hat started half a century ago as a few voices (such as Rachel Carson’s in Silent Spring, 1962, and those of Aurelio Peccei with Alexander King and their international team of scientists, academics, diplomats and industrialists in the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, 1972) warning that humanity was on a road to self-destruction has now become a chorus heard around the world. Scientists, ecologists and environmentalists of all stripes and colours are virtually unanimous in predicting catastrophic global events in the immediate future if we persist in indulging our current self-serving technological obsession, though they vary in their assessment of how dire the consequences will be. The prospects are anything but reassuring. They range from global famine and the resulting violent breakdown of civil order to the end of our civilization along with a dramatic reduction of the world population or, in the most extreme case, the extinction of our species in some spectacular apocalypse.

The shelves of libraries and bookstores are bending under the weight of serious scientific studies of imminent environmental disasters – to say nothing of the torrents of apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic literature tearing through the digital world. Global disasters have invaded the literary imagination, spawning floods of dystopias and end-of-the-world novels and films. The threat of a final planetary catastrophe in the near future is now taking hold of public consciousness universally, making it ever more urgent for us to face the realities of our situation and deal with them. Otherwise despair will paralyze us and make the worst of these doomsday scenarios a self-fulfilling prophecy.

One can reasonably assume that this situation raises no fundamental problems for the true believer in any of the various religious teachings in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. After all, the sacred texts themselves predict the end of the world, at which time their God will judge everyone’s performance and transport the pious ones, who did what they were told to do, straight to everlasting bliss. Of course, those whose conduct was not up to snuff do have a problem, a hot one at that, but that need not concern us here. We humanists don’t believe in Big-Daddy-in-the-Sky and his Kingdom-to-Come in cloud-cuckoo-land or in his sadistic eternities of roasting capital sinners in the fires of hell. We know that whatever is born into this world must die, and we also know there are no post mortems, no seconds, no encores. At the end there is only absolute silence and absolute darkness. That’s why humanists are concerned about rumours of approaching doomsday.

We know what some of the problems are: over-population, climate change, acidification of the oceans, unsustainable energy consumption, unsustainable consumption of mineral resources, unsustainable consumption … Consumption is out of control because we are told that unless we consume more and more so that commercial and industrial corporations can keep on growing, our economy will collapse and that will mean the collapse of civilization. Not surprisingly, our politicians have long bought into this make-believe notion since they owe their position to the very corporations who spread this mantra that has made their owners and directors fabulously wealthy.

However, in fact, there is mounting evidence that the opposite holds true: world-wide, environmental disasters are increasing in intensity and frequency, poverty is spreading, once wealthy nations are going bankrupt (including the USA!), civil wars are breaking out, and the oceans are rising. Unless we drastically diminish our carbon footprint, curb our insatiable appetite to consume, and adopt a diminished, but sustainable lifestyle, the Cassandras1 of our time will turn out to be right.

So what can humanists do to bring humanity back to a viable road into the future? We must address this question because, according to the “Amsterdam Declaration 2002,” the official manifesto of international secular humanism, Humanists have a duty of care for all of humanity, including future generations. The Declaration lists the humanist objectives: ethical and rational conduct, freedom and dignity for all, democracy and human rights, science in place of faith, artistic imagination and creativity, social responsibility and personal fulfillment – all of them laudable commitments. We fully support them. We talk about them, we write articles and books about them, we organize conventions and conferences around them, but what do we do about them? Word, words and more words, but when and where do we translate them into action?

There are some notable examples of public humanist action, such as the successful struggle of Henry Morgenthaler to legalize abortion in Canada, a major victory for the rights of women over the tyranny of religious bigots. But this was the achievement of a single, courageous individual. As an organization, as a movement, humanism has little positive action to show for itself. Sure, the funeral and wedding services we now provide are important contributions to the public good. But religious organizations run hospitals, provide food and shelter for the homeless and the poor, create homes for orphaned children – to name but a few of their charitable activities. We too need to reach out more generously and more charitably.

It is important to talk, to debate, to question because it hones our minds, the place from which all progress emanates. But talk remains idle chatter, however well-meaning, unless it is followed by appropriate action. If humanism is to play a significant role in shaping the new social order that will arise from the ashes of the current collapsing one, it must demonstrate concretely its ability to act as a positive force in the public arena. We must be seen to practice what we preach.

There are two obstacles on that path: the relatively small number of registered humanists, and the heterogeneous iconoclasm rampant among them. On the question of religious affiliation, statistics are difficult to evaluate, but polls indicate that some 20% of Canadians have no religion. What is more puzzling is that 28% of Protestants, 33% of Catholics, and 23% of those who attend weekly religious services do not believe in the existence of God (Wikipedia). That remarkable statistic would suggest a large number of Canadians, perhaps as many as half the population, is of the humanist persuasion, i.e. they reject supernatural “explanations” of natural phenomena. Only a tiny fraction of these are members of humanist associations.

There are reasons why this should be so: vilification of atheists as morally unstable if not downright evil; poor public visibility, in part because the media devote less time and space to the activities of humanists. But another reason may be that humanist associations are seen as organizations that offer lectures and debates about religious issues, mostly to confirm what all those attending already know. Can you blame a person in this age of hyper-stress and hectic if they don’t want to waste their time with inconsequential verbiage?

It is time humanists embarked on concrete social projects that demonstrate visibly that we care about the life in our community. We could start, for instance, with a Mobile Humanist Coffee Bar – a station wagon or panel truck, suitably identified, from which to dispense (free of charge, of course) hot coffee (and biscuits?) to the poor and homeless in our city streets in wintertime. Could it include a hot soup at lunchtime?

Many people belong to religious organizations not because they believe in the supernatural dogma of their church, synagogue or temple, but because they enjoy the society of like-minded people. The Greeks defined human beings as social animals. We need, some of us even crave, the company of other humans. Sunday church service is for many an occasion to meet and talk with neighbours, exchange news, share anecdotes, seek advice or test ideas. It is of vital importance for us to know that we are not alone with our problems in this bewildering world, and social interaction gives us that reassurance.

A few years ago, I had the good fortune to attend the regular Sunday breakfast rendezvous of humanists in Vancouver. It was a splendid occasion, not only for the exchange of ideas but for generating a sense of community and cementing friendships. I enjoyed a delightful chat with Pat Duffy Hutcheon, among others, and met some new people. I came away feeling I was part of a Canada-wide family. It would be good if all humanist associations organized regular Sunday breakfasts or brunches in suitable cafes, and let others know where and when so that travellers could join them. It would be an important step in building a humanist community.

Perhaps we should even go a step further and follow the example of humanists in London, England, who started a regular Sunday Assembly for humanists. Such a practice does not turn humanism into a religion; it simply addresses our needs as social animals. As David Belden put it in an article for New Humanist back in 2005,

Alom Shaha, a science teacher in the UK, is right: if non-belief is going to start building actual communities to rival or replace religion, it’s time to get serious.

Such proposals come up against the second obstacle to the growth of humanism I identified earlier – the heterogeneous iconoclasm rampant among us. Most humanists are educated people, and that means they are at home in the byways of heuristics and casuistry. That’s why humanists come under many labels: atheists, agnostics, skeptics, freethinkers, rationalists, nonbelievers, Unitarians, and they take a great deal of pride in the subtle distinctions between them. These sectarian commitments can even go so far as to manifest themselves in childish rivalries. A few years ago I witnessed a manoeuvre by the US-based CFI to cannibalize the local Humanist association. It was disgraceful and balkanized the humanist community.

Such practices have no place among humanists. If we ever want to be taken seriously as an organization committed to taking care of humanity, we must gather around the fundamental principles articulated in the “Amsterdam Declaration 2002” which defines the ethical values we can all assent to. Humanists must emphasize what they have in common, not – like religious faiths – what divides us. Only if we speak with a single voice and engage in community action to bear out what we profess will we be listened to and will we be shaping a new future.

Fifteen years ago in “Cain and Abel or The Origin of Violence” (Humanist in Canada, No.132, spring 2000), I argued that “If there is still a viable way into the future for Homo sapiens sapiens, it can only be by our recommitting ourselves to our true nature – which lies not in fratricidal aggression and self-serving greed, but in the desire and need to cooperate and share. We must acquire a sense of modesty and humbleness in a world we do not and cannot own but that owns us, and in a universe we do not and cannot rule but that rules us. And the rule of nature is that only those species survive that act in the interest of the whole community and that share with each other and with all fellow-creatures on this fragile planet.”

It had become clear to me that such fundamental changes could not be made within the current political and social structure, and that it was “time to reconsider our most basic assumptions about democracy and the free market and to revise them so that they can form the basis of a social order that practices social justice and replaces fratricide with fraternity.” It is urgent that the current leadership in the world change hands.

Canada is a perfect example of what is wrong with political leadership today. Stephen Harper has provided the country with the worst government in our history. His primary commitment is to Big Business and ever-bigger business. Funds in support of science, the arts, culture and international understanding have dried up because he understands only the language of money and consumption, and lacks the intelligence to see that this is taking the country in the exact opposite direction of a sustainable future. In other words, our government is contributing actively to the coming collapse of the environment.

To make matters worse, Harper is as close to a medieval dictator as our political system will allow. He surrounds himself with flunkeys who do his bidding, and he brooks no dissent. Corruption is rife in the Senate, primarily by individuals he has appointed. His ultimate passion is power, and he will go to any length to hold on to it. Twice he has prorogued parliament to abort a vote that might have restored a semblance of democracy to Canada. This year he has even enrolled international relations in his reelection campaign.

In January, he went to Israel to lend his unqualified support to official Israeli policy towards the Palestinians, a policy that has been condemned by well over a hundred United Nations resolutions. His backing was so brazenly unprincipled that even a couple of Israeli MPs walked out of the Knesset in protest. A couple of months later, he visited Kiev to offer the same unconditional support to the Ukraine in its struggle with Russia.

It is a measure of the moral morass in which our government is steeped that in practically the same breath Harper threw his support, metaphorically speaking, behind Goliath and behind David. The positions he took had nothing to do with diplomacy. It was cynical posturing to attract ethnic money and ethnic votes in aid of next year’s election campaign. How much lower can our nation sink in the international community?

Nothing demonstrates more forcefully the need for a rigorous overhaul of our political system than the performance of the Harper government. In a series of essays, most recently in “Return Power to the People” (Humanist Perspectives No. 183, winter 2012-13), I have outlined some of the concrete steps necessary to turn Canada into a true democracy. We must take political power out of the hands of the privileged and put it back where it belongs: into the hands of the people. But there is an even more fundamental problem: the need for a new social contract.

The two political ideologies that continue to struggle for supremacy across the planet have both failed to deliver the freedom, dignity, social equality and justice they promised. Instead, they have led the world to the brink of self-destruction. Communism and capitalism are both bankrupt, and humanity is crying out for a new political idea, a new social contract. And that is where humanism can provide much needed leadership.

We must decide what kind of a world we want to live in and then clearly define the political structures that will create and maintain that world. This involves dramatic and fundamental changes in the way we govern ourselves and in the way we live. If, for instance, we want a world that guarantees food, shelter, health care and education to everyone, we need to rethink privatization and put curbs on profiteering. Or is a guaranteed minimum income the road we want to take? What about war? Nobody wants war, except the profiteers in the powerful industrial-military complex. What about the stock market? It was once a pillar of industrialization; it is now the domain of crooks who manipulate it unscrupulously to enrich themselves and impoverish the masses. Do we really want to live in a world in which the ones who contribute the least to society luxuriate in the largest share of our labours?

These are just some of the questions that need to be asked. It will take time, patience and courage to answer them. Humanists need to provide leadership to take us into a viable future. We don’t want to create a world of homogeneous mediocrity; we want to promote initiative and reward outstanding efforts, but we don’t want a world such as today’s, in which 1,645 billionaires have accumulated a net worth of $6.4 trillion (5 times the GNP of Canada!) while three billion people live in hopeless poverty on less than $2.50 a day, and more than 16,000 children die every day from malnutrition and hunger-related diseases.

Our destiny is closely linked to the fate of all the other creatures on earth. We are living in the era of the sixth mass extinction of life on this planet. The last one took place 65 million years ago and exterminated the dinosaur along with every other large land animal. The current one is of our own making, and we shall become extinct as victims of our own folly and greed unless we make the fundamental changes in our personal and political life necessary for the creation of a sustainable community of truly equal and free individuals and for the protection of all our fellow-creatures on this earth. Our planet cares for us only to the extent that we take care of it.