögen hierzulande weniger revolutionär klingen als in den USA, aber die Idee die Welt besser zu machen (und möglicherweise zu retten), indem man Wasser spart, Müll vermeidet, fair oder regional und biologisch einkauft, möglichst nicht fliegt, … blüht gerade auch in unserer WG.

Der Autor sagt natürlich nicht, dass das schlechte Sachen wären. Er sagt nur, dass sie nicht die richtigen Mittel sind, um die Welt aus dem Schlamassel, das ihr (ökologisch) bevorsteht, zu retten. Seine Einleitung macht deutlich, aus welcher Perspektive er das Problem betrachtet:

WOULD ANY SANE PERSON think dumpster diving would have stopped Hitler, or that composting would have ended slavery or brought about the eight-hour workday, or that chopping wood and carrying water would have gotten people out of Tsarist prisons, or that dancing naked around a fire would have helped put in place the Voting Rights Act of 1957 or the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Then why now, with all the world at stake, do so many people retreat into these entirely personal “solutions”?

Zu Recht stellt er weiter fest, dass der Großteil der Appelle, die mit den Warnungen vor der nahenden ökologischen Katastrophe verbunden werden, an das private Verhalten, insbesondere das Konsumverhalten adressiert sind. Und ebenso zu Recht führt er aus, dass für alle relevanten Bereiche (Wasser, Energie, Abfall) der Großteil der Umweltverschmutzung nicht durch private Haushalte sondern durch Industrie und industrielle Landwirtschaft verursacht werden.

Seine Folgerung scheint naheliegend:

If we choose the “alternative” option of living more simply, thus causing less harm, but still not stopping the industrial economy from killing the planet, we may in the short term think we win because we get to feel pure, and we didn’t even have to give up all of our empathy (just enough to justify not stopping the horrors), but once again we really lose because industrial civilization is still killing the planet, which means everyone still loses.

Eine weitere Anmerkung zu dieser Konsum-Philosophie finde ich sehr spannend und nachvollziehbar:

The third problem is that it accepts capitalism’s redefinition of us from citizens to consumers. By accepting this redefinition, we reduce our potential forms of resistance to consuming and not consuming. Citizens have a much wider range of available resistance tactics, including voting, not voting, running for office, pamphleting, boycotting, organizing, lobbying, protesting, and, when a government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, we have the right to alter or abolish it.

Das bringt uns auch schon zu dem enttäuschenden Teil des Artikels — wenn es also nicht das kleine, private Verhalten und Konsumverhalten ist, das die Welt retten kann, was dann? Der vorangehende Absatz klingt nach guten alten politischen Methoden, mit nur einem sanften Anklang von richtig wildem politischem Umsturz. Der Ton wird im Schlussabsatz aber schärfer:

The good news is that there are other options. We can follow the examples of brave activists who lived through the difficult times I mentioned—Nazi Germany, Tsarist Russia, antebellum United States—who did far more than manifest a form of moral purity; they actively opposed the injustices that surrounded them. We can follow the example of those who remembered that the role of an activist is not to navigate systems of oppressive power with as much integrity as possible, but rather to confront and take down those systems.

Und so bleibe ich ein wenig ratlos zurück. Auf der einen Seite ist es unbestreitbar, dass unseren Protest und Änderungswillen im Konsum auszudrücken bedeutet, die im Rahmen der Regeln des „Systems“ zu bleiben. Auf der anderen Seite folge ich der Kritik nicht, dass der industrielle Teil der Umweltverschmutzung mit dem privaten Haushalt nichts zu tun hat — wenn ich weniger konsumiere fällt auch dort weniger Abfall an, wird weniger Energie und Wasser verbraucht, am Ende gibt es sogar weniger Geschäftsreisen im Flugzeug. Und mit den Alternativen bin ich ziemlich skeptisch. Die politischen Systeme die wir haben ausnutzen ist schön und gut, aber abgesehen vom Wählen muss man sich da auch fragen, ob man sich nicht zum Teil eines Systems macht, das einem nicht gut tut. Ganz zu schweigen vom gewaltsamen Widerstand, der da anklingt.

Ich glaube, in der Position des Autors kommen zwei Probleme zusammen: Kurzsichtiges Denken (die industrielle Zerstörung existiert unabhängig von unserem privaten Konsum?) und dieses:

Any option is a better option than a dead planet.

Das würde Sloterdijk „Zynismus der Mittel“ nennen. Ich hoffe, dazu bald mehr schreiben zu können. Es führt jedenfalls dazu, das moralische Urteil über die Mittel, die ich verwende, durch das angestrebte hehre Ziel ausgehebelt wird. Und Sloterdijk zeigt sehr schön, dass genau dieses Denken im Kern der Katastrophen des 20. Jahrhunderts liegt.

Die Möglichkeiten und Gefährdungen werden sogar mit denen der Nuklear-Ära verglichen. Zwar werden wir ziemlich sicher kein verseuchtes Essen oder Wasser bekommen. Aber vielleicht gar keines mehr:

Cyberwar would not be as lethal as atomic war, of course, nor as visibly dramatic. But when Mike McConnell, the former director of national intelligence, briefed Mr. Bush on the threat in May 2007, he argued that if a single large American bank were successfully attacked “it would have an order-of-magnitude greater impact on the global economy” than the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mr. McConnell, who left office three months ago, warned last year that “the ability to threaten the U.S. money supply is the equivalent of today’s nuclear weapon.”

[…]

“We have seen Chinese network operations inside certain of our electricity grids,” said Joel F. Brenner, who oversees counterintelligence operations for Dennis Blair, Mr. McConnell’s successor as national intelligence director, speaking at the University of Texas at Austin this month. “Do I worry about those grids, and about air traffic control systems, water supply systems, and so on? You bet I do.”

In den letzten „realen“ kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen um Russland konnte man das schon in einer frühen Variante bewundern, mit dem netten Namen „hybrid warfare“:

The advent of Internet attacks — especially those suspected of being directed by nations, not hackers — has given rise to a new term inside the Pentagon and the National Security Agency: “hybrid warfare.”

It describes a conflict in which attacks through the Internet can be launched as a warning shot — or to pave the way for a traditional attack.

Early hints of this new kind of warfare emerged in the confrontation between Russia and Estonia in April 2007. Clandestine groups — it was never determined if they had links to the Russian government — commandeered computers around the globe and directed a fire hose of data at Estonia’s banking system and its government Web sites.

The computer screens of Estonians trying to do business with the government online were frozen, if they got anything at all. It was annoying, but by the standards of cyberwar, it was child’s play.

In August 2008, when Russia invaded Georgia, the cyberattacks grew more widespread. Georgians were denied online access to news, cash and air tickets. The Georgian government had to move its Internet activity to servers in Ukraine when its own servers locked up, but the attacks did no permanent damage.

Stellt sich natürlich die Frage nach Gegenmaßnahmen. Ob da Atomkriegs-Metapher und die Idee der Abschreckung auch funktioniert? Man ist jedenfalls überzeugt, dass ein reines „Dichtmachen“ nicht sehr aussichtsreich ist:

But the broader question — one the administration so far declines to discuss — is whether the best defense against cyberattack is the development of a robust capability to wage cyberwar.

As Mr. Obama’s team quickly discovered, the Pentagon and the intelligence agencies both concluded in Mr. Bush’s last years in office that it would not be enough to simply build higher firewalls and better virus detectors or to restrict access to the federal government’s own computers.

“The fortress model simply will not work for cyber,” said one senior military officer who has been deeply engaged in the debate for several years. “Someone will always get in.”

That thinking has led to a debate over whether lessons learned in the nuclear age — from the days of “mutually assured destruction” — apply to cyberwar.

But in cyberwar, it is hard to know where to strike back, or even who the attacker might be. Others have argued for borrowing a page from Mr. Bush’s pre-emption doctrine by going into foreign computers to destroy malicious software before it is unleashed into the world’s digital bloodstream. But that could amount to an act of war, and many argue it is a losing game, because the United States is more dependent on a constantly running Internet system than many of its potential adversaries, and therefore could suffer more damage in a counterattack.

Natürlich ist die völkerrechtliche Lage noch vollkommen unklar:

Senior Pentagon and military officials also express deep concern that the laws and understanding of armed conflict have not kept current with the challenges of offensive cyberwarfare.

Over the decades, a number of limits on action have been accepted — if not always practiced. One is the prohibition against assassinating government leaders. Another is avoiding attacks aimed at civilians. Yet in the cyberworld, where the most vulnerable targets are civilian, there are no such rules or understandings. If a military base is attacked, would it be a proportional, legitimate response to bring down the attacker’s power grid if that would also shut down its hospital systems, its air traffic control system or its banking system?

“We don’t have that for cyber yet,” one senior Defense Department official said, “and that’s a little bit dangerous.”

Schaurig, hm? Da braucht man kein Fernsehen mehr.

Hier also ein Auszug aus einem NY-Times-Artikel, in dem über gesteigerte Anstrengungen der Armee berichtet wird, das Problem von Gewalttaten durch Veteranen einzudämmen, also eigentlich ein erfreuliche Nachricht.

Er enthält einen bewegenden Bericht über die Laufbahn eines jungen Mannes vom „California Surfer“ zum Mörder, mit einigen Randfiguren. Und (zumindest für mich) ergeben sich keine einfachen moralischen Urteile:

In October 2006, during his first week in Iraq, Private Needham, a California surfer, watched a good friend die from a sniper bullet. Months later, he was blasted in the back by shrapnel from a grenade. To cope with his growing anxiety, he stole Valium and drank liquor. Caught twice, he was punished with a reduction in rank, a fine and extra work, a confidential Army document shows. Eventually, he was prescribed medication, but he wrote to his father, Mike Needham, that it did not help.

Private Needham became angry at the way other soldiers reacted to the fighting, and he did not hide it. “They seemed to revel in how many people they had killed,” said a friend in his unit who spoke on condition of anonymity.

In September 2007, Private Needham tried to kill himself with a gun, the Army document states, but another soldier intervened. Mike Needham, a veteran, said that rather than treating his son, the Army disciplined him for discharging a weapon and confined him to barracks. The Army declined to comment.

“I’m stressed to the point of completely losing it,” Private Needham wrote to his father in October 2007. “The squad leader brushed me off and said suck it up.”

He added, “They keep me locked up in this room and if I need food or water I have to have 2 guards with me.”

The Army evacuated Private Needham to Walter Reed Army Medical Center to treat his back and his post-traumatic stress disorder. But a month later, he was back at Fort Carson.

“The first words out of the Mental Health Authority was, ‘we are severely understaffed,’ ” Mr. Needham said in an e-mail message to an officer at Walter Reed. “If you’re suicidal we can see you twice a week, otherwise once a week.”

Fort Carson assured Mike Needham that his son was receiving proper care. But during his son’s visit home during the Thanksgiving break, Mr. Needham found him smearing camouflage-colored makeup on his face and frantically sharpening a stick with a kitchen knife.

“He was a total mess,” Mr. Needham said.

He was treated at a California naval hospital until last July when he received a medical discharge from the Army. While Private Needham was in the early stages of getting help from a Veterans Administration clinic, he spent his days depressed and often drinking at his father’s condominium.

Then last summer, Private Needham met Jacqwelyn Villagomez, a bubbly 19-year-old aspiring model who saw him as a kindred spirit, said Jennifer Johnson, who had helped raise her. Her mother had died of AIDS when she was 6 and her father had left the family. Ms. Villagomez, “who saw the good in everyone,” had recently kicked a heroin habit, Ms. Johnson said.

“She thought she could save him,” Ms. Johnson said. But a month later, the police say, Private Needham beat Ms. Villagomez to death in his father’s condominium.

Mr. Needham said the Army handled his son’s case poorly, but Ms. Johnson finds it hard to muster sympathy for him.

“I’m sure what happened to him was awful,” she said. “I’m sure he saw some horrible things that altered him. But this is a 200-pound guy who beat up this 95-pound little girl. It’s disgusting.”

„You fill out a job application and you can’t write ‘long-range reconnaissance and sniper skills.’„
ANDREW SPURLOCK, an Army infantryman who was disabled in the Iraq war, on his search for a job that paid better than delivering pizzas.

Eigentlich nur traurig, das gequälte Schmunzeln rührt daher, dass dieser Mann die Absurdität der Situation so gut auf den Punkt bringt. Und immer wieder die Frage: Ist es das ganze wirklich wert?